|
<br />-1.3.13
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />away. Fanner Jownuream. Nebraska
<br />wetlands HuciaJ to whoopm,g cranes
<br />and a IU,l:f: populatIOn of sandhill
<br />cranes would be [hCeilfene-d.
<br />COS( (or the plu~ ;uane ha.s been em.
<br />mared at S461 million dollars. In add,.
<br />(Jon, [he Corps of En;:lOt"ers spenr
<br />more than S8 million on a drait En-
<br />\'lronmen!.u Impact Scalement IEISI (Q
<br />which. lOcidenralJy. the Envlronmt"OlaI
<br />ProtectIOn ^;:ency [l;AVf: a failmg .vaJe.
<br />The South Plane IS nor a big river,
<br />but U IS lypIcal of the w,uer-scarce \X'eS(
<br />rh;n even a sm&ll spl,ll:m can start ;t bi;:
<br />figh!. Denver water agencies be;:an
<br />looking at the confluence of the South
<br />Plane and its nOrth fork iI..S a possible
<br />dam sife as long a;:o as the 18905. oil.
<br />though the Denver \X'ater Board did
<br />nor start buying up Water rights along
<br />[he South Plane until the 1940s. Pro-
<br />videntially, H seemed: energy explora-
<br />tion, the ~rowth of high,u.'ch indus.
<br />mes, and Colorado's scenic aHrac.
<br />nveness brought thousands of restless
<br />baby boomers (Q the state in the 1970s.
<br />Water was needed to Sustain develop-
<br />ment, but \oV;lter. If not exacrly scarce,
<br />w'aScertaJnly in the wrong place. Ei,l:hcy
<br />percent of Colorado's population lives
<br />10 a corridor alon~ the eastern edge. or
<br />the Front Range, of the Rockies, while
<br />80 percent of (he sute's W'ater flows on
<br />the Western side of the mounrains.
<br />In 1981, the Denver \'('ater Board
<br />and the Metropoliran \Vater Providers,
<br />a collectlon of fony-two suburban
<br />communities and special distrlClS,
<br />asked the U.S, ^rmy Corps of Engi.
<br />neers (Q do a s}'stem-wide anal}'sis of
<br />Denver's ....'arer supply and srudy the
<br />environmt'ntal consequences of vilfi.
<br />ous alternatives for meetin,ll: ~nver's
<br />future ....'ater needs, IOcluding a pr()..
<br />posal for a ma.ssive dam on the South
<br />Platte and ITS tributary; It....'aS called the
<br />Two Forks Project.
<br />Barely half a year ioro the study, con.
<br />crovers)' erupted when the Corps an.
<br />nounced its iorennon (Q use popula-
<br />tion esrimares developed b~' the Den.
<br />ver ReA:ional CouO(i! of GO\'ernmenu
<br />(DRCOG). The figures predicted an in-
<br />flux for the 19905 17 percenr hIgher
<br />than the record dap of the 19;05, al.
<br />thouliCh the 1980s alread}' were shaplO,ll:
<br />up AS a complelel)' ditTerenr era for
<br />Colorado. 0,1 pmes had fJ.llen, com-
<br />perition for hl;::h.tech indusrries had
<br />IOcreast'd. and the popuJauon ,t'ro.....th
<br />clearly was not ,.I!"Oln.l: to II\'e up to ex.
<br />pectatlons. Ne\'enheless. the Corps
<br />elecred to contlOue USIO", rhe DRCOG
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />WILDE R ,,\ ESS F.~ II I 'J!j ~
<br />
<br />proJeCtIons, miUntamlO,I: rhar popula.
<br />tlon estlmares could be reVised. If nec.
<br />essarv, at a larer dare. Sure enough,
<br />when the draft EI~ was released lO)anu-
<br />ary 198", it contalOed the on.':lOal
<br />1982 DRCOG popubuon estlmares,
<br />even thou,11:h the agent':}. itself had by
<br />then reVISed ItS estImates twicC'-
<br />downward.
<br />Th,l.[ inconSistency, among oth('r
<br />rhln,l:s, has sparked rhe opposiuon of
<br />local conservarion groups. "Two Forks
<br />IS aglant pmble,~ S.l)'s Rocky Smith of
<br />the Envlronmental CAUCUS. -The)"re
<br />going ro bUild this ~Iant bathtub up on
<br />the South Plarre and pray enough peo--
<br />pie will move here to pay for it. ~
<br />The draft EJ~ evaluated seven alter-
<br />narives (or providmg W'ater for Denver,
<br />and concluded that while Two Forks
<br />would be the most environmentally
<br />dama,l;ln~of the seven, it also would be
<br />the moS( cosr-effecuve.
<br />The Environmental Caucus disputes
<br />this, too, and has pUt to,l:erher an al.
