|
<br />(
<br />
<br />/
<br />
<br />,'J.:.';"'?" .....
<br />
<br />The Daily Times
<br />Farminglon, New MexICo ~
<br />
<br />Sunday,
<br />April 15, 1990
<br />
<br />ieditorjaJ
<br />
<br />c.1 '--.-' "
<br />A /TlEjaningless Vote?:
<br />As San 'Jiiar;.'6,'~ty voters mall in their ball~is
<br />on the Animas-La Plata Project issue. there's one ques-
<br />tion that should be ori thelr mind - Is $32,000 too
<br />much to spend on a meaningless. 'countywide public
<br />oplnlon poll?' ,"... ' , ".:,
<br />., Meaningless? Yes, probably, becauSe the fate of the
<br />Animas-La Plata Project lies with the court and the
<br />BW'eau of Reclamation, not with the voters of San
<br />Juan County.'
<br />And $32,ooo? If the cost of the election is slmilar
<br />to the other. mall-in election on the museum bonds.
<br />the county will have spent about $32,000 on an elec-
<br />tion that wlll. decide nothing.
<br />The ballot asks county, residents if they want' to
<br />participate in Animas-La Plata and are wllling to use
<br />, county funds to do so.
<br />, But the issue will be deCided in the courts.
<br />On May to, District Judge Peggy Nelson of Ralon
<br />will hold a heartng here to deCide whether San Juan
<br />County can legally rescind itS approval of the contract, '
<br />whether the . contract was legally approved. and
<br />whether the contact meets state laws. ,~,
<br />And, regardless of the vote, that ruling wlll decide
<br />the fate of the project here.
<br />", So what is at issue? If the Judge finds the contract
<br />vall,!,' and that the county can rescind iis vote, then
<br />II ''no" vote could delay - not palt- couo;y .partlclpatlon
<br />in' the project. depending oJ~ BUI1'ati .of Reclamation
<br />action., ..!<:..... "," ''','~.~' l 'iL:. d~1.
<br />.. The repayment contract has been approved by all
<br />,..the .entltles that comprise the San Juan Water Com~
<br />~IOn. with the County Commission later rescinding
<br />that approval...,", ',: "',
<br />".' If county. residents' vote, against the project. three
<br />,things could happen: , . .
<br />. The bureau could approach other county entities
<br />- Farmington, A2tec, Bloomfield, and the Water Users '
<br />Association - for support. That likely would succeed,
<br />as there's a great deal of support. for the project among
<br />those entities. "..' .., , '. . ..
<br />. The bureau could simply increase the allocation
<br />of 30,800 acre-feet of water that would have gone
<br />the county to the Colorado entities involved.
<br />. San Juan County's allo~~nt,..co1,11d..~,llI!o~d
<br />to _run downstream. ,..... :, .""...,.,,'_.....'-""-.....;.""''"'.'.~.,' ,.,; _,~,_,~...-..'_
<br />, .,> - In any case, the project wlll be buill. The only ques-
<br />tion ts If San Juan County would be allowed _ via
<br />its separate entities - to participate.
<br />That's an answer we cannot afford to leave in some-
<br />one else's hands. We mugt ensure the future growth
<br />of oW' area and do all We. can to obtain and keep
<br />water. .,', " ,
<br />The Dally TImes' formerly opposed the project. This
<br />18 no longer the case. Water Is a Critical resource
<br />which cannot be easily replaced.. _. '.
<br />Therefore. we should do all we can to assure water
<br />for ourselves, oW' children and oW' grandchlldren. The
<br />cost Is reasonable; in fact, for water in the West today,
<br />It's a bargain: The county's share of the projected
<br />$589 million cost of the project is a mere $14.4 million.
<br />Though the mall-in election may not actually make
<br />a difference, strong voter support for the project may
<br />help overcome some of the' tenacious Opposition which
<br />has plagued the project fqr . years.
<br />. "J.'"
<br />
|