|
<br />~
<br />0":
<br />t'-
<br />-
<br />4 - The Dally Press - Wednesday, April 29, 1981
<br />
<br />Oi='IN ION.
<br />, GUEST ~:,
<br />EOITO"IAL~.'
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />.-(\
<br />The Junlper-Gross Mountain Hydroelectric Projtct will
<br />be licensed with construction beginning In 1982. Ol'i that
<br />will happen in 1983, 84 85 or later or never. And rlght,now
<br />absolutely no one Is in a position to say whlctj 01 thdllil it I
<br />...will be, ... .. .. . . . '1
<br />What is C!llledthe -.'Orl\nge Book, ,. the 'olliclal docu-
<br />ment Irom the Federal: energy Regulatory Commission.
<br />(FeRC) pertaining .to the project, states flatly that the pro-
<br />ject may be up lor I~nsing In late 1982 or in 19$5.
<br />Thisolllcial document governing the project right nOW
<br />gives equal weight to the point that the project license ap-
<br />plication will be considered in late 1982 without hearings
<br />or the pOSSibility that it will be considered in 1985 with
<br />hearings.
<br />That is the ollicial record and lor believers in ollicial
<br />records that is the choice, both given &qual weight - 1982
<br />or 1985.
<br />The posi!ion 01 the River District and Colorado-Ute Elec-
<br />tric Association, is that there is no reason the project can-
<br />not be licensed in mid-1982. It is also our position that if a
<br />hearing or two hearings ale needed they won't take three
<br />years.
<br />With regard to the certainty 01 olllcial records and posi-
<br />tions, I would point to a change In the position of the
<br />Department 01 Interior. A lew months ago, the Department
<br />01 Interior sent FERC a 35-page memorandum literally ripp-
<br />ing the project to shreds and using a slgnilicant amount 01
<br />rumor as opposed to laet. A lew weeks ago, the Depart-
<br />ment 01 Interior notilied FERC that that letter was not to be
<br />considered, that it was withdrawn Irom the consideration
<br />01 FERC. We expect to see several changes taking place
<br />In the processing of this project. .
<br />There are a lew antagonistic intervenors. However, thus
<br />.Iar, lor everyone 01 those, FERC has received about 30 or
<br />40 letters Irom individuals, companies and governmental
<br />. entilies saying the project is needed, build It and build it
<br />. as soon as possible. We expect and hope that that flow 01
<br />letters will continue to go into FERC and we think that the
<br />leellngs oLpeople il'l the project area should be given
<br />J!.r':.atersW'a~~.ha.n thO~~..9.U!~Jll1i.~gto.!!~, ~n~~~ B~\I~d!lL .
<br />
<br />.~!
<br />.,
<br />
<br />~ '-'
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />But the point to emphas'ize, is that noone can say, II ally,
<br />when the project license will be considered including
<br />FeRC which gives the optional two dates 01 ,1982 and 1985
<br />.and gives them equally with equal weight. -
<br />. As changes occur in the processing 01 the project so
<br />changes also are occurlng with regard to separate but
<br />related issues. . .
<br />. A lederal judge has ruled that the Burel\uOf Lane i
<br />Management must allow people with oil and Ilas l!lases .;
<br />that were taken out belore the 1976 act ,authorizing , .
<br />Wilderness Study, to proceed with their exploration. We . ~
<br />think there are solid grounds to the point that since the .
<br />water ami power withdrawals lor the Juniper-Cross Moun-
<br />tain Proj~ct preceeded the 1976 act by aboll! 70 years, that
<br />the project, too must go lorward regardless 01 the
<br />Wilderness Study Area status;
<br />With regard to lishes listed as threatened or en-
<br />dangered in the project area, I can cite no belter example
<br />01 the potential. lor change than the history 01 the snail
<br />darter. At lirst, the snail darter was used to stop the Tellico
<br />Dam project. Alter a great deal of commiseration, special
<br />Congressional exemption was given the project and it pro-
<br />ceeded. Now, a lewyears later, snail darters are' being
<br />found In dlllerent places in the Tennessee area..
<br />fhe over-simplificatIOns Of radical environmental
<br />groups do not help to clear the air on the basis upon which
<br />the project should be judged. SQmepeople point to the
<br />evaporation loslles of the project as a reason it should not
<br />be built, but no one can avoid the Inescapable point that
<br />evaporation is a fact of life. If Colorad.o Is to use it's share
<br />. 01 Colorado River waters, it must store those waters and if
<br />those waters are stored; some 01 them are going :to
<br />evaporate and that is simply a fact olllle.
<br />To say that the project will adversely affect Dinosaur Na-
<br />tlol'lal Monument is to deny the history of Northwest Col-
<br />orado. Twenty-five years ago, two dams were proposed in
<br />Dinosaur National Monument. Those dams had been pro-
<br />posed before the Monument was enlarged to Include the
<br />dam sites. Environmentalists lought Jooth and nail to h.alt
<br />those two dams and In the process, argued vehemently
<br />acros~ the country that the Monument should not have
<br />dams within It. Those environmentalists pointed to such
<br />sites as Juniper and Cross Mountain and said build the
<br />dams there, don't build them In the Monument. We are to-
<br />day doing what the environmentalists told us to do 25
<br />years ago and we're not going to change our ellorts
<br />because they've changed their tune.
<br />All that notwithstanding, the bottom line 1$ the project
<br />can be licensed as soon as 1982 and the official FERC pro-
<br />ject schedule substantiates that point.
<br />'".. .,'.,,, -~oland C. Fischer Secretary-engineer.
<br />Colorado River Water Conservation District
<br />
|