FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Without those studies they felt it could not be determined what fluctuations and flushing flows would actually damage the Black Canyon and river environment. Mr. Jorgenson indicated support for the process and stated, "I'm of the opinion if we. can't or don't sustain our natural resources we won't be able to sustain our civilization." The NPCA was critical of BOR's August 1990, AB Lateral Final EIS and felt strongly that a draft EIS on the proposed contract should be edited by a professional who would identify missing information and improve organization. They went on to say one of the NEP A objectives is meaningful public participation in federal decision-making. Meeting this objective requires an EIS written in plain language with a clear and thorough presentation of issues, alternatives, and impacts and adequate comment periods. They suggested the comment period extend for at least 6 months, and hearings be held in Denver and Boulder as well as in western slope cities. The Preliminary Working Draft for a contract raised several concerns: the City of Colorado Springs questioned if the BOR and NPS may alter flow regimes "for other mutually agreed purposes" without consultation with other affected entities or contrary to established operating principles? What notice, if any, will be given regarding release changes? Will release changes be considered a major federal action? The NPCA wrote that potential interference from AB Lateral concerns them: Section 8(b) provides that UVWUA (a sponsor of AB Lateral) will be an interested party and will be invited to give input to the water release schedule meetings. Undoubtedly, W AP A will also have input into the question of water release schedules and. both could have great influence over the timing of those deliveries. The draft prohibits interference with Aspinall Unit purposes and the BOR has the final say in any dispute over timing of releases (with the possibility of Secretarial intervention). They asked what implications this has for disagreements between the BOR and NPS over the timing of releases, and suggested that other alternatives for resolution of disagreements between the BOR and NPS and ways to avoid disagreements should be built into the contract. They felt generalized guideline scenarios for releases could be incorporated into the contract and would be useful in reducing discretion and ambiguity leading to disagreements over release schedules. The Preliminary Working Draft states the contract may only be terminated by mutual consent of the NPS, BOR and CWCB. CREDA asked: what is the legal basis for binding the U.S. to I a contract with a state agency in this fashion? What happens if the two federal agencies disagree? The term "extreme or unusual circumstances" is used but not defmed in the contract ~ (subparagraph 3.ce). Is it intended that either federal agency can veto carry-over storage under this provision? Why is there no provision for consultation with other affected parties? The Montrose Economic Development Council and CREDA question the contract term being "in perpetuity." Is it possible to limit the contract to about 10 years, after which time it could be reevaluated given changing circumstances? Can the U.S. enter into a contract in perpetuity? If so, what are the implications should Congress legislate in a manner inconsistent with the provision of the contract? The Montrose Economic Development Council questioned that if the State ultimately develops its 300,000 acre-feet, and the NPS controls all the rest of the Aspinall 38