Laserfiche WebLink
<br />the ability of the low dam to handle the frazil ice and <br />sedimentation problems. <br /> <br />Where competent professional doubt exists about the <br />reliability of a suggested alternative, its selection can <br />hardly be in the public interest. This is especially so <br />when there is no demonstrated advantage for operating or <br />environmental reasons in selecting such an alternative. <br /> <br />The FES points out (page 8-45) that: <br /> <br />"the impacts of the lower dam and reservoir <br />would be basically the same as for the proposed dam and <br />reservoir, except that the magnitude of each would be <br />generally smaller." <br /> <br />An understanding of how much less environmental impact would <br />result from the use of a low dam is apparent from an in- <br />spection of the map (Exhibit 18) showing that the maximum <br />reduction would amount to a strip of land about fifty feet <br />wide around the perimeter of the reservoir, amounting to <br />less than a total of thirty-two acres. From a visual stand- <br />point, an observer at the canyon floor could not distinguish <br />whether the dam crest was at 191 feet or 243 feet above the <br />canyon bottom. <br /> <br />Surely, serious consideration cannot be given to making <br />such a minor environmental change which would produce such a <br />major operating reliability problem for the utility. In view <br />of such factors, the selection of that alternative cannot <br />help but be pure caprice; there is no justification for it. <br /> <br />CHATFIELD ALTERNATIVE <br /> <br />No extensive review of the Chatfield alternative will <br />be provided here since it is so obviously infeasible from an <br />economic standpoint, even using the Bureau of Reclamation's <br />erroneous dollar figures. We agree with the adverse con- <br />clusions presented by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, <br />the official agency of the State of Colorado authorized by <br />statute to comment on water projects, in its memorandum <br />which is attached as Exhibit 19. <br /> <br />ECONOMIC, TIMING AND OVERVIEW CONSIDERATIONS <br /> <br />Because of the need for an independent consultative <br />review of the various dams suggested as part of the struc- <br />tural alternatives, Denver asked the world-renowned dam <br />design consulting firm of Harza Engineering to review and <br />comment on the low dam at the Strontia Springs site and the <br />low diversion structures. Their reports are appended as <br />Exhibits 20 and 21. Their conclusions as to the inevitable <br />increased cost and delay factors associated with the use of <br />such structures are unassailable. <br /> <br />-16- <br />