FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I conditions and that post-development flows would aggravate this problem. RESPONSES to COMMENTS 1-26 through 1-33 and the EIS contain additional information on this subject. Riprapping by dropping boulders on the bank and channelization have both been eliminated from the bank stabilization plan as indicated in chapter 2 of the EIS. The channel protection plan would be funded by the hydropower project; cost estimates include contingencies to reduce the chances of cost overruns. A sinking fund would be established to fund future channel maintenance. Extensive channel protection activities presently occur on the river and are funded by the individual landowners, the UVWUA, or local governments. 21. MS. REGINA SOWELL: The project does not make economic or environmental sense. There is too much electricity now and too much demand on the Gunnison River. The costs of the project outweigh the benefits; if it is built and turns out to be a mistake, who will pay? RESPONSE: The EIS discusses the need and use of the power produced and the effects on the Gunnison River. There would be some flexibility in future years to change the operation of the project if "it turns out to be a mistake," but this flexibility would be limited by water rights, financial arrangements, and legal agreements. Also see RESPONSE to COMNBNT F-70. 22. MR. BRICK SOWELL: The power is not needed; do we need a water company to generate it? Power would go to the eastern slope; there are enough people there. Shall we continue to supply them with our raw materials of power and water? If we don't need this power, we don't need this project. RESPONSE: Please see RESPONSE to COMMZNT F-6 concerning need for power. The power will be used outside of the immediate area for at least the first 15 years of operation. 23. MR. HANK HOTSB: Has a number of specific questions and concerns about the DEIS; these will be sent to Reclamation. The project is causing conflicts in the valley. It is up to the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association to make this decision, but it's not up to the users to sacrifice a National Resource. We have an opportunity here to put a project in line, to keep a river flowing, and to bring tourism and recreation into the area, and to benefit agriculture. The environmental community and the water users need to seek a compromise. For a few hundred second feet of water, the water users can have a project, the rafters can continue to float, and the quality fishery can remain. Reclamation can help with Blue Mesa. I propose that the Bureau act as a mitigating agent, and pull us together, and we come up with a plan that we can all sign off on, and we are all in a better situation. P-16