Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Of Interest - Aspen's Hydro proposal on Castle and Maroon creeks

See attached. If you're a local and want to comment you have about 60 days.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
701 Posts
Questions?

Not knowing the dynamics creates a number of questions. Is there a lake for storage to opperate? Is the diversion for 100 yards, or miles? does it pulse a flow, storinbg watrer and sending a flush down stream, or just convert the stream into a pipe for a couple hundred yards and then put the full flow back into the stream bed? I don't know enough about this project at this point to determine if I could / should support it or oppose it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I don't know enough about this project at this point to determine if I could / should support it or oppose it.
Agreed. I don't either and figuring that out would require significant analysis.

I mainly posted this so that if anyone has an interest in finding out more (thinking that locals who paddle Castle might fit that category) they could do so and comment to the appropriate guy (who is mentioned in the article) IF they have any concerns or extra questions.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,843 Posts
From what I read, the reservoirs and plumbing already exists, they just need to rebuild or upgrade the hydro facility. Max diversion claims to be 25 cfs from castle ck and 60 cfs from maroon ck. Seems like a pretty good alternative to the amount of coal it can avoid.
 

·
I'm right 50% of the time
Joined
·
899 Posts
Aspen has a winner. Some disagree.

Pipes in place. pulls water and puts it right back. ICD still exist. Locals worried that flow in winter will decrease.

All for it here.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top