PUB00048 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I DRAFT 8/24/92, Page 9 Several Denver Metro Area water suppliers have advocated the submittal of permit applications for construction of New Cheesman. While the Corps of Engineers found New Cheesman to be a "reasonable and practicable alternative," it is probable that the regulatory and political obstacles to its permitting would be similar to Two Forks. Issues to be addressed The EIS concluded that the environmental impacts of New Cheesman would be less than those associated with either small or large Two Forks in several resource categories. However, the issues and concerns related to depletion of flows in the Upper Colorado River Basin are equally problematic for both Two Forks alternatives and New Cheesman. There is also considerable concern on the part of environmental groups and sportsmen about potential construction and operational impacts on the Category 1 trout fishery below the existing Cheesman Dam and on the North Fork of the South Platte. In addition, the EIS concluded that the cost of water from New Cheesman would be greater than any of the other large storage facility alternatives. 3. Union Park I I I I I I I I I I The Union Park Project proposed by the Natural Energy Resources Company (NECO) in partnership with Arapahoe County, and the Collegiate Range Project proposed by the City of Aurora, are alternative approaches to diversion of water from the Gunnison River Basin. One of the principal differences between these two proposals is that the Collegiate Range Project would require a significant amount of east slope storage which could have been provided by the proposed Two Forks project. This report focuses on the Union Park concept because it is not dependant upon the development of new east slope storage facilities. The Union Park Project includes a reservoir created by a dam at the head of Union Canyon on Lottis Creek, a tributary of the Taylor River about four miles downstream from the Taylor Park Dam. Most of the water stored at Union Park Reservoir would be pumped from Taylor Park Reservoir to the Union Park Reservoir (vertical lift of about 650 feet). Reversible pumping units would be used so that power generation could occur when water is released from Union Park back to Taylor Park. Union Park Reservoir would store 900,000 acre-teet of water. A pipeline and tunnel would deliver water by gravity from Union Park to both the South Platte and Arkansas River Basins where it would be available for front range municipal uses. (Ebasco Services Inc. 1986) The Metro Denver Water Supply EIS analysis of Union Park estimated the project would increase the firm annual yield of the Denver system by 111,000 acre-feet at an annualized cost of $577 per acre-foot. (COE 1988) The Union Park project was tirst proposed in 1982 with an application in the Water Court, Division IV, for a 325,000 acre-feet pumped storage facility located at Union Park to the south of Taylor Park Reservoir. This facility would have been used entirely as a hydro- electric facility for peaking power generation. A decree for conditional water rights for this facility was granted. In 1986, NECO sought to enlarge this decree and change the use of its conditional water rights to allow the export of water to the east slope. In December of 1988, the court ruled that NECO's application for export of water to the east slope was speculative because of failure to specifically identify the ultimate use and users of the water. In 1988, Arapahoe County joined the project and a new application for export of water was submitted. The water court has recently denied that application.