Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Fax:3038663558 <br /> <br />Feb 4 '99 13:44 <br /> <br />P.DS <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />8. Administration Proposal. I am hopeful that the Administration and the other parties <br />to the Settlement Agreement can reach agreement based on this proposal. However, there are <br />some important issues that need to be resolved before that can happen. <br /> <br />I've already discussed the reservoir size issue. I think this is an important area for analysis <br />and I think that analysis will show that it makes sense to size the reservoir to include a <br />conservation pool of about 20,000 to 30,000 acre-feet, both for recreation purposes and to <br />provide environmental benefits. <br /> <br />i <br />I <br />:1 <br />! <br /> <br />Another issue is project deauthorization. The Administration proposes deauthorizmg the <br />remainder of the project. This is totally unnecessary to implementing the settlement and <br />raises Colorado River policy issues concerning CRSP A power revenues and their allocation <br />among the seven basin states that cannot and need not be resolved here. Building any <br />additional facilities in the future would, in any case, require additional environmental studies, <br />including compliance with the ESA, and additional funding legislation, so deauthorization at <br />this time would serve no purpose. <br /> <br />The last big issue is the proposal's failure to provide for even a small amount of agricultural <br />use. Agricultural water users are parties to the settlement and its modification will require <br />their consent too. This review should consider compromise solutions, such as allocating <br />some water to the states of Colorado and New Mexico and allowing them to decide how it <br />will be used. <br /> <br />I am frankly baffled by this antipathy to irrigated agriculture, particularly on the part of <br />environmental groups. What are the consequences iffarmers and ranchers in rural Colorado <br />are unable to stay in business? In some parts of the State, the result will be economic <br />depression and loss of population. In olhers, such as the Durango area, the result will be the <br />,loss Qf open space and more new development -- more pink houses on ridge tops. Is that <br />really what they want? All to prevent what has been scaled back to a small, environmentally <br />friendly project that has passed every test underthe'ESA and Clean Water Act. <br /> <br />The Animas-La Plata Lite proposal included legislation saying that there has already been <br />full environmental compliance -- that no more is needed. I think the long history of <br />environmental studies fully justifies that. However, the hopefully fmal review process <br />represented by this scoping meeting gives us the opportunity to take a last look at this scaled <br />back project and dispel lingering myths, about possible alternatives. I urge you to get on with <br />it as quickly as possible. And I urge EPA and any other agencies involved to cooperate fully <br />with you in bringing this process to closure. <br /> <br />I think for some opponents and skeptics this has become a test of strength -- an effort to kill ' <br />thc wcst's "last big water project." But what we are considering in this supplc:mental EIS is <br />