Laserfiche WebLink
<br />06/271.00 Tl~ 10:30 FAX 303 312 6897 <br /> <br />SUPERFUKD <br /> <br />19j uuo <br />, <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />1986 settlement of the Colorado Ute Tribal water right claims and specific congressional <br />legislation implementing that settlement. Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are <br />considering project-related legislation. Should future legislation alter the proposed project, for <br />example, by failing to deauthorize the much larger project that was authorized by the 1988 <br />legislation. or through any other change, then EP A will reconsider these comments accordingly, <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />The PFSEIS describes two proposed versions of the project, Refined Alternative 4 and <br />Refined Alternative 6. <br /> <br />Refined Alternative 4 is designed to achieve the fundamental purpose of securing the <br />Colorado Ute Tribes an assured water supply. The structural component of Refined Alternative 4 <br />would include an off-stream storage reservoir at Ridges Basin with approximatelyl20,000 acre- <br />feet total capacity, a pumping plant, a reservoir inlet conduit, and a pipeline designed to transport <br />treated muniCipal water to Shiprock, New Mexico. <br /> <br />Refined Alternative 6 proposes that water rights under the 1988 Settlement Act be <br />obtained through (1) raising an existing dam and the coordinated operation of existing federal <br />projects in the area, and (2) purchase of water rights on irrigated agricultural land, or (3) a <br />combination of both. Refined Alternative 6 also includes the same pipeline to Shiprock and <br />measures to avoid impacting wetlatids resulting from purchasing water and transferring it to <br />municipal and industrial uses. <br /> <br />The purpose and need for this proposed action are primarily to provide the Colorado Ute <br />Tribes with an assured long-term water supply in order to satisfy their senior water rights as <br />quantified in the Colorado Ute Tribes Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988. Thus, in this case, <br />the ultimate end use to which the water is to be put is not relevant to assuring that this purpose is <br />accomplished and need not be specified in order to identify reasonable or practicable alternatives <br />for addressing the basic project purpose. However, we do appreciate that the DSEIS identifies <br />potential "non-binding" water uses which provide a basis for comparison of impacts of such <br />uses. In most circumstances, it would not be appropriate to define the purpose of a water project <br />so broadly. Instead, the project purpose would reflect intended uses for the water, and the <br />analysis under the Guidelines would focus on identifying alternatives that support those uses. <br /> <br />Consistency with the Guidelines <br /> <br />The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines outline the process for assessing <br />proposed discharges. They set out four restrictiogs on discharge. <br /> <br />The first of these is a requirement that a discharge not be allowed if there is a practicable <br />alternative that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the <br />a1temative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. (40 CFR <br /> <br />2 <br />