WSP05012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FACT SHEET Eagle-Piney Project near Vail and Related Issues Page 2 The results of the diversions outlined above would in- clude the following: substantially less water available for West Slope domestic, agricultural and industrial needs including energy development; considerable stream fishery losses; higher cost waste- water treatment facilities to maintain water quality standards; and increased salinity concentrations in the Colorado River. Denver will request exclusion of 12,780 acres from the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area for construction of the Eagle-Piney and East Gore Collection Systems. Eagles Nest is probably the most spectacular of Colorado's wilderness areas. Its 133,910 acres en- compass the Gore Range, one of the most rugged mountain ranges in the Rockies, boasting 17 peaks over 13,000 feet elevation and more than 30 peaks over 12,000 feet. The Wilderness protects the high quality water sheds for the Piney River, tributaries of the Eagle and Blue Rivers, and includes nearly 100 natural lakes. Eagles Nest provides refuge for abundant wildlife including elk, big horn sheep, mountain goats, deer, mountain lions, and some of the last remain- ing strongholds of the native cutthroat trout. In addition to the dams, the planned water projects would involve construction of many miles of pipelines, canals and tunnels through the Wilderness. There would be considerable losses of wildlife habitat, interference with game migration routes, and in- creased access to secluded areas resulting in more pressure on fish and wildlife. Water diverted from the western slope projects to the front range would be stored in the proposed Two Forks Reservoir near Denver. Two Forks would inundate approximately 30 miles of the South Fork and North Fork of the South Platte River, which is cur- rently the most heavily used stream recreation area in the state. The reservoir would inundate ten communities, including Deckers, and displace approximately 141 permanent residents and 722 part-time residents. A secondary impact of these water projects would be to encourage the continued concentration of growth and development on the front range while limiting development potential of other parts of the state. This front range growth would continue to be accom- panied by increased crime rates, urban blight, loss of agricultural lands, congestion and transportation problems, higher taxes, air pollution and water pollution problems. possible Alternatives A recent study conducted by University of Colorado econ- omists John R. Morris and Clive V. Jones for the Environmental Defense Fund concluded that " [c]onservation is the cheapest way to provide water for Denver's growth. policies designed to save water could provide 50 percent of the water Denver will need over the '000