FLOOD02168

• County: Gunnison
• Community: Uncompahgre Valley
• Basin: Gunnison
• Title: Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project - Hydropower - Part 4 - Scoping Report Gunnison River Contract
• Date: 1/1/1990
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Project

I
, RESPONSE: The EIS discusses impacts on rafting and angling. A
reduction in rafting use is predicted with development
alternatives, while angling may increase. Additional information
can be found in the comments and responses section and in
chapter 3 (the recreation section) of the EIS on streambank
erosion. Alternative A will not maintain flows of 500 to
600 ft'/s.

43. MS. PAMELA ZOLXNZ: I think that there is a fair amount of
evidence that the AB Lateral, at the scale that it's being
planned for would result in a damage of the Gunnison; would
result in damage of the Uncompahgre; would result in damage to
the River Park at Montrose; and might also hurt the trout and
possible Wild and Scenic River designation.

The argument in the DEIS that fish will do all right at low flows
because they have done so occasionally in the past is fallacious;
the system needs time to recover from the impacts, and increasing
the adverse low flows by a factor of seven makes recovery
doubtful.

There are some serious questions on the need for the project.
Also, economic benefits need to be studied. I have a paper that
suggests that we are looking at a plan that will give 4 percent
of the profits of this project to the water users and 96 percent
of the profit to the French. The $4 million net annual profit is
after the annual debt service of $8,754,713, which is a fair
return to the investor for their construction funds of
$63 million. The DEIS indicates that $150,000 annually would be
paid to the water users with no reduction in water charges. This
leaves an approximate net annual profit to Mitex, the French, of
$3,850,000. Thus, the water users are receiving less than
4 percent of the profits during the first 15 years.

The DEIS states after 15 years the water users would receive over
$1 million annually; however, after 15 years, the project will be
paid for, and the water users would receive approximately
$1 million out of a total approximate profit of over
$13.7 million. This is less than 8 percent of the profits. If
one calculates for inflation, at 5 percent, the gross revenues in
15 years will be approximately $28.5 million and the water users
will still receive less than 4 percent of the annual profits of
the project.

If we want a win-win solution, we are going to be looking at a
question of scale, I believe, for this project. We are going to
be looking at a smaller project that gives the water users some
profits, and at the same time protects the existing resources
that we have, which are valuable and irreplaceable.

RESPONSE: Additional information on the impacts of the
development alternatives can be found in chapter 3 of the FEIS
and in the comments and response section. More details on the
referenced calculations are needed for a thorough response to the
comment; however, the figures do not match those calculated by

P-30