Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />.-- <br /> <br />I-'AG!:. 1:11 ~ <br /> <br /> <br />i~"\';'<"n'''''','~''~' \\ ~ l~' ,"'\\ <br />'n~~v:1,::~ tt t-~~~J! <br /> <br />(corrected copy 2-16-04) <br /> <br />FEU 1 / 2004 <br /> <br />Natural Energy Resources Company <br />P. O. Box 567) Palmer Lake, CoJorado 80133 <br />(719) 4S1-:JOO3 FAX (719) 481-3452 <br /> <br />f~tplprad(l Wnt~r Consel\'l\lion 8'J;Or'} <br /> <br />February 13, 2004 <br /> <br />The Uonontble RaDdy Thurston, President <br />and City Council Me_be,., <br />City or PlIablo <br />1 City Hall Place <br />Pueblo, Colorado 81003 <br /> <br />Subject: Water DeeilJoa CrOll road <br /> <br />Dear President Thurston and Council Members: <br /> <br />Pueblo and Colorado Springs are at a critical water decision crossroad. If Pueblo agrees with the proposed <br />Southern Delivery System, it will adversely impact its future - as wen as Colorado Springs and the State of <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />The enclosed George Sibley commentaJy is an excellent account of Colorado's genera) water policy confugion~ <br />conflicts, and wasted effortS. The current controversy over Colorado Sprio&,"S' proposed Southern Pelivery System <br />is symptomatic of Colorado's underlying water policy orisis. <br /> <br />The enclosed Jetter to President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton briefly outlines the multiple advantages of <br />Colorado's superior GunnisonlUnion Park Pumped-Storage solution for local, state, and regional drought and <br />growth needs. Unfortunately, Union ParK was not considered by Colorado Springs .- apparently because of an <br />h1stitutional bias against cooperative multi-basin storage projects. This improper exclusion violates the National <br />Environmental Policy Act. NEP A requires environmental and economic comparisons of all reasonable 8Iternativ~. <br /> <br />EPA vetoed Denver's Two Forks Dam. proposal, after a ten.year. $50 miJHon effort, because "superior alternatives <br />(i.e. Union Park), were improperly screened from the environmental studies", Colorado Springs is headed for a <br />similar fate with its inefficient; SOO proposal that unnecessarily depletes the overly depleted Arkansas River. <br /> <br />Exorbitant water rights and misguided development proposals that excessively de. water over-appropriated rivers <br />are still subject to NEPA~EPA oversight review. To protect its future and avoid additional Two Forks .and <br />Homestake II type mistakes, the City of Pueblo should insist on a preliminary seoping evaluation ofthe Union Park <br />oversight. Any Southern Delivery System Agreements with Colorado Springs should be deferred until all impacted <br />stakeholders ha.ve a chance to compare 8DS with Union PtU'k. <br /> <br />r would be honored to pro....ide a briefing for Pueblo's City Council on the overlooked advantages of Union Park. <br /> <br /> <br />JZ:- ~JL <br /> <br />Dave, Miller President <br /> <br />:E.nc1osu.res: George Sibley article dated 2.05-04 & letter to President Bush & Secretary Norton dated 2.02-04. <br /> <br />-- <br />