GunnisonComments08 ‎(2)‎

• Basin: Gunnison
• Title: Comments 8
• Date: 2/13/2004
• SWSI - Doc Type: Comments

-

;I ...,......L...., ~ -I. ~

, ,.,

l,R;f! C ~:~ \~i? t~ t]

(corrected copy 2-16...04)

r; r- ".. ":1'; 2004
r r: t~ .} U

Natural Energy Resources Company
P. o. Box 567) Palmer Lake, COlorado 80133
(719) 481-.2003 FAX (719) 48J-3452

pplprado Wilt~r ConselVat\Cn BO?;j~~

Febru.ry 13~ 2004

The lIonorable RalJdy Thurston, President
lod City COUDell Members
City of PaabJo
1 City Hall Place
Pueblo, Colorado 81003

Sqbjeet~ Water DeeilJoa Cronroad

Dear PretldeDt Thurstou and COdncil Members:

Pueblo and Colorado Springs are at a critjcal water decision orossroad. If Pueblo agrees with the proposed
Southern. DeliveJ)' System, it will adversely impact its future - as well as Colora.do Sprin,@:5 and the State of
Colorado,

The enclosed George Sibley commentaJy is an excellent a.ccount ofCo}orado's general water policy confusion.,
conflicts, and wasted effortS. The current controversy over Colorado Sprin;brgY proposed Southern Delivery System
is symptomatic ofColomdo' s underlying water polioy crisis.

The enclosed letter to President Bush and Interior Secretary Gale Norton briefly outlines the multiple advantages of
Colorado)s superior Gunnisonll1nion Park Pumped-Storage solution for local, state, and regional drought and
growth needs. UnfortunateJy~ Union Park was not considered by Colorado Springs -- apparently because of an
institutional bias against cooperative multi-basin storage projects. This improper "exclusion violates the National
Environmental Policy Act. NEPA requires environmental and economic comparisons oral} rea-;onable alternatives.

EPA vetoed Denver~s Two Forks Dam proposal, after a ten..year" $50 InilJion effortf because "superior alternatives
(te.. Union Park)~ were improperly screened from tbe environmental studies'n~ Colorado Springs is headed for a
sinlilar fate with its inefficient, 8DS proposal that unnecessarily depletes the overly depleted Arkansas River..

Exorbitant water rights and misguided development proposals that excessively de...water over-appropriated rivers
are still subject to NEPA~EPA oversIght review. To protect its future and avoid additional Two Forks and
Homestake II type mistakes, the City afPueblo should insist on s. prelimincuy scoping evalu8:tion of the Union Park
oversight Any Southern Delivery System Agreements with Colorado Springs should be deferred until all impacted
stakeholders have a chance to compare 8DS with Union Park.

I would be honored to prOf/ide a briefing for Pueblo's Cjty Council on the overlooked advantages of Union Park.

3Z:-7hJL

Dave, MiUer President

Enclosures: George Sibley anicle dated 2-05-04 & letter to President Bush & Secretary Nonon dated 2..02-04.

-