Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />as we have to on the Yamcolo project? <br /> <br />MR. SCHUSTER: The environmental analysis has been completed, yes. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: And supplied to the Forest Service? <br /> <br />MR. SCHUSTER: The Bureau of Reclamation supplied it.to the Forest <br />Service. I got the cover letter about a month ago where they had <br />transmitted it. <br /> <br />MR. FETCHER: I would be very curious to learn whether you're going to <br />require a full impact statement as a result of this. <br /> <br />MR. SCHUSTER: We don't believe we will, mainly because there.is an <br />existing reservoir there that's been there since 1905. It's just a <br />matter of correcting a very hazardous situation and meanwhile increasing <br />the capacity of the-reservoir. ' ' <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Of the seven thousand acre-feet of active storage, what <br />percentage of that will be used for irrigation? ' <br /> <br />MR. SCHUSTER: Seven thousand acre-feet will be used for irrigation.. <br />All of it, to answer your question. Only two hundred and seventy feet <br />will be a conservation pool. <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Do you have any plans in the future for changing use to <br />municipal or industrial? <br /> <br />MR. S8HUSTER: At the present, there aren't those plans. The toWn of <br />Hotchkiss does own two hundred shares of the ten thousand shares, which <br />they can use for municipal water. ' <br /> <br />MR. SHERMAN: Who makes the decision for the change of use? <br /> <br />MR. SCHUSTER: It would be the owners of the Overland. <br /> <br />MR. CONNELLY: My name is Dave Connelly, Mayor of Hotchkiss, and we do <br />have three hundred shares. This Forest Service requirement is a one <br />time commitment, the fifty-five thousand. We are not required to main- <br />tain it. They will maintain it. <br /> <br />MR. SCHUSTER: The Forest Service will maintain. it. It's a one shot <br />commitment. In the original plan we had approximately five hundred <br />thousand dollars worth of recreational facilities. The scaled down <br />plan is only fifty-five thousand. <br /> <br />MR. STAPLETON: Any further questions? <br /> <br />MR. JACKSON: More of a comment than a question. <br />compliment Larry on his new priority listing and <br />this is a great help. <br /> <br />One other thing that might be of help to us is a per person or per farm, <br />in other words-, per user cost. Thanks to my good neighbor on the Board <br /> <br />I would like to. <br />arrangements. I think <br /> <br />~33- <br />