Pueblo RICD Hearing July 2002 Case No. 2-01CW160

Home Browse Search

Friday, May 24, 2002 4:06 PM Harold E. Miskel 7192608128 05/24/2002 11.27 S.E. WATER CONSERUANCY 4 17192608128 t14AO Y °-FAIRFIEIID & WOODS•tAND a HART t.t.p ONavIOt - ANN NOYLWR • GQLDRADO 3MIN O&IM MCH eewres 6wu0d4e - noise OFe"NNO • a"39" ROLE GALT LAID GITY • sANrA FE WJ%5MGraN, a.e, HOLLAND & H.ART up ATT©ANEY4 AT LAW S06 u90 'a' oEwerr60TH STRW DENwA cOLOR40 so7oo-. m kAI6M10 ADDRUs V.O.Box 1719 DENVER, cOLMADO soM.pe0 Lee E. Miller Fairfield & foods 1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO $0201 Dear Lee: May 23, 2002 ND. 4244 TEIEPHONO ON) its -1000 FActj1&LE Po,! ast.e2@1 Anne J. Castle ts03) gas.riao (ans) 9754436 On e Cd811*0 h Oft9 nd M r1. com Re: City of PueblolPSQP Participant Agreement After oat meeting with the PSOP Participants group on Monday morning, I had an opportunity to brief the Pueblo City Council on the, COUNT- proposal provided by the PSOP Participants on May 15, 2002. It would be fair to 9ay thzt the City Council is extremely disappointed that so little progress has been made in these negotiations and that the proposals of the PSOP Participants provide so little protection to stream flows in the Arkansan River through Pueblo. Far from being a "very generous" prepo9al as it was charaoteriaed in Steve Arveschoug'e May 20 letter to the City Council. the May 1$ counterotTer represents barely more than a worst -care scenario, with all possible future exchanges being operated at 2040 demAnd level and keeping barely a trickle of water in the lUver for two - thirds of average to wet years and virtually all of the dryer than overage years. The City Council will continue in its commitment to attempt to reach a resolution with the PSOP Participants group that protects the interests of pueblo's citi%cps. We will prepare specific comments oe, and suggested revisions to, the latest proposal- In addition, however, we wanted to give you the benefit of the City Council's concerns with four major components of the May IS proposal as soon as possible. The dry year exception based on a 90% or lesser forecast undermines the value of any agreement reached on the maintenance of minimum stream flows. Analysis of the June 1 most probable forecast in the Colorado Water Outlook Reports .indicates that a forecast of 90% or loss than average forecast existed in ten, of this last seventeeA years. Obviously, the flow protections Pueblo seeks are most critical during dryer than average years and yet the exception as drafted would entirely gripe out that protection. NO. 138 902 P, 1002/004 p.02