Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />Mr. ~rJ'I.....~1 Cha~tnlilh and board cif Cl:l:teC:toh. ladies ahd gentlemen. <br />my name 15 1"lJ.l1s E. Bunger. At the present time. I am a private con- <br />sulting engineer. I spent fifteen years with the Bureau of Reclamation. <br />I have talked before this board a number of times. but this is the first <br />time I have to read what I have to say. and I apolo.gize for it. <br /> <br />Mr. Bunger then quoted from a newspaper article on a matter not related <br />to the agenda. The article was entitled "Colorado Objects to Water <br />Quota." and is included in the board files for the meeting. Mr. Bunger <br />~hen continued as follows. <br /> <br />So much for what our attitude should be for natural resources. The <br />fact!l.are. and when I state they are, I spent fifteen years with the <br />. Bureau of Reclamation and with these projects that I have mentioned the <br />first thing we considered was allowing the 75.000,000 acre-feet or the <br />ten consecutive periods to go to the Lower Basin. <br /> <br />The next was to allow every use that we could think of on the Western <br />Slope. including water for the oil shale development. And after that. <br />the water that was left was for transmountain diversions. Now the <br />facts are: Colorado has water to irrigate some 700.000 acres of new <br />lands; Colorado has water to produce 5 1/2 billion kilowatts of pollution- <br />free power; Colorado has water to furnish 100% Rocky Mountain snow <br />water to over 4 million people. <br /> <br />The question is: Is Colorado going to make use of this extremely valu- <br />able natural resource - or are we going to give it away to the Lower <br />Basin states. and kill our future economic development forever? We <br />must decide soon. I thank you. <br /> <br />. . Mr. Stapleton: Now next, and I think this will again refer to agenda <br />item 5. Ron Blatchley. will you respond to our agenda item no. 5. <br /> <br />Mr. Blatchlev: I am Ron Blatchley, consulting engineer. I do want to <br />commend the staff of the board for the good job that I think that they <br />have done in putting together this model regulation. I think the <br />discussion that has taken place this afternoon does indicate a need for <br />a flexible regulation. I would support the two different designations <br />in the floodplain for this reason. I see no reason to impose residential <br />requirements upon an industry such as a sand and gravel organization <br />down below Denver where it is obviously not going to involve residential <br />criteria. With the flexible low hazard area they can comply with the <br />rest of the state laws in extracting the sands and gravels that are <br />needed by our society. So I would like to support the way the regula- <br />tion is written in this respect. <br /> <br />One thing that I am concerned about is on page 4. where it speaks of <br />interpretation. It has already been mentioned that there may be <br />superior mapping methods used by an individual who is going in fora <br />permit in a flood zone. For example. if the floodplain was designated <br />by the use of a 10-foot contour map utilizing the cross sections <br />developed from this contour map and the person that wants to develop a <br />particular area decides that he needs more exacting criteria and does <br />make an actual survey and computer analysis of what the backwater curves <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-58- <br />