Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />atmosphere prevailing at the time these tradeoffs were made <br />follows. <br />Interests anxious to obtain federal funding of structural <br />measures were disturbed to learn that some were not in the <br />Recommended Plan because they lacked economic justification. <br />Some maintained that a Level B Study should do nothing more than <br />identify needs and possible solutions, not evaluate them. Study <br />conclusions that projected ground water depletions could affect <br />the scaling of surface water irrigation projects also elicited <br />strong reaction. The proposition that interaction among competing <br />water demands could result in a tradeoff - a sacrifice by both <br />interests - was often protested. <br />Interests anxious to emphasize preservation of fish and <br />wildlife resources were disturbed to learn that the Recommended <br />Plan did not propose severe limitations upon future development, <br />especially irrigation. Some of those funded to participate in <br />the study indicated their belief that the make-up of the planning <br />board was biased toward economic development and therefore could <br />not deal fairly with environmental issues. Again, tradeoffs were <br />often protested. <br />Although extremes on both sides protested when tradeoff <br />and adjustment was proposed, it did provide perspective bounds <br />within which the planning board made the tradeoff decisions. The <br />planning board was aided in making many of the decisions by <br />the planning team, citizen advisors, task force leaders and other <br />study participants. <br />In order to assure greater consideration of regional <br />problems and opportunities, the planning process also included an <br />evaluation of all programs and projects which failed to meet NED and <br /> <br />1-20 <br />