Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Natural Energy Resources Company <br />P. o. Box 567 Palmer Lake, CO 80133 <br />(719) 481-2003 Fax (719) 481-3452 <br /> <br />November 11, 2005 <br /> <br />Mr. Brian Person, Area Manager <br />Mr. Pat Mangan, EIS Coordinator <br />U.S. Bureau of Reclamation <br />Eastern Colorado Area Office <br />11056 W. County Road 18E <br />Loveland, Colorado 80537 <br /> <br />Subject: Public comment & request for inclusion of Central Colorado Project <br />(CCP) alternatiye in Bureau's Southern Delivery System EIS <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Person & Mr. Mangan: <br /> <br />Thank you for your September 9, 2005 letter and invitation to rejustify inclusion of the <br />Central Colorado Project (CCP) in your Southern Delivery System (SOS) EIS for Colorado <br />Springs. CCP is also known as Union Park-Aspinall Pool Project. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />CCP should be the preferred water storage and gravity delivery plan for Colorado Springs <br />and other Front Range utilities. Its twenty major advantages over SOS are outlined in the <br />enclosed Natural Energy paper and map, dated October 24, 2005. These overlooked <br />advantages apply to all current Front Range growth proposals, which would excessively <br />dewater Colorado's vital agriculture and tourist areas. <br /> <br />When the initial SOS scoping evaluations of alternatives were conducted during the late <br />1990s, local political constraints prevented consideration of Colorado's unused and <br />substantial Colorado River Compact and Aspinall Pool entitlements for statewide <br />consumptive needs. <br /> <br />The Bureau's Colorado River Consumptive Uses and Losses Reports indicate Colorado is <br />storing and using only about two thirds of its authorized legal share of the Colorado River. <br />Colorado's average annual Colorado River losses could support at least 1.8 to 4.8 million <br />people, depending on assumptions. Colorado's Supreme Court recently confirmed that <br />Congress authorized the Bureau's Aspinall Reservoirs and Aspinall Marketable Pool <br />(300,000 acre-feet) in 1956, to help Colorado develop its unused Colorado River Compact <br />rights for statewide consumptive needs. Unfortunately, Colorado has never developed its <br />Aspinall rights, as intended by Colorado's late Congressman Wayne Aspinall. CCP fulfills <br />his vision and courage for Colorado's water future. <br /> <br />Why is the Bureau limiting its EIS to various SOS options that would further damage <br />agriculture and deplete Colorado's overappropriated Arkansas River System? Why is the <br />Bureau ignoring the fact that Colorado is losing almost all of its Aspinall Pool, and a large <br />portion of its Colorado River Compact rights to California, Nevada, and Arizona? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />A 1988 Bureau study of nineteen Upper Gunnison transmountain alternatives reconfirmed <br />a 1986 Ebasco-Black & Veatch study of CCP's technical and economic feasibility for. <br />statewide needs. Union Park's large high altitude storage site was the only Gunnison <br />alternative that included the Bureau's existing Taylor Park and Blue Mesa Reservoirs in a <br />