BOARD02195 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I that could be provided water and served without detriment to the remaining 2/3rds of the land in the lower South Platte, it cannot be support- ed but must be resisted. Once a project of this type is undertaken it produces irreversi- ble and permanent results. To destroy the Weldon valley and deny the 25,000 acres of land of the Bijou Irrigation System and the 22,000 acres of the Riverside Irrigation System the opportunity for additional water is not only not in the best interests of our local community and Morgan County but is not in the best inter- ests of the economy and the effective and efficient use of water for the whole State of Colorado. All this is true notwithstanding the position of the Bureau of Reclamation and, particularly, makes the position of the Bureau of Reclamation suspect. The history of this situation is that many of the plans and projec- tions of costs of the Bureau have been shown to be in error by engineers of the State Water Conservation Board and independent engineers hired by the State Water Conservation Board. We are now confronted with a situation where projected costs made by the Bureau bears no resemblance to realities. Notwithstanding the fact that the Woodward, Clyde and Sherard Engineering firm has studied the terrain and categorically stated that from an engineering and geological standpoint the lower Weld county site is superior to the Narrows site, the Bureau still attempts to maintain that the cost there would be greater although apparently conceding th~c a larger and better use of water could be made from the Weld County site. I The criteria that the Bureau uses in projecting costs on the one site as against the other are not the same and bear no relation to the physical attributes and facts. One can only conclude that the Bureau's position is prompted by some unknown motivation but is filled with gross error. Another factor that should be weighed is that even if it should cost more to build the