Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />, <br />STATE (JF COLORI\DC <br />a <br /> <br />, .. <br />" <br /> <br />c 1 <br />(D <br />",-4 <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />'313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3441 <br /> <br />(;'" <br /> <br />July 30, 1991 <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />David w. Walker <br />Director <br /> <br />Mr. Ron Johnston, Project Manager <br />U.S. Bureau of Reclamation <br />P.O. Box 60340 <br />Grand Junction, CO 81506 <br /> <br />Re: Salinity,Grand Valley Unit, Government Highline Canal Environmental <br />Assessment <br /> <br />Dear Ron: <br /> <br />The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) staff has reviewed the draft <br />Environmental Assessment (EA) issued by your office on June 21, 1991 for the lining of the <br />east and middle reaches of the Government Highline Canal (GHC). As you know CWCB <br />has been involved in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program in general, and <br />USBR efforts to implement the Grand Valley Unit in particular, for nearly two decades. <br />We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the EA and are glad to see that funding and <br />design work is moving ahead for improving the East End GHC. While the EA discloses a <br />recent problem concerning right-of-way (ROW) acquisition we believe that problem can be <br />resolved within the alternatives you have considered. Accordingly, we encourage <br />Reclamation to proceed on the East End with this needed component of the salinity <br />program. <br /> <br />We believe the draft EA, and previous environmental documentation for the Grand <br />Valley Unit, adequately discloses the cost, benefits, and environmental consequences of <br />improving the east and middle reaches of the GHC, and provides a sound basis for selecting <br />among the displayed alternatives. We do not view the lining of the middle reach to be a <br />viable salinity control project under current cost effectiveness standards, and so confine the <br />remainder our remarks to the lining alternative for the East End GHC. While the EA is <br />adequate as a decision making tool, we have attached hereto a list of technical and editorial <br />suggestions for improving the final EA. <br /> <br />With regards to the East End lining alternatives considered, and your selection of a <br />recommend alternative we have the following specific comment: <br />