<br />rernallve program which. ir claims,
<br />through conservation, Water ex-
<br />changes, and smaller consrrucrion
<br />projecrs would provide more ....'ater for
<br />Denver than Two Forks at less coS(o
<br />"\,('h). not do the most cost-effectlve
<br />(hings first?- a.sks Bob 'X'eaver, a Water
<br />consultanr for the caucus. -Conserva_
<br />tIOn and nonstructurdl measures are
<br />the most cos!-t:ffenive, plus our pro--
<br />gram can be expanded IOcremenrally as
<br />[he population grows rarher than Ia)'-
<br />in,l!: out a lot of money at once.-
<br />The caucus ha.s a.sked rhe Corps of
<br />Ens.ineers to include rhe proposal in
<br />the final EIS. As of this Wrltm,ll;, rhe
<br />Corps has nor responded.
<br />
<br />Considering the potential en.
<br />vironmental dama!l;e of Two
<br />Forks, much rides on the miti-
<br />pilon package COntiUned 10 the final
<br />EI~, and. ironically, that is the area in
<br />9..hlCh the EPA ha.s ~ven the draft a
<br />failing grade.
<br />The EPA is required by law to re\.iew
<br />all environmental Impact statements
<br />to insure that they comply .....i,h rhe
<br />National EnVironmental Policy Act
<br />(NEPAl An ^pnl letter (rom ^Iex-
<br />andra Smith, the ^crm,l:: Rt-glOnal Di-
<br />rector of rhe EP.... to Colonel Steven
<br />\);'est of the Corps maJntiUnf"d thar the
<br />draft EI~ was "lOadequate ro meet the
<br />level of mltigarion plannlO,ii: required
<br />by both :-';EPA and the Clean \X'uer An
<br />Semon 404 (b)( I) GUldelmes:
<br />"That's a \'ery slgOlficant event," sap
<br />
<br />Dan Luecke of the EnVironmental De.
<br />fense Fund, "1l1e EPA doesn't give out
<br />failmg /i:rades that often, espeCIally lO
<br />an EIS AS ambitious a.s thn one. It was
<br />nor lUSt a deciSion made b\' the regIon_
<br />al office. They had to go back ro Wa.sh.
<br />mglOn and bnef (he office ba,k rhere."
<br />^t rhe hearr of the complJ.Jnt is the
<br />I.1ck of a specific miri,11:uion plan. -In
<br />the draft EIS: expla.ms DennIs Suhocki
<br />of the EPA, -miuprion IS dealt with in
<br />only a ,l:eneral way. The analu.o;y I like
<br />to use IS, say I ""'anted to buy your
<br />houSC' and I told you I'd gn'e you any-
<br />where from $25,000 to $100,000 for
<br />it. Is that really an offer? How can peo-
<br />ple commem about i, if they don't
<br />know whar they.re being offered?-
<br />In a choice piece of timlOA:, rhe news
<br />of rhe EPA's reJection of rhe Two Forks
<br />EIS came rhe same day the Denver
<br />Water Board unveiled a mllJpllOn plan
<br />rhat it proposed be incorporated m rhe
<br />final EIS. Previous estimates of mitjga.
<br />tion com ran,l::ed from $ 19 million to
<br />$200 million, but the Board came in
<br />cheap with a S4R million public rela.
<br />rions package. The plan proposes ro
<br />build a recreational corndor along the
<br />shores of rhe reservoir to compemate
<br />for the loss of a fiver valley-nor unlike
<br />rradmg the Everglades for Disney
<br />'X'orld. environmenta.!Jsrs m;untain.
<br />Despire considerable public opposi-
<br />rion to the Board's mlllp,rion proposal,
<br />Jt probably ,ull provide the COre of the
<br />mHIgarion packagt" presenred In an}. fi.
<br />nal EIS for the Two Forks proleCt. Ac-
<br />cording 10 Bob Nebel, the EIS man.l.ger
<br />for the Corps, the Board's pl.i!l will be
<br />evaluated by rhe various agenues tak.
<br />109 part In rhe EIS process for Improve.
<br />menrs~nd re\'isions. The revist'"d \X'arer
<br />Board propos.Ll will then be folded inro
<br />the final EI~.
<br />But mitigation piJ.nning wa.s not the
<br />only shortcoming the EPA clIed in the
<br />drafr EIS. Irs Vo.'ater qu.a..llt)" analnis ne.
<br />glected to address prediCted conramj.
<br />narion by heavy metals and pr(:'sented
<br />unsUPPOrted conclUSIons re.lI:ardlOg
<br />the effect of projecr-Induced JC:,Ilrada.
<br />tlon on aquatic life. It dId not .Ide.
<br />Quarely present a.!rerna.tives wlrh com.
<br />parable yields, and WOlter a('quIsition
<br />.lcriVHles already underway v.'ere not
<br />fAken into consideration. Finally, the
<br />EPA said, the role of conservallon In
<br />Dt-nver's future was not adl'quarel)'
<br />porrraved. On the ba.su of liS overall
<br />weakness, the EPA ASsl,llned the drJ.ft a
<br />ratln}/: of EV.), the low'esr .l:r;tdl' possi.
<br />ble and recommended that thl' Corps
<br />
<br />H
<br />
|