Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />~l <br />~ <br />C) <br />" accommodation of access problems. GVWUA acceptance of any <br />~') alternative would be contingent upon the canal corridor being <br />suitably fenced and used exclusively for O&M purposes. <br /> <br />Orqanizations: Ten organizations associated with agriculture <br />commented either during development or after release of the draft <br />EA. They included: Club 20, Colorado Wine Industry Development <br />Board, Mesa County Land Conservancy, orchard Mesa Research Center <br />(Colorado state University), palisade Chamber of Commerce, Palisade <br />National Bank, Rocky Mountain vintnersjViticulturists, united Fruit <br />Growers Association, Western Colorado Fruit Growers Association, <br />and Western Colorado Horticulturists. Most organizations support <br />lining the canal, but were concerned with impacts of land <br />acquisition, fencing, and access limitations. <br /> <br />Interested Individuals: Eighty-one letters were received from <br />individuals; the majority were from landowners along both sides of <br />Reach 1. Specifically, letters received were from 28 landowners <br />along Reach lA at the east end of the canal (the first 3.6 miles); <br />29 landowners adjacent to Reach lB of the east end (the next 7.4 <br />miles); and 24 individuals who are either landowners adjacent to <br />Reach 2 (the 20-mile middle portion) or are otherwise interested in <br />the project. Reach 1 landowners' comments were also helpful in <br />identifying concerns with and impacts of the proposed project to <br />their individual situations. Most of the comments received from <br />individuals about Reach 2 concerned fencing of the canal corridor <br />and its impacts on recreational use. <br /> <br />Five point plan: The majority of the letters from the above- <br />mentioned organizations, State legislators, and many Reach 1 <br />landowners adopted or endorsed a set of concerns which is included <br />at the end of this chapter. This set of concerns outlines a "Five <br />point plan" of modifications to the lining of the east end of the <br />canal which was agreed upon at a meeting of concerned citizens in <br />Palisade and submitted to Reclamation. While there were <br />variations, the points were also included by reference in all of <br />the letters received from the State legislators, and in many of the <br />letters from Reach 1 landowners. In the next "specific Comments <br />and Responses" section, the "Five points" (and associated <br />"subpoints") phrased within this position will be addressed. The <br />five points are: 1) oppose the "taking" of private land, 2) <br />temporary ROWs should avoid all permanent crops, 3) oppose fencing <br />for a variety of reasons, 4} a permit system for operational access <br />to the canal lands should be arranged, and 5) legal and operational <br />access must be guaranteed. <br /> <br />38 <br />