Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r-- <br />M <br />~ <br />o <br /> <br />"'~l <br /> <br />fencing, and individuals from Reach lB favored fencing on the north <br />side, but opposed it on the south side. Almost all letters <br />received from individuals concerned fencing along Reach 2 and <br />opposed it, primarily because they believed it would prohibit use <br />of the canal corridor as a hiking or biking trail. <br /> <br />r.. _I <br /> <br />Comment 20: In the case of all lining alternatives, acceptance of <br />the contract to O&M the canal faci~ties by the GVWUA is contingent <br />upon the canal corridor being suitably fenced and gated as an <br />exclusive, unshared O&M corridor. Anything less results in <br />circumstances that complicate the GVWUA's ability to meet its O&M <br />obligations and thereby brings about costs that are unacceptable to <br />the GVWUA and its hundreds of assessed members. The GVWUA has <br />stated many reasons for this position; among those reasons is to <br />help control trespass and thus discourage the use of the canal as a <br />dump, reduce use of the canal banks for swimming, water skiing, <br />parties, and vandalism, controlling vehicular traffic and <br />associated problems, and its importance to contributing to the <br />safety of the public and wildlife, especially in the case of a <br />concrete-lined canal. <br /> <br />ResDonse 20: Both the FEIS and final EA provide for fencing of the <br />canal corridor. This fencing is designed to protect the canal and <br />its operation. The final EA also provides protection of existing <br />access through the fence for irrigation operations, agricultural <br />operations, and access to residences. <br /> <br />Comment 21: We oppose the fencing of the canal corridor because it <br />will require growers to take more land out of production for turn- <br />arounds, thus making the actual widening larger than stated in the <br />study. This action in conjunction with a lack of turn-around <br />policy will take 66 acres instead of 30.8 acres out of production <br />in the II-mile Reach 1 for Alternative MI. This is assuming that <br />25 additional feet of permanent ROW will be acquired on the north, <br />plus an additional 25 feet of ROW use along both sides of the canal <br />will be eliminated. <br /> <br />ResDonse 21: The quantification of the number of acres of <br />Federally owned land which property owners are currently using is <br />unknown. Since there is a substantial amount of non-agricultural <br />land north of the canal, not all farming activities require a <br />"turnaround" off the field, and most landowners contain their <br />activities to their own land. Therefore, the real effect of this <br />policy is substantially less than 66 acres. Agricultural use of <br />the O&M roads and the associated lack of fences is not compatible <br />with safety for the general public, maintenance of the Federal <br />property, liability, protection, and future replacement of the <br />canal improvements. Contracts between the Federal Government and <br />the private landowners to protect the Government from these <br />concerns are not effective. The private unauthorized use of <br />government land is acknowledged. It is a disservice to taxpayers <br />in general to allow unauthorized use of Federal land by a few <br /> <br />48 <br />