9450 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield: A Myth than 30 miles of irreplaceable resources of the South Platte River (the proposed dam site was one of the most prized trout fisheries in the nation), the EPA barred issuance of a permit by the Corps, invoking its § 404(c) veto powers."' The EPA concluded that the significant damage to fishery and recreation areas that the dam would pro- duce was avoidable, because there were less-damaging alternatives available that could supply Denver with an equivalent amount of water.12' Moreover, even if no alternatives did exist, the agency concluded that the damage that would result from the dam was too extensive to allow."' The EPAs veto authority has been upheld in federal court. Following a federal court challenge by proponents of Two Forks, Federal District Court Judge Richard Matsch upheld the EPAs veto, holding that (1) the EPA did not exceed its authority under the CWA, (2) the EPA's approach to analyzing alternatives was reasonable, (3) the EPA and Corps were required independently to review and define the project's overall purpose, and (4) the record supported EPAs conclusion that project would result in unacceptable adverse environmental impacts even after mitigation. 127 Taking water from the Gunnison for Front Range development raises many of the same issues addressed in the Two Forks debate. Given that there are less damag- ing, practicable alternatives to the use of Gunnison Basin water, the result for an import of Gunnison water may well be the same as it was for Two Forks. Added to this burden for any dam proposal are the extensive requirements imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).121 NEPA mandates that the federal government undertake and publish environmental analyses on proposed major federal actions, such as issuance of a § 404 permit by a federal agency. 121 Major federal actions require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to provide the agency, the public, and Congress information about the environmental effects of the proposed action.130 Any proposed trans-mountain diversion would have to meet the requirements of NEPA. The "action agency"-either the Bureau, the Corps, or both-would need to create a draft EIS and incorporate public comment on that draft into a final EIS. While nothing in the provisions of NEPA dictates whether or not a project should go forward, the analysis in an EIS process may result in a drastically different project or the termination of the project altogether. The EIS process for a large project often takes many years to complete. A critical element of an EIS is the analysis of alterna- tives to the proposed action. In the case of a proposed trans-mountain diversion, this analysis would include how the project proponent might otherwise satisfy its water needs, including the water efficiency measures noted in Chapter 3. NEPA frequently works in concert with other laws that regulate a project pro- posal, as it did with the proposed Two Forks Project. During the Two Forks dispute, the Corps considered alternatives to the dam in its EIS analysis, and that formed the basis for the more stringent section 404 alternatives test.13' Failure of the latter test meant the dam could not proceed. 131 Gunnison Basin Water • 31