WSP09189 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB-2B-1995 08:35 KOOOVSEK & ASSOC I ATES 303 831 1888 P.05 February 1994 Page 6 proposals presented to the board on or before January 4, 1995 and will continue its semi-annual sale of small parcels that cannot be managed economically. co: New Study Supports Animas.La Plata Projec:t A new stUdy was released in January that finds the controversial Animas-La Plata Water project will yield benefits in excess of the costS of its completion. This contradic:tS 1994 estimates in a draft stUdy by the Bureau of Reclamation that the project would generate benefits of only 40 cents for each S1 spent. Under federal law, BuRec must review the economics of water projects every 5 years and is ex:pected to release the final version of its latest review of Animas-La Plata during the first half of 1995. The new study was financed by the Ute Mountain Utes, the Southern Utes, and the Southwestern Colorado Water Conservancy Board and conducted by Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Inc. The Utes have senior water rights to aii the water in southwestern Colorado. Under the Coiorado Ute Imiiall Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, this S63S-million project would provide water storage facilities in exchange for which the tribes would relinquish their claims to other water rights. Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (D-CO), Sen. Hank Brown (R-CO), and Rep. Scott McInnis (R- eO) announced their support of the project by citing, as one orits benefits, avoiding up to $30 million in the legal costs of resolving Indian reserved water rightS claims. BuRec guiddines preclude such considerations in evaluating projects. The stUdy identifies annual benefits from the project of 574.8 million, giving a cost-benefit ratio of 1.66: 1. Bookman-Edmonston examined previous studies and found flaws in Reclamation studies: for example, Reclamation allowed for inflation when projecting costs but not when projecting benefits. The Animas-La Plata Reservoir, an off-stream storage facility, was first authorized by Congress in 1968. The 1988 Settlement Act requires BuRec to complete the federal pan of the project by the year 2000. But that goal could not be realized, even if the project were staned today. Envirorunental concerns have slowed completion. In 1991, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service filed a biological opinion indicating that completion ofthe project would endanger the Colorado squawfish. In 1992, a San Juan Recovery Implementation program was initiated to support the recovery of endangered fish in the San Juan River, while providing for the continuation of legislatively-mandated water development in the basin, although diversions into storage facilities would be below the full capacity of the project -- at least until the: impacts on endangered species were better understood. Project supporters argue that BuRec has been moving slowly on the project because of the . opposition by the former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, George Miller. Rep. McInnis predicts that the new chairman, Don Young (R-AK), will be much more supportive. But opponents predict that the final version of Reclamation's study is unlikely to reflect any fundamental changes in the agency's view that the project is not economically viable. TX: Texas Water Development Board Reports on Water Bank The Texas Water Development Board has submitted a report to the Governor and the Legislature on the establishment and operation of the Texas Water Bank. The Bank. which is administered by the Board, was established under SB /030, which treated a framework for the regulation of withdrawals W J\.TER INTELLIGENCE MONTHLY Publlihc4 by Str.tec....lIIc. P.O. 80. HJ, Cloft_... CAJl711 ('") In....m