Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Water Project Legislation <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />July 30, 1981 <br /> <br />To emphasize this need for coordinated analysis, please take <br />a look at the enclosed map prepared by the 8ureau of Reclamation <br />several years ago, (call Mr. J. R. Rinkle, Western Colorado Projects <br />Office, Grand Junction, Colorado, (303) 243-4992 for further informa- <br />tion). What the map shows is that there are almost countless sites <br />for water development being pursued in the northwest corner of Colorado, <br />many of which would be better suited to the needs of the shale industry <br />than the projects approved by Congress years ago for agricultural <br />purposes. <br /> <br />In addition, here are some specific comments and questions which <br />might deserve consideration as your legislation is developed: <br /> <br />a. Does each synfuels project need its own separate supply <br />or is joint development feasible from an engineering viewpoint? <br /> <br />b. Can anti-trust fears be set aside long enough to permit <br />water projects to be developed jointly by competitors when this is <br />feasible from an engineering point of view? <br /> <br />c. Can the oil industry concept of pooling and unitization <br />(for orderly field development and preservation of reservoir pressures) <br />be adapted to shale industry needs so as to minimize both costs and <br />avoidable environmental damage? i <br />. <br />. <br />d. To what extent can one plant use the waste water of another? <br /> <br />e. Energy, agriculture, recreation, and environmental preserva- <br />tion each have their own needs. We sincerely hope that every effort <br />will be made to meet as many of these needs as possible in whatever <br />projects are permitted to proceed. <br /> <br />f. We join those who object to decisions being made in Washington <br />without input from Colorado citizens. The Colorado Open Space Council, <br />Inc. stands ready to assist in evaluation efforts. We request an <br />improved process for citizen participation in the review of all water <br />projects. <br /> <br />2. The purpose and beneficiaries of each project should be <br />clearly defined by the legislature of the requesting state before <br />the benefit-cost analsis is erformed and before an federal funds <br />are comm1tte - t erwise t ere W1 be no focus on w 0 1S to ene it <br />~ost from the public largesse and the benefits of a project approved <br />for one purpose are likely to become a windfall to some other industry <br />that needs no government assistance. <br /> <br />3. 25% state funding - The recipient state, as the ultimate <br />beneficiary, should bear a significant share of the cost. This will <br />result in an intense analysis of the cost and benefits at the local <br />level. We support Utah Governor Scott Matheson's position. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />t <br />