WSP02012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

< ~~, 042:1 . . OFFICE OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF PITKIN P.O. BOX I ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 pC/'t'. 'I. 'JL:.IV[{) MAY ')'7 '" J9; fa 5 c. La w u^"[,rVAr ATER ION BOARD May 15, 1975 Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place Washington, D.C. RE: Fryingpan - Arkansas Project Colorado, Final Environmental Impact Statement Gentlemen: This letter is to serve as official objection to the Fryingpan - Arkansas Project Colorado, Final Environmental Impact Statement. As you may know, the Fryingpan - Arkansas project, a water develop- ment project, was authorized for construction, operation and main- tenance by the U.S. Department of Interior on August 16, 1962 under the general authDrity of Public Law 87-590. Major project features include six dams and reservoirs, 18 diversion structures, 10 tunnels with a total length of 27,2 miles, one canal with a length of 5.5 miles, one major conduit of 10.6 miles, two power plants with 1006 miles of transmi~sion line and two municipal and industrial water delivery conduits. The project will increase the salinity of the Colorado River substantially and will deplete the Colorado River Basin of 70,000 acre-feet annually. Having started the construction in 1964 with a projected completion date of 1980, the project has spanned the inception of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, and the arousing of the American environmental consciousness as wello We feel that the project is without clear social, economic or perhaps legal purpose and thorough consideration of the final [,1,5. does not convince us otherwise. Rather, the Final E,I.S. is a collection of engineering data and a comparison of alternative engineering solutions I'lhich all produce the same result from a social, economic and environmental standpoint. As of January 1, 1975 the project had completed 43": of its expenditures, Unfortu~at~ly, the Final E,I.S. does not provide the reader with a ~~rginAl cost ben~fit analysis for the remainder of the project ~ut onl; 5~y;~st5 that given construction to date, 52,500 acre-feet of water could be diverted from the western slope of Colorado annually, with the stated goal of 70,000 acre-feet for annual di- versions the project has accomplished 75% of its work for water development while spending 43% of its funds. Of course, this comparison gives no consideration to the funds to be spent for east slope power generation facilities but the Final [.1,5. gives us no better information. This comparison casts grave doubts on the cost effectiveness of the balance of the project.