Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(Q <br />"':l <br />~ <br />o <br />\.~ <br />:::> <br /> <br />wherever possible. Review of the comparative orchard and vineyards <br />temporary ROW acreages in Table 3 for each alternative will show <br />that the design of the canal has attempted to avoid permanent <br />crops, but that construction of the recommended alternatives could <br />temporarily impact about 9 acres of permanent crops in Reach lA, <br />and less than 1 acre in Reach lB. Reclamation may be able to <br />reduce temporary ROW requirements even further for short stretches <br />of the canal. <br /> <br />Comment 16: The proposed purchase of land currently reserved under <br />the 1890 Canal Act in Reach 2 is not necessary. <br /> <br />Resoonse 16: This land is presently used for the canal and <br />operations road and this use would not change. underlying <br />landowners would be paid for the land, however. The change would <br />provide a greater degree of control over uses not compatible with <br />the canal and would clarify boundaries. <br /> <br />Comment 17: The purchase of the required land will reduce my <br />property to an uneconomical size. <br /> <br />Resoonse 17: As indicated in the final EA, efforts are being made <br />to reduce land acquisition needs. In unusual cases where necessary <br />acquisition makes the remainder of the property uneconomical, the <br />entire property may be purchased if the landowner desires. <br /> <br />Comment 18: The purchase of the required land to widen the canal <br />corridor will decrease the enjoyment and value of improvements to <br />my parcel. <br /> <br />Resoonse 18: Any land acquisitions would involve fair compensation <br />of the landowner. As pointed out in the FEIS and the final EA, <br />there would be impacts associated with the construction such as a <br />loss of natural vegetation and there would be changes in the <br />esthetics of the canal corridor. <br /> <br />Comment 19: Recent U.S. surveys do not match surveys of adjacent <br />landowners. <br /> <br />Resoonse 19: Reclamation is aware of some of these discrepancies <br />occurring and would work with the landowners to resolve them. <br /> <br />FencinQ <br /> <br />The associated action of fencing both sides of the canal corridor <br />along the boundary was the most frequently commented on aspect of <br />the project, with 73 letters either strongly opposing or favoring <br />the action. While the GVWUA considers fencing a prerequisite to <br />their agreeing to operate and maintain the canal, opposition to <br />fencing was Point III of the Five-Point plan endorsed by the State <br />legislators, agricultural organizations, local agencies, and many <br />Reach 1 landowners. In general, individuals from Reach IA opposed <br /> <br />47 <br />