Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'. <br /> <br />Report to LUC <br />Narrows Project <br />Jim Ohi <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />0003 <br /> <br />5. A final EIS, which will include responses to comments <br />received by the USBR on the draft EIS, is scheduled to <br />be filed with the CEQ in April. After a 30-day period <br />for comments, the USBR hopes to begin buying land for <br />the darn in June 1976. <br /> <br />Because of Mr. DeVilbiss' questions concerning the status of water <br />rights related to the project, I would like to address this issue <br />separately. <br /> <br />1. On July 15, 1970, the District Court in Weld County awarded <br />the CCWCD and the LSPWCD a conditional decree for the <br />storage of 718,147 acre-feet with a priority date of August 2, <br />1957. The uses of water awarded in the decree are for <br />"present and future uses for irrigation, domestic, industrial, <br />power, municipal, fish and wildlife, recreation and other <br />beneficial uses". <br /> <br />2. On October 18, 1973, the Water Court of Water Division I <br />extended the conditional decree "subject to a showing <br />by the applicants on or before October, 1977 of continued <br />reasonable diligence in the perfection of said conditional <br />rights". The court cited the expansion of the LSPWCD by <br />15,000 acres "in contemplation of construction of the <br />reservoir" and the expenditure of money by the LSPWCD to <br />prepare maps and other data which relate "to the taking <br />of various surface rights in contemplation of condemnation" <br />as evidence, in part, of "reasonable diligence" by the <br />applicants. <br /> <br />I will now describe what I perceive to be the major issues concerning <br />the Narrows project. <br /> <br />1. The innundation of 3 communities and the displacement of <br />150 farm families--community and personal ties will be <br />severed, and economic and emotional hardships will be <br />suffered by the residents of the valley. According to the draft <br />EIS, "the loss of personal and community values . . . . are <br />unavoidable and cannot be adequately evaluated or compensated <br />for". (page VI-6). <br /> <br />2. The USBR'S cost/benefit assumptions and calculations for <br />the project have been questioned-- <br /> <br />(a) According to the USBR, the project has a favorable <br />C/B ratio of 1.4/1 based on a 100 year period <br />with an interest rate of 3 1/4% annually. The <br />current interest rate specified by the Water Resources <br />Council, a Cabinet-level federal coordinating council, <br />is 5.875% (Chatfield Dam final EIS, p. 9). <br />