BOARD02546

• Board Meeting Date: 1/9/1963
• Description: Minutes
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Meeting

1

1

MR. MILLER:

"And it supplies probably more water into
the river than any of the others in this area?"

MR. SLIZESKI:

"Yes, it does, but it is not as flashy as
Plum Creek, speaking of it from a flood control
standpoint. We are now looking at the flood
control aspects of it to establish this first,
then go on to more comprehensive planning.

plum Creek is by far the most troublesome
major tributary affecting the metropolitan
Denver area. Sand Creek probably falls second.
We have not completed our evaluation of the
effects on the south Platte itself, of Sand
Creek. Insofar as Clear Creek is concerned,
the prospects of feasible flood control on
Clear Creek are rather remote because it has
a very minor history of flooding in recent
years. Does that answer your question, Dave?"

MR. MILLER:

"Thank you. I'd like to ask one more,
and that is the relationship between the pro-
posed Two Forks and, let's say, a reservoir
below the City of Denver suggested by Mr.
Knigh ts, or by the Bure au, in its report of
Region 7? 'Do these effect your planning in
any way?"

MR. SLIZESKI:

"AS I tried to point out earlier, we are
attempting to adopt a comprehensive program
with all agencies interested in water resources
so we're flexible. We have always kept in
mind the Two Forks potential. We have evalu-
ated the flood control potential at the Two
Forks site, or I may say, we have partially
evaluated it. We haven't carried it all the
way down to the Weld County site as yet.

Because of the division of flooding poten-
tial between major tributaries and the upper
main stem, you can achieve partial flood con-
trol at Two Forks but you certainly cannot
solve the flood problem of the Denver metro-
politan area with Two Forks alone. Nor will
a site below Denver solve metropolitan Denver's
flood problems although it probably will take