Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0U25H <br /> <br />CLEAR CREEK WATER USERS ALLIANCE <br /> <br />September 28, 1981 <br /> <br />~iDl, i:/ (CJ,fiJl?~1 !D0, <br />/;1V'1r.J 11// r}/[ <br />t!JL.s ,:,,) ;; 8 !~8; '- ':.W/~ <br />C' 0 ;,:.. '-)':",-'--"~_ <br />....,,"). ....."'fIJII." -"'---" j <br />C;.. 'J,:,.._; ,uQ VVAI-r-'-./I <br />".. -:', "~Tr"/I)~, " IE/i) -- <br />"-'" 80Il!'!) , <br /> <br />P.O. Box 507 <br />Golden, Colorado 80401 <br /> <br />Phone 277-5596 <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Shermiln Street Room B21 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Re: Public Comment - Interim Report <br />South Platte River Basin Assessment <br /> <br />Gentlemen: <br /> <br />The Clear Creek Water Users Alliance is a non-profit organization <br />representing major agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users in <br />the Clear Creek Basin. The above captioned report, which belatedly came <br />to our attention, raises some serious concerns for our members in its <br />present fonn, and particularly if it is intended for use as a planning <br />document for making future water management decisions. <br /> <br />We do not believe that the study objectives, as described on Page 3 of <br />the interim report, can be achieved without considering the potential water <br />storage and management capabilities of the Clear Creek Basin, one of the <br />major tributaries to the South Platte River. Engineering studies on several <br />reservoir sites were initiated as early as 1936, as part of the "Blue River- <br />South Platte Project". Various filings on Clear Creek Reservoir sites have <br />been made and are a matter of public record in the State Engineers office. <br />In addition to the Two Forks Reservoir and the Narrows Reservoir, these <br />additional filings include the Empire Reservoir, the Fork Reservoir, the <br />Van Bi bber Reservoi r, and the Tremont Reservoi r. We respectfully request <br />that the report be expanded to include these additional alternatives. <br /> <br />We are concerned that the study process apparently precluded direct <br />solicitation of accurate data from major water users and project proponents <br />before the interim report was drafted. We are also concerned that the short <br />time period between publication of the interim report and the schedufed <br />public hearings was inadequate to permit a careful analysis and meaningful <br />input. <br /> <br />We <br />in many <br />many of <br />include <br />power. <br />t i ve in <br /> <br />are further concerned that the evaluation criteria was inappropriate <br />respects, and does not result in a cost benefit ratio which reflects <br />the secondary benefits from the projects studied. These would <br />recreation, management of transmountain diversion, and hydroelectric <br />The value of water rights yield also appears to be extremely conserva- <br />relation to current market conditions. <br />