WSP08527 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l)Q-:~:5 ., Comment 2- The EA did not present a reasonable range of alternatives. Alternatives should be developed that allocate some of the "saved water" to boating/fishing or in general look at alternative uses of the salvaged water. Response 2- The water involved in the Carriage Contract is not controlled or owned by the Federal government and therefore Reclamation cannot direct its use. The water is instead owned by MVIC and can be sold to the DWCD or any other water user. The alternatives developed for this EA, therefore, were based on the types of water use for which the OWeD could reasonably foresee occurring. Because the DWCD may put this water to use on either the subject lands or other lands more easily served by MVIC's existing facilities regardless of whether Reclamation facilities are used, the alternatives to meet the purpose and need are basically execute a Carriage Contract or a similar agreement and No Action. Comment 3- The EA says the OWeD would be allowed to increase its conveyance of non- project water, apparently without additional documentation under the National Environmental Policy Act. This represents illegal segmentation of the proposed action. The Bureau must do a full EIS to analyze and disclose the full potential of the project and its impacts. Response 3- Any increase in conveyance that might be proposed in the future would require approval by Reclamation; this approval would represent a Federal Action requiring additional NEP A compliance. However, Reclamation believes an EA and FONSI are the correct NEP A compliance documents for the proposed action. The EA addresses only the 6,000-8,000 acre-feet of currently decreed MVIC water (See Response I). Comment 4- All alternatives should include that those who benefit from salinity control, should pay the full cost of that reduction to downstream users, including the public for loss of recreational and esthetic uses of the river. Response 4- The beneficiaries referred to in the comment would be the DWCD and farmers that receive the water. Both these interests would pay for the water and the use of Federal facilities to carry the water. The major beneficiaries of the salinity program, however, are downstream water users in states like Arizona and California. See Responses No. 7-16 for more information on salinity control. Funding of salinity control measures is spelled out in various Federal laws. Use of water is subject to the laws of the State of Colorado. Comment 5-Absent a Carriage Contract (No Action alternative), the subject water would not be applied to the irrigation of presently unirrigated lands in the Dove Creek area. Response 5-Without a Carriage Contract, the DWCD could still acquire the water and use MVIC private facilities to deliver the water to new lands. This is a more expensive alternative than the proposed Carriage Contract and thus has not been pursued as a first priority at this time by the DWCD. Without a Carriage Contract, the first and most desirable option would be to deliver water to presently unirrigated lands west of Arriola, Colorado. There is adequate land in this area to allow full use of the water. This option was initially looked at in the conceptual stages of WETPACK and was dismissed because possible canal reconstruction and pumping costs were higher than carrying water under a Carriage Contract. A second option was to expand irrigated land east and south of Cortez. This was a less desirable option because of the irregularity of the 20