WSPC00105 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

16 interests. Native Americans. water-importing cities. conservationists. agricultural interests. Just as the gavel was to open the bearing. two crowds of proleSters took the stage, pro-dam and ami-dam forces vying for space and the attention of the Senator and Representative. After marshals removed them, the hearing began in earnest. l...c.ad wilness Neils GriIl:RS. an economist-hydrologist., explained the interbasin proposal and discussed the level of urban conservation that would be needed in lieu of the project. He discussed the complexity of agricultural water conservalion and the difference between urban consumptive waler use and agricullural use by diversion. He described the water marketing concept. pointing ow thar it might foresr.aJ] the need for some projects but would 001 preclude them ahogether. The hearing then proceeded through its list of witnesses beginning with the mayors of the Russell. the water-importing city and Johnsville. the first city downstream of the proposed project; a representative of lhe Big Springs Tribe. some of whose land would be inundated by the COYOle Aats reservoir: Walter Holyfield. representing Friends ofCoyOlc Rats; Royk' Dunn. Trout Unlimited: Jane Worker, AR...cIO; Bill Goodfellow, social worker. James Rising Sun. a dissidenl tribal member; Jeremiah G~philus, Friends of Red Canyon; Mark Trail, U.s. Forest Service Supervisor; Ricardo Remuda. fanner; and Sharon Weat1lerby, rancher. .. ~. :. .... !p", .~' .. .... .......... The testimony highlighted the many facets of the different issues surrounding such a project. The Mayor of Russell, the large water-seeking cilY, testified thai even with the city's newly developed water use plan Russell would need more waler. The Mayor of Johnsville, the fITst town downstream of the proposed project, expressed her awe of the big city hub (with a slight tone of sarcasm), but suggested that the mayor of Russell should come 10 the table with a clean slate. not with a fully developed project plan. She said that the issue was not an environmental or economic question but a lifestyle question: who decides what in their own art'a. The Chair of the Big Springs Tribe supported the project. pan of a recently CongressionaJly-appwved agreemem with the tribe. Her tribe's support was nOI to waler lawns or provide recreation, she said. but was for the survival of her people. She said thai if the water rights were litigated, the Big Spring Tribe could establish rights 10 moo or all of the waler, but they were not interested in taking water from rivcrs. She also testified thai. contrary 10 press repans. no sacred sites would be inundated by the project. James Rising Sun. another member of the Big Springs Tribe. later testified that the project would adversely impact access to a sacred sile near Johnsvillc. In addition, he raised questions aboul how Indian graves that might be found at the project site during construction would be handled. referring to a recent prolest by Indian students at a nearby university where Indian remains had been broughl after cxhumation. .,,~.... :.:.~' -. ...... -, ......,. ! ........- ~ ...-......:........ ~\ .:...~ -..... '.. ~ ~ ~ "'. -;: -,".... 4- ,