Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (03) 866,3441 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLOMDO <br />O. <br /> <br />July 8, 1985 <br /> <br />Richard D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />J. William McDonald <br />Director <br />David W. Walker <br />Deputy Director <br /> <br />Colonel Steven G. West <br />District Engineer <br />Omaha District <br />U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <br />6014 USPO and Court House <br />Omaha, NE 68102 <br /> <br />Dear Colonel West: <br /> <br />In a May l3, 1985, letter to me from your predecessor, I was <br />informed that the City of Littleton had been requested to seek <br />this agency's position on a proposed road crossing over the South <br />Platte River through the Littleton floodplain park. While we have <br />now had some discussions with representatives of the city. a <br />formal proposal is not yet ready for review. Consequently, I am <br />able at this time ,only to identify issues that need to be . <br />addressed by the city, the Corps, and others before a decision on <br />the proposed road is reached. <br /> <br />First, I read section 88 of the Water Resources Development <br />Act of 1974, especially sub-section (c) thereof, as requiring that <br />the integrity of the Littleton floodplain park (i.e., reach 1) for <br />flood detention and recreation be ensured. This floodplain park <br />is an integral component of the project authorized by Congress. <br />and its dedication to flood detention and open space recreation <br />was clearly intended by that authorization and the associated <br />legislative history. <br /> <br />It is my understanding that the use of this area for the <br />detention of flood waters is to be integrated with compatible <br />recreational uses of the natural landscape. In the Littleton <br />plan, both elements were presented to Congress as complementary <br />and inseparable. Thus, whether the proposed Ken Caryl road is <br />permissible under section 88 is an issue which the Corps needs to <br />address. <br /> <br />Second, I am concerned that a decision on a new road crossing <br />is being pursued before the interim improvements on Bowles Avenue <br />are made. That was not the preferred action in the Colorado <br /> <br />315 . <br />l/csgw <br />