Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />...,,~ ......, ....,"'~ "'--'--' <br /> <br />~ ~~~ 000 ~~~o r.~i/~~ <br /> <br />, '. <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />j <br />'s <br />! <br /> - <br /> .... <br /> '" <br /> .... <br /> !l <br /> ~ <br /> " <br /> '" <br /> lL <br /> !... <br /> J: <br /> 8 ~ <br /> a.. <br /> <br />. <br />! . <br />8 f ~ <br /> <br /> <br />. <br />I . <br />f ,f <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />......, , ..... .,nIU,",nc... ......I;;;..;;IUU"..../;;;,.;;! <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORAD <br /> <br />EXKUTlVE CHAMBEIlS <br /> <br />Ll6 s.... Capilol <br />013n.....r. Color.do 80203-1792 <br />~ho"e (JOll 866.2471 <br /> <br />Oecember3l, 1997 <br /> <br /> <br />RECEI\!~"1 <br />JMl n q \998 <br /> <br />~uy RM'lCf' <br />C;(/"'o:rM~ <br /> <br />Bruce: Babbitt <br />Secretary <br />U.S. Depattmc.nt of the Interior <br />1849 C Street, N.W. <br />Washington, D.C. 20240 <br /> <br />c, <br />C;C<o . <br /> <br />Dear Secretary Babbitt <br /> <br />We are writing to follow-up on our meeting with you and U.S. Environmental <br />Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner on December 3, 1997, where we <br />discussed our support for the "ALP-Lite" alternative to the Animas-La Plata water <br />Project. At that meeting, we urged the U,S, Department of the Interior to expedite its <br />review of this alternative and to coordinate that review with any necessary additional <br />environmental compliance. <br /> <br />Shortly after our meeting, the Bureau of Reclamation released on December 5, 1997, a <br />"plan of study" to do an "appraisa1leve1" analysis of the two alternatives developed from <br />the RomerlSchoettler process. That plan described a process consuming 900 staff days, <br />$600,000 and 3 to 6 months. <br /> <br />We are concerned and disappointed with this response. Although a review of <br />alternatives may be necessary. it can and should be done much more expeditiously, given <br />all the previous work that has ,been done, <br /> <br />As you know, the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes and the State of Colorado selected as <br />"ALP-Lite" those facilities and de;>!etior.s which were exhaustively examined in the <br />Bureau's 1996 environmental documentation (Stage A) and found to be the preferred <br />alternative having the fewest environmental impacts and costing the least amount of <br />money. These same facilities were specifically endorsed by Congress when it directed <br />Interior in the 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to proceed <br />"without delay," This consensus in favor of ALP-Lite facilities and depletions was <br />repeated in the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report for the <br />fiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (House Report #105-271), which <br />instructed the Bureau to advance a modified project which assured a "new supply of <br />water" for the Ute Tribes, . <br /> <br />UnfortUnately, the Bureau's "plan of stUdy" operates to confuse the public and Congress <br />as to wl\at was accomplished in the Romer/Schnettler process, Finding, after OVcl' <br />twelve months of meetings, that there was no middle ground with project opponents, the <br />Colorado Ute Tribes and the .other J\LP proponents selected reduced facilities and <br /> <br />i I <br />