WSP01231 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,. o\JlJ\ Report to LUC Narrows Project Jim Ohi Page 4 (b) The State Engineer's office has questioned the computation of costs and benefits due to: (I) underestimation of annual evaporation losses, and (II) overestimation of salable annual project water supply. (e) Both the State Engineer's office and the state Depart- ment of Agriculture have cited the omission of data and computations in the draft EIS to verify the net benefit in agricultural productivity claimed by the USBR for the project. For example, the increase in productivity in the service area due to the supplemental water supply to be made available by the project is estimated by the USBR to be $9,251,000, but no aCKnowledgement, let alone any estimate, is given for the loss of agricultural production on lands to be flooded by the project. 3. The adequacy of the USBR's assessment of alternatives to the project has been questioned. (a) The State Engineer's office finds that the computation of costs and benefits for the weld County site is incomplete. (b) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finds that the assessment of the "no project" alternative is the draft EIS "rather cursory and subjective." EPA also suggests that a "multiple dam alternative" involving a number of smaller darns on ~ributaries of the,South Platte be considered by the USBR. (e) The Regional Landowner's Group has suggested the alternative of artificially recharging the ground water alluvium by diverting water stored in Chatfield Dam through Box Elder Creek and other tributaries, together with smaller flood control and storage dams on these tributaries. I discussed this alternative with the State Engineer's office and was told that it is an alternative worthy of further consideration by the USBR.