WMOD00281 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-:-.. ~~. II ;......-...-.~ f.-~' ~ the Colorado River Basin. ft is estimated that in the avera~ )'llar_ WOSA~il1 gen~tc about '2.3_JnilliQILUFe-fcct (Mat) of ault 111ented runoII within the Basin (compared with a roximatcly 14 ~~age an ".!!~ _?.~ an .Maf outsi e the Basm. The corresponding anmUll operating COSts for the WOSA system arc expecled to be about $5.4 million. giving an average cost of $2.37 per acre-foot for the in-basin runoff alone and 11.58 per acre-foot overan.. ~-- (2) The environmental, economic, and social impacts of \VaSA on the high mountain arcas where the WOSA operations would take place ,rrc almost uniformly negative, but are of only moderate. intensity, They would be no worse than naturaJ conditions that have existed in the past and that may be expected tt1 repeat themselves in the fu- ture. There is no effective qu~mtitative. measure of these negative impacl~, bliftl1ey nugln be ahcvlated, cojl1pcnsated, controlled, ,!nd mOl1itore(ti'ot1Ill.ad~onaT$'5J) .r:ni~lion pcr year. ~ (3) There is no need for the additional water provided by the WaSA system in the high mountain areas that would bear these neg::ltive impacts for the benefit of other areas that may eventually need the additional water. E uit, would re uire that the negative impacts be alleviated or compensated by those who wou CI benefit from the- \VOSA water. --"1' (4) Thcre appear to be sufficient benefits from the WaSA water incre- ment that the drawbacks to the target area residents could be offset by a program of alleviation and compensations; providing that the necessary institutional arrangements can be made. (5) At the present time, many people who live in or near the WaSA target areas and who ,.,,.i11 be adversely affected by WQSA do not trust the Federal Government in general and the Dureau of Reclama- tion in panicular to protect their interests. (6) Congress has the power to ensure that WOSA is conducted in \'In ~quitable manner. This will require legal, institutional~ and public policy decisions concerning: The'need to augment the Colorado River. The standard~ and objectives by which \VaSA and any water storage nnd distrib.uuon facilities necessary to use the water arc to b~ evaluated and compared with alternative means of. augment- ing the River. "' Tbe virgln now or lhc Colorado River is taken to be the slrcamRow that w()uJd OCCUr (It Lee Ferry, Ari7.on(~. if there Were nodcplctions (consumptive use and cvaporatkm). Lee Ferry, l\riwna is the dividing PlIint between the Upper and the L.ower Colorado Ri\'cr Basin.~. if l lX