My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11547
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11547
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:17:54 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 5:02:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.116.I
Description
Fruitland Mesa Project
State
CO
Basin
Gunnison
Water Division
4
Date
10/7/1976
Title
Public Hearing - Draft Environmental Statement - Crawford-Colorado October 7-1976 - (Part 1 of 2)
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />3~ <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />review~d in d0t~ilwith Congressman Aspinall, who at~the present <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />time is the,'natural resource consultant for Club 20. Andas <br /> <br />3 a result of this review, Club 20 wishes to endorse the plan as <br /> <br />4 detailed on page 0-6, I believe it is, of the report. ~ie do <br /> <br />5 this somewhat reluctantly because we feel it overemphasizes <br /> <br />, , <br />. , . ,. <br />,6 damagest9wildlife. We thin..~ there are unnecessary mitigation <br />7 measures propoa~d in here that ~re apparently brought about <br /> <br />8 because of the constant resistance and the claims that are made <br /> <br />9 by the wildlife people that we think are not sustainable. <br /> <br />10 Nevertheless. due to the long delays that have been brought <br /> <br />11 about on this project since it was originally authorized in 1964 <br /> <br />12 we do now support;tha plan as set out in the report. I would <br /> <br />13 just like to say -that Club 20 has supported this project faith"" <br /> <br />14 fully since it '~,aSl first proposed. I would also like to say <br /> <br />15 that it's a proj~ct that's not needed for ,the future development <br /> <br />16 of oil shale. for example. It's not needed for the future <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />development of Colorado resources. The need for it is not <br /> <br />18 <br /> <br />dependent upon some city needing to grow by ten percent or <br />twenty percent out here in the next decade. It's needed now. <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />It was needed twelve years ago when it was first authorized for <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br />construction. and it was needed many years prior ,to that. 80 <br /> <br />22 <br /> <br />we once again urge the Bureau to complete the final EIS so this <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />24 <br /> <br />project can get into construotion stage. ,NOw, <br /> <br />as a personal <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />note, I empathj,ze with the land owners that were here. One of <br /> <br />them was verv ;.r+:-I,..."l,.,i-", in hi.. .."""''"_,._ <br /> <br />.."'-- ~------ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.