Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-27- <br /> <br />have not accepted the fact that with the Compact in force <br /> <br />there is no alternative but to meet its requirements. There <br /> <br />are some who object to the impact the Project will have on <br /> <br /> <br />natural wildlife habitat in spite of the provisions in the <br /> <br />Project for its enhancement. There are those who oppose <br /> <br />lowering the water table by pumping, claiming that it up- <br /> <br />sets their sub-irrigation practice. There will be objec- <br /> <br />tions to the quality of water that might be discharged into <br /> <br />the Rio Grande River, and of course there are those who <br /> <br />still object to the Rio Grande Compact in its entirety. <br /> <br /> <br />An example of the attitude of the people is reflected <br /> <br />in information supplied to us by Mr. Relyea of the Extension <br />Service. We were told that the Extension Service conducted <br /> <br />a poll in 1966 of landowners who depend on wells. The re- <br /> <br />suIts showed that 95% were against the Project. The great- <br /> <br />est fear is that the Project wells would not only take away <br /> <br />their sUb-irrigation, but would drop the artesian well pump- <br />ing levels to a degree of economic damage. Many people <br />would prefer the use of drainage canals rather than wells <br /> <br />for the salvage of water, in which case they would have as- <br /> <br />surance as to the ultimate depth to which the water table <br /> <br />could be lowered. <br /> <br />It is our opinion that with the present attitude of so <br /> <br />many of the people, the Project could be blocked when pre- <br /> <br />sented for authorization. Unless a feasible and immediate <br /> <br />alternative is offered, it appears that blocking of the <br /> <br />(, ;\ j A 11 <br />...... \,,: l.,":t <br />