PROJC01779 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-< .. Orchard Mesa Irrigation District Irrigable Land Shareholders PO Box 30069 Grand Junction, Colorado, 81503 RECEIVED OCT 2 8 1996 October 25, 1996 Colorado Water Conservation Board William P. Stanton, P.E. Chief, Project Planning and Construction Section Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources 721 State Centennial Building Denver, CO 80203 ,- \ lc~-- '-l:] '~BJ:-""-'-- L 11, v - --. i'SG L)' ; \ ~' I: ~_ t I' r:_ I ,'_: .__....:.:.,_'_'- Dear Mr. Stanton: This is to request public documents needed preparatory to our seeking a judicial review of the Mutual Mesa Lateral (MML) pipeline project to determine if aMID qualifies for a Colorado Water Conservation Board loan, and for cost-share funding from Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). This action will be taken under Rule 106 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Attachment A to this letter details documents needed from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to prepare for this action. All documents requested can be found ~[l the Water Project Construction Loan Program guidelines for financial assistance through the Colorado Water Conservation Board. While the Colorado Open Records law authorizes requests through the Secre- tary of State, we are petitioning this information directly from you to save time and to avoid naming CWCB in this action. If you have a problem with providing these docu- ments, we request an explanation of the reason and how to appeal your decision. During November 1993 the United States Department of Agriculture released an (obsolete) environmental assessment for Mutual Mesa Lateral stating therein that if MML is placed in piped lining, aMID would have to provide about 9 acres of off-site wetlands and wildlife habitat areas. Apparently NRCS based this requirement on the Final Report of the Grand Valley Salinity Study of 1977, prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation. Thus, USDA is imposing grant conditions based on a 19 years old study of the entire Grand Valley. According to federal regulations, environmental assess- ments expire after five years. Expired EA's must be revisited and brought current. It is important to note that several requests for the contract between NRCS & aMID have been made to USDA. One clause in the contract we seek must specify the terms and conditions for providing this additional area. Will the area be deeded to the federal government? Where will this area be? Who will be responsible for irrigating, fire control and pest control of this area? To date, USDA has failed to provide this contract, 1