Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-"..~. <br /> <br />.--=... <br /> <br />. .-"-. -~~~-~- <br /> <br />.V <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />- 29 - <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />-' <br /> <br />most likely sites, it also indicates that all actions have <br /> <br />been premised on a decision to proceed with the Bonanza <br />site. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />6. In discussing the selection of possible sites, . <br /> <br />the draft EIS states that reliance was placed on recommen- <br /> <br /> <br />dations of the Utah State Siting Committee (DEIS at 35). <br /> <br /> <br />We think it self-evident that to the extent such a com- <br /> <br /> <br />mittee made recommendations, they were necessarily de- <br /> <br />signed to eliminate consideration of a Colorado site. <br /> <br />Thus, they clearly were intended to and probably had the <br /> <br />effect of precluding the kind of fair-minded and open <br /> <br />consideration of all alternatives that is contemplated <br /> <br />both by NEPA and the implementing regulations. <br /> <br />7. Similarly, in discussing another rationale for <br /> <br />placing the plant at the Bonanza site, the draft EIS ac- <br /> <br />cepts at face value a statement by the Utah State Engineer, <br /> <br /> <br />solicited by the applicant in June 1980, that he would be <br /> <br /> <br />"very reluctant" to approve Utah water for use in connec- <br /> <br /> <br />tion with a Colorado plant site. DEIS App. 2 at R-5, <br /> <br />R-6. As we discuss below, the statement by the Utah State <br /> <br />Engineer both prejudges the question which the same official <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />-' <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />0386 <br />