Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />, <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />': </:i,:;:r \~{. ,i\,:,eih'{5F: !..i:!r.'%,~,:'~,f',";> <, ,/~:i, i' <br />Meanwhile, Aurora i~~roperly purchased the competing <br />Collegiate Range Project in 1986 from our founder. We are <br />confident the Gunnison County District Cotirt will soon overturn <br />this sale with a declaratory judgement that Arapahoe County is <br />thertghtful owner of collegiate Ran~e. Arapahoe County now owns <br />all of our Union Park concepts and water rights. Union Park <br />maximizes, the beneficiaJ.\, ,uses of surplus Gunnison water for both <br />slopes, and, ,we ar:e,ra:b~;'Moonfident Union Park water right changes <br />will soon pJjevail iJiil,,'water court. <br /> <br />In our original discussions with the Authority, it was <br />apparent from the beginning that two of the Authority's ~~est <br />Slope board members favored a direct transmountain diversion from <br />Taylor Park Reservoir. NECO disagreed, but we welcomed the 'idea <br />of studying all viable alternatives. On several occasions we <br />advised the Authority's director that our engineers were <br />available for free technicai advice. NECO and its major <br />engineering and environmental consultants have expended over $3 <br />million studying the water and power potential of the Upper <br />Gunnison. Some of our technical reports were requested by the <br />Authority for use in the Gunnison Study. However, NECO was never <br />given the chance to participate in the study's basic assumptions <br />and methodology, or comment on the critical Task Memo No. 6 <br />conclusions. ~~e finally received a copy of the study from <br />another source the 1st of December. Two weeks is not adequate <br />time to thoroughly critique an 18 month study. However, the <br />following is a brief summary of the obvious flaws that we have <br />initially uncovered. <br /> <br />Apple vs. Oranges Union Park is a massive 900,000 acre foot <br />multipurpose water storage project that has extensive economic, <br />environmental, and recreational benefits for both slopes --- <br />especially in the critical multi-year drought periods. Union <br />Park can also economicallY meet the future growth requirements <br />for Metro Denver without the need for additional storage on the <br />South Platte. The other Gunnison Study alternatives (Taylor <br />Park, Collegiate Range, and Central Colorado) are partial, single <br />purpose water collectors and low volume conduits to the South <br />Platte that do not include the all important multi-year storage <br />required to increase safe annual yields. This multi-year <br />carryover storage feature is absolutely essential to assure <br />adequate river flows and assured yields under the worst climatic <br />conditions. The study's direct comparison of the total Union <br />Park system with the other partial systems is like a blind man <br />trying to understand an elephant by feeling its trunk. Apples to <br />apples comparisons are basic to any meaningful study effort. <br /> <br />~f Two Forks or some other South Platte reservoir is to be <br />used for the cyclic carryover storage of Gunnison water, a <br />conservative $300 million should be allocated to the cost of the <br />other Gunnison alternatives. Union Park'S high head conduit to <br />the South Platte also has four times the delivery capability of <br />the other alternatives for a comparable construction cost. <br /> <br />\; l) r (:: L l' C,' 't <br /> <br />.' 1:00031 a.8 <br />