Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />("rj <br />..-.I <br />o <br />Cy <br />.::..") <br /> <br />Response 10: Fencing of the ROWand access permit policies are <br />described in a new section entitled "Associated Actions" for <br />application to all of the alternatives. To protect existing access <br />uses and agriculture, Reclamation would issue permits for existing <br />access. This includes permits for private bridges which are <br />certified by a licensed engineer as to their limits on use. The <br />fencing policy also allows for openings to ownerships that are <br />currently utilizing the canal lands for access. <br /> <br />Land Acouisition <br /> <br />Almost all of the Reach lA landowners and half of the Reach lB <br />landowners and individuals wrote that they opposed the acquisition <br />of fee land, especially of farmland in "permanent crops." One <br />comment was received from a Reach 2 landowner in opposition to the <br />fee title purchase of land currently reserved under the 1890 Canal <br />Act. <br /> <br />Comment 11: We oppose the "taking" of private land for <br />purpose; condemnation should not be used in any cases. <br />private land to widen the canal corridor is unnecessary <br />the fact that the alternatives list several options for <br />within the current easement. <br /> <br />this <br />The use of <br />in view of <br />lining <br /> <br />Response 11: Reclamation is not sure what is meant by the "taking" <br />of land. Reclamation would be negotiating with individual <br />landowners and purchasing land at a fair market value. Reclamation <br />intends to fully compensate the landowner for the temporary use or <br />permanent loss of their land. Between designing the canal to avoid <br />or minimize the use of high value lands and working with willing <br />sellers to satisfy temporary construction needs, Reclamation plans <br />to minimize land acquisition problems and hopes to avoid expensive <br />and controversial condemnation actions. Where such actions cannot <br />be avoided, condemnation actions would be used. Alternatives have <br />been modified and recommended that would minimize the amount of fee <br />acquisition. <br /> <br />Comment 12: Adequate information on the costs of land acquisition <br />should be provided to judge the alternatives with and without land <br />acquisition. <br /> <br />Response 12: In Table 1, land costs are included in the <br />construction costs because they are considered an inherent cost of <br />utilizing alternative construction methods and protecting the <br />interests of the public while negotiations for purchase of both <br />permanent and temporary ROWs between the U.S. and the private <br />landowners. To avoid making Alternative Ml appear to be more cost <br />effective than the alternatives which do not involve permanent <br />widening of the canal corridor, consistent estimates of acquiring <br />lands were used. Therefore, adequate information is given to <br />evaluate the maximum cost of avoiding permanent land acquisition <br />for each Reach. The EA has been revised to explain this. <br /> <br />45 <br />