My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00097
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00097
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:12:45 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:31:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8443.600
Description
Narrows Unit - Studies
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
3/21/1977
Author
Various
Title
Various Report Items Related to Narrows Unit
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />J <br /> <br />of Plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Morgan County and <br />all citizens of the SLate of Colorado. <br />(4) The Plaintiffs have suffered legal <br />wrong by agency actions, findings, and conclusions which <br /> <br />have either been arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in <br /> <br />accordance with law or; contrary to Plaintiffs' constitutional <br />rights or; in violation of statutes or; in violation of <br />procedures whose observance by the Defendants is required by <br />law. (5 U.S.C. Sec. 706) The relevant statutes which <br />supply meaning are the National Environmental Policy Act, <br />the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Water Project <br />Recreation Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the <br />U. S. Constitution as is hereinafter more fully set forth. <br />(5) The Defendants have failed to <br />follo~ the pOlicy mandates of the National Environmental <br />Policy Act (NEPA) including, but not limited to, the following <br /> <br />acts and omissions: <br /> <br />i. The Defendants have <br />failed to conduct a full good faith consideration, balancing <br />and review of the Harrows in light of its environmental <br />imflac t. <br /> <br />ii. The Defendants failed to <br />comply with NEPA prior to decision-making. <br />iii. The Defendants failed to <br />submit FES lias early as possible. 11 <br />iv. The Defendants failed to <br /> <br />follow the guidelines of CEQ. <br /> <br />v. The Defendants failed to <br />meet the challenges of public agencies and Plaintiffs describing <br />ueficiencies in DES. <br /> <br />vi. The Defendants failed to <br /> <br />file a ~rue final LIS. <br /> <br />.li__ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.