My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05232
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05232
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:17:29 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 12:55:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8027
Description
Section D General Correspondence - Federal Agencies - BOR - Lower Missouri Region - Denver
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
10/1/1974
Author
Upper South Platte U
Title
Steering Committee Report - Upper South Platte Unit - Colorado - August 1974
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
162
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />,. <br /> <br />.'-' r-("> <br />o U 2 0 G " <br /> <br />size to 400,000 A.F" 450,000 A.F. or 500,000 A.F.? It could be in some <br /> <br />significant measure a substitue for Two Forks. For the time beil)g, how can <br /> <br />ChatfieLd be optimized? It would be expanded to its maximum economic <br /> <br />capacity. There is at least 67,000 A.F.at the confluence of Clear Creek <br /> <br />and the South Platte that could be pumped and stored in Chatfield. Plum <br /> <br />Creek contributes 17,200 A.F. and Bear Creek has 27,800 A.F. Possibly <br /> <br />other water could be diverted using Chatfield as a catch all still allowing <br /> <br />120,000 A.F. for flood storage during the 90 day flood season.... <br /> <br />"These figures indicated that including the expansion of the Gross <br /> <br />and Standley reservoirs (an additional 217,225 A.F.), metropolitan Denver <br /> <br />should not be in trouble for many years and during this period the true <br /> <br />population trend, not the estimated trend which is questioned, will govern <br /> <br />what final and ultimate water storage must be provided." <br /> <br />C. No Additional East Slope Storage Should Be Bui It At This Time, <br /> <br />I. General (Colorado Open Space Council, Edward Conners). <br /> <br />"The very basis of the study was restricted to questioning the environ- <br /> <br />mental affects only of the proposed impoundment. For four years it has been <br /> <br />the determined effort of citizens to have the study include a II of the environ- <br /> <br />ment which would be affected by a Two Forks Dam. While such a study has <br /> <br /> <br />not been done on previous Reclamation Projects, we are necessariiy forced <br /> <br />to include new criteria here because of the crossroads at which Denver stands <br /> <br />in its future development. As stated from the outset this study should include <br /> <br />potential environmental degradation and impact at the source of the water for <br /> <br />Two Forks, namely the proposed West SLope water to be derived from the EagLe- <br /> <br />Piney Project, the East Gore Canal and the Eagle-Colorado Dam near Wolcott. <br /> <br />",-:.~.:.;:.:_..:., :.-:~;/7:;: <br /><. -. ~ .......-. <br />'" . .' -;'." <br />.< '::. ~-. ;..,-.-- ~..' <br />.-.,......" <br /> <br />East slope considerations which have been eliminated from this study should <br />-16- <br /> <br />... -- ." <br />..' -----:..~:.;--..:.. <br />,;>:..,,-. ..'" <br /> <br />....-.-... <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.