Laserfiche WebLink
<br />:-;:::;'CM '''':G;;;l..,;C'J <br /> <br />=.:.)< r--.C. <br /> <br />378 S~1. 6727 <br /> <br />~3r. is :eeg ~4:~~F~ P9 <br /> <br />based ecanorov of the Studv Area in an environmerltally sound manner." Both <br />structur:u and -non-stmctur:U components were examined. The study indicated <br />that anv cOllil!!'J.ration of a transmoumain diversion in Taylor Park based on <br />"new w;'ter ri;hts," such as Union Park, would nave an average annual yield <br />of 18,000 to 24,000 af. Arapahoe County has stated, and it is our opinion as <br />weil, that this level of yield does not generate an econoll'ically viable <br />transmountain diversion project, at least at this time and in the foreseeable <br />future. <br /> <br />Colorado is entitled to consumptively use 3.079 million af of water according <br />to Reclamation's most recent hydrologic determination. In the best case <br />scenario, Colorado could consumptively use 3.855 million af. Colorado <br />currently uses about 2.3 million af annually or between 60% and 75% of its <br />entitlement, depending on the assumptions. <br /> <br />Attached are USGS stream gage records for the Taylor River for water years <br />1984. 1987, and 1991, respectively wet, near average, and dry years to help <br />provide a general feel for how much water originates in the Taylor basin. <br />Taylor Park Reservoir can store 106,230 af of water and release up to 1500 <br />cfs without spilling. The average annual inflow to the reservoir is around <br />140,000 ai. <br /> <br />The rest of Mr. Miller's August 2 letter is innuendo and distorted to the point <br />that it is not worth further comment. <br /> <br />We sincerely hope that this adequately addresses the questions that you had <br />concerning Mr. Miller's letter. We have listened to Mr. Miller on Union Park for close to <br />10 years now. The idea of transmountain diversions from Taylor Park is not new, <br />Reclamation looked at the possibility back in January, 1950 as part of the Gunnison- <br />Arkansas study, and many others have looked at similar proposals since. Given the existing <br />facilities and water rights, there simply does not seem to be adequate water remaining to <br />justify the huge investment in a transmountain diversion. The Water Resource and Power <br />Development Authority study, the judgements of the coUrtS, and the desperation in Mr. <br />Miller's letters refle~ this fact. <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />uylorpldlc <br /> <br />6 <br />