Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br /> <br />of Foothills would be required because of higher turbidity <br />and alga~ content of the raw water. Construction of the <br />plant would require total draining of the present recreation <br />pool at Chatfield for one year. In addition, the flood con- <br />trol capacity of Chatfield could be somewhat reduced by <br />raising of the permanent pool by as much as four feet. The <br />Chatfield alternative would have no hydroelectric generation <br />potential, and, in fact, the plant annually would require <br />30 million kilowatts of power from commercial sources. <br />Upstream Dam Alternative, in which a 50-foot-high dam <br />would be built about two miles upstream from the proposed <br />Strontia Springs site, with the treatment facility to be <br />built as originally planned. The reservoir would contain <br />about 97 acre-feet of water. The required tunnel would be <br />about five miles long. The small reservoir would not allow <br />much sediment-settling from the raw water, and dredging would <br />be required at least every two years to keep the intake struc- <br />tures open. The upstream dam would not serve the City of <br />Aurora's intake needs, and, in fact, would periodically <br />increase the turbidity in the pool created by Aurora's diversion <br />dam and intake structures.16 <br /> <br />v. TASK FORCE ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />The Foothills Task Force of Citizens for Sensible <br />Water Use believes none of the three alternatives is accept- <br />able, and that Foothills must be initiated as soon as possible. <br />We feel that the Federal lands impacted by the Foothills Water <br /> <br />00711 <br />