Laserfiche WebLink
<br />trying to establish a permanent pool there, it became obvious that we <br />should not let any further project proceed unless we had provisions for <br />fishery and recreational purposes. Chatfield is an ideal situation for <br />recreation. <br /> <br />If we are successful in maintaining a permanent pool there, it will , <br />probably have the highest use of any similar area in the state of <br />Colorado, because of the large-area population and the proximity. We <br />have well over a million people here within less than a 30-mile radius <br />of Chatfield Reservoir. <br /> <br />Rather elaborate plans were drawn up for the recreational facility at <br />Chatfield, including trails, nature reserves, boat docks, sanitary <br />facilities, water, power, camping facilities, etc. Something like $11 <br />million has been expended to date in constructing those facilities. <br />The facilities are now under the operation of the Colorado Division of <br />Parks and Outdoor Recreation. But we have not yet been able to solve <br />the problem of acquiring water rights to maintain that permanent pool. <br />The agreement we had with the Corps of Engineers was that, we would, at <br />State expense, maintain the permanent pool and thereafter maintain all <br />the recreational facilities. <br /> <br />In 1974 we tendered a contract to the Denver Water Board for the,main- <br />tenance of that permanent pool, and the Legislature appropriated <br />approximately $3 million to acquire the water rights. We did acquire <br />some water rights with that money but only a very limited amount, <br />We were not able to secure, the remainder of the water rights, eith~r <br />for the initial filling or for the maintenance of the evaporation. <br /> <br />We compute that it will take apprOximately 4,100 acre-feet of water on <br />an annual basis to maintain a permanent pool, which is a fairly size- <br />able amount of water, and water which in this metropolitan area is quite <br />expensive. We were never able to resolve that contract with the D~nver <br />Water Board because of the continuing controversies surrounding the <br />Denver Foothills plant. The project has been in litigation in the <br />Federal courts, as you know, along with the refusal of the Corps of <br />Engineers to grant a 404 permit, based on the objections by the EPA and <br />the Fish and Wildlife Service. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />We have had offers from 'other people to put water in Chatfield Reservoir. <br />However, we considered that the best source was through the Denver Water <br />Board because of its vast storage facilities and the many decrees which <br />it has. That contract has been hanging now since 1974. It appears at <br />this time that the controversy has been resolved. There are several <br />conditions attached to the granting of the permits by the federal I <br />agencies. There are several involved: the Department of the Interior, <br />because there are a few acres of land in the project which are under <br />the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management; and there are a few <br />acres of land owned by the Forest Service of the Department of Agri- <br />culture; and the EPA; the Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Corps of <br />Engineers. <br /> <br />I went to a meeting called by Congressman wirth here a <br />trying to iron out the remaining difficulties. It was <br />at that meeting that several things would take place: <br /> <br />month or so ago <br />generally agreed <br />first, that <br /> <br />-16- <br />