WSP02666 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEATURE Continued from front page Supplemental Environmenral Impact Statement (2000 EIS) by the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau), yet another supplement to rhe original 1980 EIS, The 2000 EIS derails a comparison of 10 alrernarives for building ALp, given But opposing groups still aren't convinced that building a reservoir is a worthwhile endeavor for taxpayers or the environment, especially when it is still nor known how the project's water will be used for certain. "Primarily, our objection to ALP is the waste of taxpayers' dollars in a heavily subsidized water development "We need to exercise our trust responsibility and settle those water rights." - David J. Hayes, Deputy Secretary of the Interior ----..-. cun-em restrictions under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), including two non- structural alternatives strongly supported by those opposed (0 building a reservoir, From those] 0 alternatives, the Bureau has selected what it deems to be the most environmentally feasible - a 120,000 acre-feet reservoir. "\V'hat is motivat- ing us to propose this very scaled-down, off.. stream reservoir IS that it will provide the tribes with the potcnrialto realize and utilize their water right," said David J. Hayes, deputy secretary of the Interior. "We need (Q exercise our trust responsibility and settle those water riglus," scheme in which there is no use for the water," said Michael Black, president of 'Elxpayers for the Animas River. Instead, opponents have suggested that tribes be given money to plll'chase land and water rights to meet the settlement instead of building a reservoir - a plan which the recent 2000 EIS determined was not the best alternative. To add to the conundrum, the clock is ticking on a potential time bomb for non-Indian water users of the rivers. As stipulated in the agreement intended to grant outstanding water rights to the tribes - the 1988 congressionaJly approved Settlement Act - water must be delivered from a constructed ALP to 4 . COl.ORADO RIVER PROJECT . RIVER REPORT . SPRING 1999 the tribes by 2000 or the uibes have an option until 2005 to re-open water rights settlements on the Animas and La Plata rivers through the COUrts. The Bureau conceded several years ago that it does not have time to meet the deadline even if funds were available. "We've waited a heck of a long time, over 10 years, since we signed an agreement with the president of the United States to have that water delivered to us," said Clement Frost, former chairman of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe. "\'\!hy wait longer for something to happen when nothing has happened to datd" The possibility of the tribes reopen- ing litigation over water rights 011 the Animas and La Plata rivers is a poten- tially detrimental situation for non- Indian parties in the basin (ironicaIJy, most of whom side with the Colorado Utes in their support ofH.R, 3112). Such reopened litigation could allow the Colorado Utes even greater water allocations than currently allotted them under the '88 agreement because of their senior water rights holder status. "The implications are extremely far teaching," said Greg Walcher, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. "The state would be the defendant if such a lawsuit were to occur and we'lJ have to Come up with enormous amounts of money to deal with it," Walcher said local governments and other water users in the state could stand to lose large volumes of water. This issue of River Report profiles the evolution of ALP duough the decades, the decisions, dilemmas and debates encompassing this issue, from the Winters Doctrine to the Bureau's latest preferred alternative for ALP. The Latest Face of ALP In October 1999, ReI" McInnis introduced H,R. 3112 - the latest attempt to get ALP built. H,R. 3112, like the administration's Ultra Lite proposal, is significantly downsized from the plan proposed in 1968 due to absence of the irrigation