Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />_~ In general, comments from the various political entities and <br />=, organizations included: <br /> <br />U.S. Conqress: Representative Campbell recommended cost effective <br />lining and urged minimizing problems with landowners/agriculture; <br />Senator Brown, prior to release of assessment, wrote to urge <br />Reclamation to work to resolve community concerns. Both support <br />program. <br /> <br />Federal Aqencies: The Soil Conservation Service stated that the <br />preferred alternative (Ml) minimized problems. <br /> <br />State Aqencies: The Colorado Water Conservation Board rejected no- <br />action as not meeting salinity criteria, and supported Alternative <br />Ml, urging Reclamation to work on minimizing ROW acquisition. They <br />could also support M4. The Colorado Department of Agriculture <br />supported lining of the canal, but opposed acquisition of <br />significant ROWand urged accommodation of farmer needs concerning <br />access and fencing. The Colorado Division of wildlife recommended <br />membrane over concrete and fencing designs that permit deer <br />crossing. <br /> <br />State Leqislators: The Colorado House of Representatives <br />unanimously passed a joint resolution (HJR-9l-l035) which urged <br />Reclamation to line the canal utilizing a design that does not <br />require acquisition of agricultural land. Letters from State <br />Senator Bishop, and State Representatives Foster, Prinster, and <br />MCInnis, all generally supported the lining of the canal, if <br />impacts to agricultural lands are minimized and farmers' <br />access/fencing needs are accommodated. <br /> <br />Citv and Countv Aqencies: The Mesa County Commissioners and <br />Planning Commission both supported a combination of Alternatives C2 <br />and M4 for Reach 1 in which most of Reach lA would be concrete <br />lined, and where the centerline is adjusted to avoid widening of <br />the corridor where membrane is used. They also recommended fencing <br />the ROW boundary only in problem areas and where requested by the <br />adjacent landowner; and they suggested that existing access, <br />including private bridges, should be considered "grandfathered <br />uses." The Mesa County Horticulture Pest Inspector expressed <br />concerns that any fencing in agricultural areas, and to a lesser <br />extent membrane lining, would aggravate noxious weed and <br />agricultural pest control problems. <br /> <br />Grand Valley Water Users Association: As the contracting <br />organization responsible for the operation and maintenance of the <br />Government Highline Canal, the GVWUA strongly supported lining of <br />the canal and required uninhibited access and work area along both <br />sides of canal. They saw a need for fencing to provide exclusive <br />use of the O&M corridor, with restrictive but reasonable <br /> <br />37 <br />