Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />0427 <br /> <br />2. The lack of attention to the Ruedi problem apoears <br />to invalidate the E,I.S. work in Chapter III on the <br />impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado basin, The <br />analysis is inadequate in that only the dilution phenomenon <br />was cons idered. <br /> <br />II. Hunter Creek Diversions <br /> <br />The Hunter Creek Diversion system was originally conceived as re- <br />placement water to eventually be delivered to Twin Lakes Canal Com- <br />pany in exchange for release of Twin Lakes diversions on the Roaring <br />Fork Rivet' in order to maintain minimum flow provisions on the uppcr <br />Roaring Fork ahovc I\spell, (PRH:CIPlE 11.; OPERATING PRInCIPLES, <br />FRYlNGPI\I~-ARJ(,\NSI\S SYSTE:-1) This is critical in that the E.I.S, <br />ment ions noth i ng of the ph i losophy tha t stands beh i nd the sys tenl <br />design and plans for operation. Certainly this Doint should stand <br />in some form of opposition to Hunter Creek diversions especially in <br />light of the fact that Fry,Ark and Twin Lakes ComDany never con- <br />sumated the agreclllent for Roaring Fork flOI'1 protection l'/hich is the <br />very rationale for the Hunter-No Name-Mid\'lay collection net\'lOrks. <br />This background leJus to several conclusions: <br /> <br />A. The E.J,S is inadequate in its discussion of the benefits <br />to be derived from the Hunter Creek diversion network. (CEf) ~ 150Cl.3 <br />(a) (1,3) <br /> <br />B. Thc E.I,5. speaks only of municipal and industrial uses for <br />the water with only cursory discussion of irrigation, The report is <br />devoid of any analYSis of system manipulation and exchange which might <br />be used to improve the streamflow conditions in the collection area. <br />It is our information that Ruedi water could be used to sell to west <br />slope users vii th revenues to accrue to T<li n Lakes Company; n exch"n~e <br />for Roaring Fork minimum stream flOl'1 protection, The E, I ,5, exu'IG!'es <br />no alternative system o~erations that could be used to enhance the <br />environment at no further cost to the taxpayer. This is a,glaring <br />deficiency. As vie 11 , such exchanges are mandated by Prlnc1ple 11 of <br />the Fry-Ark operating principles, (CEQ!i 1500,8 (a) (3,4,5) ). <br /> <br />C, The report does not discuss the status of project approval <br />through Congl'ess or the basis for original approval, The argurilent <br />for thl'> Hunter Creek system is certailllv I'leak in li~ht of T...lin Lakes <br />attitude of rji,!p..,tinn all the Roar-inn Fork <latcl' tllat the'! on net <br />iil1j t:....:,,~f1ce of "ai-I/" a0reC::'.~nt by them"to the COntl~2r'y. (CE0 ~ l~CC.C, <br />(,,) (,1) ) <br /> <br />III. 1_~:-! !~t".'j.~.~: ~~:,"t Cf-:'~~lce Creek <br /> <br />Project dive,'siuns to,' Lime and last Chance Creeks have been temp- <br />orarily "dcfen-cd", p,s a result there i.s no mention of thelll in <br />the E. I ,5. <br /> <br />-4- <br />