Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br />(., <br /> <br />~~~ Joc D. Ball <br />F~~.~rJ 20, 1976 <br />P2&= 2 <br /> <br />2", \,-.., c is the eco:!o::.ic ...alue of the agricultural products genera ted ~ the <br />03 -',;iticn21 "ater to be :>rc":ided Ei:. the project1 What is the economic <br />.2""e of the c.ricult'"ral oroducts produced ~ the land which will be <br />t~:=:l out of procti.':ti:=. E.z. the proposed project'? <br /> <br />O:t ?2ge IV-5 of the cr'"t ::IS, it states that "the net supplemental <br />~atar su?ply (excludi:!~ the acquired water supply) will increase the value' <br />of croi' production in the i'roject service area by about $9 215 000 annually." <br />Eoocver, no details 2re provided. In order to fully understand the economic <br />ic?a=t of the proposed project upon the'agricultural sector, it is essential <br />that the 2ss=~tions us=c to reach the estimate be stated explidty. I <br />strongly suggest that ~e ::.ethod used to reach this estimate be fully <br />described -- including ene underlying assumptions as well as the details <br />of the conputation. <br /> <br />In order to present a ba1~ced picture of the impact of the proposed <br />project u?on the agricultural sector, it seems to me that ancwerin~ :~e <br />second question above is as :bportant as answering the first. How2",r, <br />tbe draft EIS provides no estimates of the value of 'the agricultural <br />products which ~ll be lost if the proposed project is undertaken. I <br />nr~e the Bureau to provide such an estimate, including the details of <br />calculation and the ~~arlying assumptions. ' <br /> <br />3. \'''h=.t ~"ill be the :b;,act ~ the business sector supplying' goods 'and' services <br />to fa=ers an.:! ~ t':e orocessiog sectors and their suppliers as a result <br />,of the pro:>osed project? <br /> <br />The draft EIS addresses this question on pages IV-IOl aod IV-I02. However, <br />tbe discussion is l;~;ted to the indirect economic activity generated by the <br />increase in cro? sales of $9 215 000 per year. The decrease in indirect <br />eco:!o~c activity 2ttri~ute~le to the loss of production (not yet calculated, <br />as ::.entioned in 2. ab07e)is not computed. I suggest that the discussion 00 <br />pages IV-lOl and IV-102 be expanded to include this point. <br /> <br />Pressures upon Colorado's agricultural land are steadily increasing. Highly <br />productive la~d is not in great supply in our state, and we must weigh very <br />carefully the tradeoffs in a project of such magnitude as the Narrows Unit. <br />I urge tha Bureau to consider the suggestioosabove so that a fully-informed <br />cacisio~ 03 this projact r=~ be wade. <br /> <br />I <br />) ' <br />J <br />DLC/pjc <br /> <br />~:J[ 'IrG~I~,~ <br /> <br />David L. Carlson, Ph.D. <br />Resource Information Section <br />