A Bigger Dam?: Editorial - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

A bigger dam? Page 1 of 1 The Pueblo Chieftain Online Select file then print to print this article. Publish Date: April , 2002 A bigger dam? EDITORIAL The Pueblo Chieftain THERE ARE various opinions whether Pueblo Dam can be raised to enlarge Lake Pueblo. Some people wonder whether, after the Bureau of Reclamation installed what amounts to a giant doorstop to keep the concrete portion of the dam from slipping downstream, the earthen portion of the dam would withstand a greater load behind it That doorstop is 20 feet deep and contains 61,600 cubic yards of roller- compacted concrete, as well as 10,300 cubic yards of regular concrete on top. The $13 million project was undertaken after concerns about the dam were raised, and with an eye toward making the dam strong enough to be enlarged. After that project was completed, federal inspectors found the doorstop to be in good shape. A bill in Congress, House Resolution 3881, would authorize a study of potential enlargement of Pueblo Dam as well as Sugar Loaf Dam and Turquoise Lake. The Pueblo Board of Water Works, the Pueblo West Metropolitan District and other entities all would like various amounts of additional storage. Colorado Springs, which is a part the Arkansas River Basin, would get the lion's share of the extra storage. One need only consider the current drought to realize it would have been a good thing this year if more water had been impounded for this eventuality. And climatologists predict this drought is far from being over. It's part of a natural weather cycle, and while we can't make it rain, we can store more water for dry spells. But the legislation in question does far more than authorize a study. For the first time since the Fryingpan - Arkansas Project was approved, Aurora would explicitly be allowed to use Fry -Ark facilities, including Pueblo Dam, to operate exchanges to utilize both the Rocky Ford Ditch water shares it currently owns and the shares it is attempting to buy. Ever since Aurora bought the first portion of that ditch, the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District has opposed annual agreements between Aurora and the bureau to utilize Fry -Ark facilities. Now, however, the legislation would expressly allow Aurora to use Fry -Ark - in direct contravention of the original intent of legislation authorizing the project in the first place. That provision, and a provision that would allow future diversions out of this valley, should be struck from the bill. It's tough enough when Mother Nature visits drought on this valley. It would be unconscionable to allow northern suburbs to do the same thing. 01996 -2002 The pueblo Chieftain Online http:llwww. chieftain. com /printlarchive /2002 /apr /28 /edil.htm 05/06/2002