Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />1" <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />,/t."j:~fJ <br /> <br />feet. This unique 2 for 1 multiplier effect is very important <br />and surprising to most water experts, because it virtually <br />doubles the efficiency of Union Park over all other Gunnison <br />alternatives. It also brings th~ cost per unit of yield <br />substantially below the Two Forks alternative. Union Park's high <br />altitude carryover storage truly maximizes the beneficial uses of <br />the Gunnison's surplus water for both slopes. This is the prime <br />reason the water storage decree for Union Park is being changed <br />from 325,000 acre feet to 900,000 acre feet. <br /> <br />Maximum Beneficial Use The maximum beneficial use doctrine <br />is basic to Colorado water law, and it is also the cornerstone <br />for the Colorado Water and Power Authority. Most of the funds <br />for the Gunnison Study were provided by the state, and we believe <br />the Authori tyhas'- a cha.rter obligation to specificallY address <br />how each alternative maximizes the beneficial water uses that <br />would accrue to both slopes. <br /> <br />Objectivity Because of state funding, we also believe the <br />Authority should manage the Gunnison Study without any appearance <br />of bias favoring one proponent's project over another. NECO and <br />its international consultants initiated the current interest in <br />the Upper Gunnison's potential, and we certainly have extensive <br />expertise and experience in the study area. It is difficult to <br />understand why the Aurora newcomer is included as part of the <br />review process, while NECO is excluded. lqe also question how two <br />of the Authority's governor appointed board members can sit as <br />impartial judges on state water studies and projects, while they <br />also serve as active attorneys representing competing Gunnison <br />projects in water court. As previously discussed, we have <br />already shown how manipulation of the assumptions and methods <br />have improperly favored their "preferred" Taylor Park <br />al ternati ve. . <br /> <br />Environment Since Union Park's massive off-river storage <br />capability is on the West Slope, it can actually enhance the <br />Gunnison's current environment and senior water rights by <br />guaranteeing a.dequate river flows during" severe multi-year <br />drought periods. HydrOlogists and environmentalists generally <br />agree that drought insurance water is worth many times the water <br />available in normal and wet years. Union Park only collects the <br />actual surplus flood flows in wet years, for release to the major <br />river systems on both 0 slopes in dry years. In addition to <br />guaranteeing river flows, Union Park will stabilize the water <br />level in Taylor Park Reservoir, which will substantially improve <br />the fish habitat and recreation. Since the other Gunnison <br />alternatives would divert continuously to East Slope storage via <br />low head conduits, they can not match Union Park's unique <br />environmental enhancement capabilities for the Gunnison. The <br />East Slope's environment is also substantially enhanced with <br />Union Park's flow augmentation that occurs only in the dry times <br />when it is needed. In wet years there are times when the <br />constant flow of the other Gunnison alternatives would add to the <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />;.II'" <br />. >~. ",,; I c~ .. '"p" v ,~ <br /> <br />oW <br /> <br />I 100031 ",0" <br />