My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP05838
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
5001-6000
>
WSP05838
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:20:08 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:18:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8141.600.20
Description
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project - Studies - Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Arkansas
Water Division
5
Date
4/16/1975
Author
US DoI BoR
Title
Final Environmental Impact Statement Supplement, Part II
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.
/
115
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 />. <br /> <br />5413 <br /> <br />CHAPTER IX <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND THEIR ASSOCIATED J~WACTS <br /> <br />A. No Development <br /> <br />All sources of municipal and industrial water supplies in <br />Fountain Valley are presently utilized. Colorado Springs nas <br />constructed transmountain diversion projects to supplement i.n-basin <br />supplies. The only remaining dependable sources of rrunicipal and <br />industrial water supplies are additional transmountain "iversions, <br />the purchase of early rights to Arkansas River flows, and che <br />purchase of Fryingpan-Arkansas Project water. Fryingpan-Arkansas <br />Project water is the only feasible water supply available to the <br />other Fountain Valley entities. At any rate, expensive conveyance <br />facilities must be constructed to get the available "~ter supply <br />to its place of need. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Secretary, as required by Title l(c) of the authorizing act, <br />has determined that it would be infeasible for any of the ~ntities <br />singly or jointly to construct tne conduit themselves. Therefore, <br />even though a no development alternative would oreclude the <br />physical environmental impacts on the landscape at the ~resent <br />time, it would result in a significant adverse social and ~conomic <br />impact on the populace of the Fountain Valley communities. It <br />could also have an adverse economic impact on the Southeastern <br />Colorado Water Conservancy District. <br /> <br />The only benefit the Fountain Valley communities of [1 Paso rounty <br />receive from the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project is the sURPlem~ntaL <br />munici9a1 ~nn indU&~Fial-wa~r-supprv and-Federal financing ~f <br />the conduit. If the conduit was not constructed, the PI Paso <br />County communities would not receive any project water or its <br />associated benefits and would possibly petition to withdraw from <br />the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The <br />assessed valuation of the El Paos County communities js about <br />60 percent of the total assessed value of the District. The <br />ad valorem tax on the assessed valuation is che District's major <br />source of revenue to meet Fryingpan-Arkansas Project repayment <br />obligations. If the communities of El Paso County were successful <br />in withdrawing from the District, the District would need "0 <br />increase the ad valorem tax levy and increase water rates '0 ~eet <br />its repayment obligations, which in turn would result ;n ? severe <br />economic burden to the remaining entities within the District. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />IX-l <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.