Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. ,~ ~ <br /> <br />- 50 <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />analysis. For example, the reader cannot assess the <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />availability of water at the Rangely site without pro- <br /> <br /> <br />jecting the historic flow of the White River, deter- <br /> <br />mining the number of existing absolute decrees within <br />Colorado, ascertaining the number of senior conditional <br /> <br />'- <br /> <br />decrees that would be developed during the life of the <br /> <br />Deseret project (based on realistic upstream levels of <br /> <br />development), calculating return flows, and considering <br /> <br />a variety of other factors. The DEIS is totally silent <br /> <br />on REA's assessment of these factors. No numbers are <br /> <br />provided. REA references a number of studies but does <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />not tell the reader which studies or figures it believes, <br /> <br />nor the reasons for preferring one analysis over another. <br /> <br />As a matter of law, the final EIS must contain this <br /> <br />information. Without it, REA's analysis is inadequate <br />, <br /> <br />to support its conclusions. <br /> <br />Prior to the drafting of the DEIS, voluminous <br /> <br />materials were sent to REA, BLM, and Deseret regarding <br /> <br />availability of water.from the White River. The Direc- <br /> <br />tor of the Colo~ado Water Conservation Board, the <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br />Colorado State Engineer, the Colorado River Water Con- <br /> <br />servation District, numerous consultants, and others <br /> <br />have all concluded that Deseret can be assured of a <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />0382 <br />