Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Borland's comprehensive report (Exhibit 14) conclu- <br />sively demonstrates the folly of using a low diversion <br />structure which cannot control and cause the deposition of <br />sediment before water is diverted into a diversion tunnel. <br /> <br />The Aurora experience with sediment entering its tunnels, <br />recognized by those who have inspected the Rampart Tunnel <br />No. 2 (see Exhibit 5) is a continuing one, the scope of <br />which is described in the deposition of David Lincoln <br />(Exhibit 15), a one-time employee of Aurora who had responsi- <br />bility for operating the tunnels. His harrowing story of <br />trying to keep continuous service available in spite of the <br />sediment shows just how stupid it would be to deliberately <br />design a utility system so as not to avoid the problem, but <br />to encourage it when another reasonable structural alterna- <br />tive is available. Here the proposed Strontia Springs Dam <br />and Reservoir would avoid the problem. Borland demonstrates <br />how effectively it can control the sediment problem for a <br />one hundred year period, while at the same time, eliminating <br />the sediment problem now plaguing Denver at its Conduit No. <br />20 intake and improving the quality of water delivered to <br />the treatment plant. <br /> <br />Borland's inescapable conclusion, refuted by no com- <br />petent evidence or expert, is that the proposed Strontia <br />Springs Dam and Reservoir is the best, the only choice for <br />solving the problem. To ignore that expertise in making <br />decisions on federal actions to be taken in response to <br />Denver's applications would be an exercise in capriciousness <br />unparalleled in the history of utility experience. <br /> <br />LOW DAM (STRONTIA SPRINGS SITE) <br /> <br />Among the structural alternatives studied by the USBR <br />was a lower dam (191 feet high) at the Strontia Springs <br />site. <br /> <br />The implication in the document presented to the BLM is <br />that with some minor reservations, the suggested alternative <br />could serve essentially the same functions as, and provide a <br />viable substitute for, the proposed 243 feet high dam. <br /> <br />At the outset it should be emphasized that the USBR <br />comment concerning the less of regulatory capacity and the <br />table showing the comparative reservoir capacities of the <br />different structures is prejudicially misleading. The <br />statement says that the alternative: <br /> <br />"B. would reduce reservoir regulatory capacity <br />by about 62% with some minor reduction in future M & I <br />water delivery during critical peaking periods and for <br />meeting downstream water demands." <br /> <br />-14- <br />