Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />" <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />However, in the study the benefits of the competing conduits are <br />all assumed to be equal. To have a fair comparison, the study <br />should upgrade the other alternatives to where they can provide <br />the same capability as Union Park. Because of its massive size <br />and higher altitude advantage, we are confident that no other <br />East or West Slope water storage project can match the <br />flexibility and overall benefits of Union Park for Colorado. <br /> <br />I, <br /> <br />Project Yields All of the studied Gunnison diversion <br />alternatives are targeting the same Taylor River water. However, <br />the yield comparisons vary widely, because the study uses <br />project proponent estimates that were based on different <br />assumptions. Instead of the confusing comparison of what the <br />proponents say, the study should do a yield analysis based on the <br />same Taylor River flow regimes for each alternative. For <br />example, the study uses Ebasco's initial conservative estimate of <br />60,000 acre feet for Union Park and Aurora's 73,000 acre feet for <br />Collegiate Range. If 73,000 is reasonable for Collegiate Range, <br />then Union Park could divert at least 80,000 (after reservoir <br />evaporation), because it also includes the area drained by Lottis <br />Creek. In addition to this Lottis Creek add on, your analysis <br />should also include capturing the historical uncontrolled flood <br />spills over Taylor Park Dam that could be saved by high volume <br />pumping into Union Park storage at a rate of 2,000 acre feet per <br />day. This high volume pumping can also reduce down river <br />flooding, and no other alternative has this capability. <br /> <br />Suggest the same historical years and minimum flows <br />established by the Colorado Water Conservation Board be used as <br />the base line for all alternatives. A sensitivity analysis for <br />each project, using uniform higher minimum flows would also be <br />essential for an accurate comparison. We note, with <br />consternation, that almost all of your computer modeling is <br />devoted to variations of the Authority's "preferred" Taylor Park <br />alternative. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Unfortunately, your study also did not consider the most <br />likely end user's existing system, because of your stated <br />conscious effort to "stay out of the Two Forks political <br />controversy". However, to do a proper yield comparison, it is <br />absolutely essential to consider how a proposed Gunnison <br />diversion would fit into the potential user's storage and <br />delivery system. Realistically, Metro Denver is the only area <br />that could use and afford a Gunnison diversion, and for study <br />purposes it should be treated as a single user. In fact, at the <br />governor's prodding, the various Metro Denver public entities are <br />already moving in the direction of a single water authority to <br />handle development of future water projects. <br /> <br />Fortunately, the Corps of Engineers already has a useful <br />computer model that shows how an annual average diversion of <br />60,000 acre feet from Union Park storage can increase the safe <br />annual yield of Metro Denver's existing system by 120,000 acre <br /> <br />~'. <br />.'\~~ <br /> <br />I 10003109 <br />