My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03260
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03260
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:49:29 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:37:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.120.10
Description
Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
9/10/1991
Title
Final Environmental Assessment: Alternative Lining Methods for the Government Highline Canal - Grand Valley Unit
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
EIS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
68
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />00 <br />C"'? <br />~ <br />o <br />C~ <br />',~ <br /> <br />individuals thereby increasing the taxpayers and farmers costs to <br />operate and maintain salinity facilities. <br /> <br />Comment 22: Fencing will make pest and weed control more <br />difficult, as pointed out by the Mesa county Pest Control <br />Inspector. Growers cannot be expected to maintain land they cannot <br />access. (Growers have historically maintained the canal corridor.) <br /> <br />I ' <br /> <br />Resoonse 22: Fences do make weed mowing more difficult. The <br />primary responsibility for weed control in the canal corridor is <br />placed with the GVWUA. Apparently some individuals also spray or <br />mow weeds in the canal corridor and fencing could restrict this. <br />Following construction, the GVWUA would still be responsible and <br />fences would not interfere with this responsibility. The canal has <br />been fenced on both sides from 18 Road to the canal's terminus for <br />several years and there are no weed problems. <br /> <br />Comment 23: Fencing will add to the cost of the project, possibly <br />as much as $1 million, thus offsetting the cost difference between <br />concrete and membrane. Reclamation's proposal to construct a 6- <br />foot chain link fence will unnecessarily cost the taxpayers between <br />$465,000 and $930,000. <br /> <br />Resoonse 23: Fencing costs and <br />in Chapter II of the final EA. <br />6-foot chain link fence. <br /> <br />design are presented in more detail <br />The fence design does not include a <br /> <br />Comment 24: <br />enjoyment of <br />and/or noisy <br /> <br />Fences are needed to protect the property and <br />adjacent property owners from destructive, abusive, <br />use by a disrespectful minority. <br /> <br />Resoonse 24: The canal corridor in Reaches 1 and 2 is presently <br />fenced in some areas. Fencing is planned primarily to protect the <br />canal and to provide a measure of safety; however, fencing also <br />provides protection to adjacent private landowners. <br /> <br />Comment 25: If fences prevent the drowning of one toddler, they <br />are worth the expense. <br /> <br />Resoonse 25: Fencing does increase safety. Many private <br />landowners along the canal have constructed their own fences along <br />the canal. <br /> <br />Comment 26: Fences are not an effective safety measure; they will <br />not prevent children who want to swim in the canal, ride <br />motorcycles and drive fast on the O&M Road from doing so. Related <br />comments suggested that increased discipline on the part of parents <br />is needed instead of fencing. <br /> <br />Resoonse 26: As indicated previously, fences increase safety; <br />however, fences certainly do not eliminate safety problems. <br />Supervision and education of young children is important. <br /> <br />49 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.