Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />that such a discharge willnot have an unacceptable adverse <br />impact either individually or in combination with known <br />and/or probable impacts of other activities affecting the <br />ecosystems or concern." <br /> <br />(4) Two Forks Dam veto was not tied to any water quality-based <br />concerns, but rather to loss of stream-based aquatic valuesm <br />aesthetic and recreational aspects of the proposed site would be <br />lost. Essentially it was a land use decision made in Washington, <br />D.C. Creation of a lake environment with greater than one-for-one <br />in-kind mitigation of all fish, wildlife and recreational impacts lost <br />out to existing "natural" stream-type environment. No water <br />quality problems were referenced in EPA's veto finding, in fact <br />may have resulted in improvements to water quality. <br /> <br />(c) If any plan to provide water supply to the front range includes the <br />possibility of influencing jurisdictional "waters," the question must be <br />asked as to whether we really need to conduct work in "waters" and <br />whether there are alternatives to that approach. <br />Also need to determine whether the proposed activity is "water <br />dependent," or whether there are means to accomplish the project <br />purpose other than in "waters." <br />Such questions need to be addressed in the planning stage rather than <br />during project permitting. <br /> <br />B. METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY INVESTIGATION <br /> <br />Backe:round: <br /> <br />1. January of 1993 Governor and Colorado Department of Natural Resources <br />convened the first Colorado Water Convention, focusing on issues related to Front <br />Range water supply planning and interbasin transfers of water. <br /> <br />2. In commenting about the problem of providing a sustainable water supply <br />to satisfy the front range needs, Governor Romer voiced deep concerns about the heavy <br />economic and social costs of water supply planning through litigation ($80 million in <br />unsuccessful litigation and permitting efforts, mostly for trans mountain diversion <br />projects): <br /> <br />Mentioned bv Romer: <br /> <br />(a) A WDI litigation ($ ) <br />(b) Union Park litigation ($12 million) <br />(c) Two Forks permitting process($43 million) <br />(d) Others <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />