Laserfiche WebLink
<br />297.5 <br /> <br />ANn RUBSROUENT PRESENTATION TO AND APPROVAL RY THE CONGRESS VARY <br />CONSIOERAriLY. HOWRVER. THE COLORA~O WATER CONSERVATION eOARD, THE STATE <br />AGENCY WITH THE MOST EXPERIENCR IN THIS PIELO. ESTIMATES THAT IT WOULD <br />TAKE AT LEAST FIVE AND ~O~E LIKELY TEN YEARS TO CARRY OUT THIS PROCESS. <br />IN ANY EVENT, BOTH THE STATE WATER BOARD AND THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION <br />BELIEVE THAT A REANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT BASED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF <br />A. [lAM AT TilE l'If.LD CCUNTY SITR \lICULD BE FUTILE. THERE TWO ^GENCIE~ POINT <br />OUT THAT UNDER CURRENT COST ESTt~^TES THE WELD COUNTY SITE WOULD COST IN <br />EXCESS OF $100,000.000 MORE THAN THE NARROWS SITE. THEY ARE OF A FIRM <br />OPINION THAT ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE WELD COUNTY SITE IS NOT POS- <br />HBLE. <br /> <br />A~IONG THE ARGlI~ENTS ADVANCED BY THE OPPONENTS OF THE NARROWS <br />PROJECT IS THAT TlfE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HAS GREATLY OVERESTIMATED THE <br />fLOOD ceNTROL BENEFITS FRO~ THE NARRO~S PROJECT AND THE RESERVOIR SPACE <br />RE(tllHEO POR FLOOD CONTROL. IT liAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO THE GOVERNOR <br />THAT THE ~UREAU OF RECLAMATION DOES NOT ALONE MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS. <br />IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UNITED STATES ARl-IY CORPS OF ENGINEERR TO <br />DETERMINE FLOOD CONTROL BENEFITS AND THE CAPACITY REQUIRED FOR THE CONTROL <br />OF FLOODS. IN ADDITION TO THAT AGENCY. METEOROLOGISTS AND ENGINEERS FROM <br />THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WERE CON- <br />SULTED IN DETERMINING THE PROJECT DESIGN FLOOD. THE STATE OF COLORADO <br />ALSO EMPLOYED AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTING FIRM OF INTERNATIONAL STANDING TO <br />EVALUATE THE PROJECT DESIGN FLOOD. IN SUMMARY, THE HOST COMPETENT TECH- <br />NICAL AND ~CIENTIFIC EXPERTISE AVAILABLE IN THn UNITED STATES HAS BEEN <br />UTILIZED IN A~RIVING Ai THE FLOOD CONTROL BENEFITS AND THE SPACE AND <br />STRUCTlIRAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL. <br /> <br />THE PROJECT OPPONENTS HAVE RAISED SEVERAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO <br />ECONOMICS. FACH OF THESE OUESTIONS HAVE BEEN CAREfULLY REVIEWED AND THE <br />CONCLUSIO~S REACHED BY THE PROJECT OPPONENTS on NOT APPEAR TO BE SUprOgT- <br />ABLE. APPROPRIATE TO THE ECONOl-\lC ISSUE IS A STATEMENT !4ADE DURING THE <br />CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ~ORGAN COllNTY BOARD OF <br />COIINTY CO,",1o\ [5S lONER!'>. AS FO,LLOWS: <br /> <br />"We reall:r;e that it's ~ matter of record that in the past there <br />have been objections to the development of the Narrow5 unit because of <br />the ~armland being inundated and taken from the tax rolls. but we don't <br />think this is any problem for two reasons: <br /> <br />The oounty's annual replacement and maintenanoe costs of roads <br />and bTid~es in the inundated area are higher than the tax receipts f~om <br />this same area. <br /> <br />It is estimated that inoreases in valuat.ion of property adja- <br />cent to the project will morc than oompensate the loss to the tax r~lls <br />by the aoquisi tlon of the Narrows uni t." , <br /> <br />OTHER Ifil'Uf:,S IlAVE BEFN RAISED CONCERNING THE DAMAGE TO PUBLrC <br />HEALTH. TO WILOLIF~. AND TO RECREATION. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY <br />REVIEWED BY THE NILDLII'E AGENCIES. PA~K AND RECREATION AGENCIES AND <br />PUBLIC HEALTH AGENCJER OF BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERN~ENTS. THE <br /> <br />-5- <br />