Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~ <br /> <br />-~. -J <br /><.:.D <br />.....-l <br /> <br />\...~~~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Mr. Ron Johnston <br />July 30, 1991 <br />Page three <br /> <br />6. We agree that a joint use ROW, as is apparently considered in alternative M-3, <br />is unsatisfactory because it does not adequately protect the canal structure. In <br />addition such an arrangement may not be acceptable to the Grand Valley Water <br />Users Association which operates the GHC. <br /> <br />7. Finally, with regards to Colorado House Joint Resolution 91-1035 which requests <br />USBR to "pursue a different design for the lining of Highline Canal," we believe <br />that the efforts displayed in the EA demonstrate that you have pursued a number <br />of alternative design. The EA further demonstrates that alternative M-1 is the <br />only economically reasonable alternative, even with a generous dollar allowance <br />for the value of the limited agricu1turallands taken. I will be meeting with the <br />key sponsors of the resolution to confirm that they are satisfied with your response <br />in the EA to their request. <br /> <br />Again, we endorse your reco=ended alternative M-1 for the East End of the GHC. <br />If a hybrid of M-1 and M-4, as outlined above, could be constructed with only minor <br />increase in cost, than we would support that also. We look forward to reviewing the final <br />EA and working with Reclamation as this needed salinity control measure is implemented. <br /> <br />SinE!?IY'j,' 1111.. __-..-.~ <br />-tbDavid W. W~ , <br />Director <br /> <br />DWW jdbr <br />Attachment <br />dtOO31.1tr <br />