WSP03260 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o l"\J ~ o -, corridors for bicycle and walking paths have resulted in the canal ~, O&M road becoming an unauthorized recreational resource to local residents. Use by recreationists is heavy in areas near Grand Junction. Definitive studies of the recreational use along the canal have not been conducted, but significant public use, including unauthorized vehicle use, swimming and "tubing" occurs. This recreational use causes increased liability to the GVWUA and the U.S. because of potential accidents. While efforts to legislatively limit the liability of the GVWUA and the U.S. would help to solve this problem, it would not protect against potential court expenses. Abusive and disruptive use have resulted in damage to the canal facilities and the property of adjacent landowners. The policing of the corridor to control abuses is beyond the capabilities of the GVWUA. The meandering alignment of the Government Highline Canal along with the grasses and cattails that grow along it, combine with the moving water to provide esthetic diversity to the valley. Scattered cottonwoods grow along the canal bank, and protected areas within the canal corridor often support vegetation not found in the surrounding orchards, fields, or residential areas. The esthetic importance of the canal is valued by many residents. Because it is beyond the scope and authority of the Salinity control project to provide for recreational use of the canal corridor, no recreation plans for the Government Highline Canal were proposed in the FEIS and this would not change under the lining alternatives considered in this assessment. Reclamation believes the improvements under the salinity control program, including fencing, do not preclude future recreation use and could encourage future safer use of the canal corridor. However, for safety reasons, stricter adherence to gated fencing policies would be required along any sections lined with concrete. The opening of the corridor by Reclamation to non-motorized recreational use would require planning and the involvement of a managing entity capable of assuming O&M and enforcement responsibilities. It would also require the concurrence of the GVWUA to ensure that public use would not interfere with O&M of the canal. Concrete lining (Alternatives Cl and C2l would do more to preclude such future recreation uses due to the inherent safety problems with concrete lining. In the absence of a well-planned and managed recreation program, fencing the boundary in all of the alternatives would help diminish the liability, abusive, and disruptive use of the corridor and help protect the investment of the public in the canal. While esthetics are often an individual preference, there are substantial differences between the appearances of membrane and concrete-lined canals. The concrete-lined canal supports little or no adjacent vegetation and presents a highly structured, almost sterile, appearance. The membrane-lined canal appears more natural and supports more vegetation along the banks. 31