Laserfiche WebLink
<br />confrontations and entrenchment that polarizes stakeholders and disrupts collaboration. SWSI <br />shourd not be promoting projects that generate divisiveness within the basin. SWSI should be <br />promoting consensus processes and solutions. <br /> <br />The only issues on the front burner (Tiers 1 and 2) right now are addressing augmentation <br />needs of existing uses, participation in the AspinaH Unit Operations EIS and addressing water <br />quality impacts of current uses. Besides the AspinaU EIS, the stakeholders in the basjn are <br />embarking on the development of a Programatic Biorogical Opinion (PBO) for aU current and <br />"reasonable expectations" for future depletions within the basin. Until the EIS and psa are <br />completed, it is difficult if not impossible for stakehorders (and especially the Bureau of <br />Reclamation) to consider the rekjndling of old projects or new proposals. This would suggest <br />that much of what was discussed at our Jast meeting for new supply options should be <br />considered Tier 3. Thjs includes AS Lateral~ SWSI should not anow only the proponents to <br />determjne the appropriate tiering of projects. Because AS Lateral is such a contentious issue, it <br />should be ranked as Tier 3, if at all. SWSI should identify reoperation and the PBa as Tier 1. <br /> <br />Another concern is the blinder approach to identifying new water development projects. SWSI <br />needs to acknowledge that there are limits to new water development based on compact and <br />environmental constraints. Without this acknowledgement, SWSI may be nurturing false <br />expectations and confrontation. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />~~ <br /> <br />Steve Glazer <br />