Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00 <br />.-4 <br />C'\] <br />o <br /><~ <br /> <br />....." <br />--' <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br />COMMENT LETTERS <br /> <br />RONALD JOHNSTON, PROJECTS MANAGER <br />JULY 16, 1990 <br /> <br />PAGE 7 <br /> <br />costly. Tri-County and UWoIUA played on the BOR's eagerness and willingness to negotiate up for <br />something they had already decided to do. <br /> <br />Tri-County will construct an upgraded system betore water is delivered to the over 1,000 farmers accepting <br />this "new" service. Unes will be installed to water points within individual's ranches and farms. <br />Approximately 825 acre feet of water will be required by Trj-County. UVWUA will provide the increase. <br />Payment for the water by BOA would be the advance of $357,000 in March for 30 days. The UVWUA <br />would pay this amount back to the BOR as the yearly payment for the Association's annual debt retirement <br />payment to the BOA for the original and A & B loans (Rehabilitation and Betterment). Individuals would <br />pay increased water consumption costs to Tri-County. <br /> <br />In summary, the proposed recommended plan advanced in this Draft EA is not acceptable. Uning the Price <br />Canal, piping the Stubb Ditch, and deleting the detention ponds and ditches north of Interstate 70 creates <br />more problems for the economic and natural environment than are satisfactorily addressed in this <br />documents. The no~action alternative is the only desirable course for the following reasons: <br /> <br />1. The correct determination of the cost efficiency of lining the Price Ditch and piping the <br />Stubb Ditch is not available. <br /> <br />2. Full studies and determinations of complete, comprehensive solutions for the impacts of <br />the deletion of the detention dams and ditches are not included in this DEA. <br /> <br />3. There is no unequivocal statement that the full water rights will be diverted after project <br />completion. <br /> <br />4. The endangered squawfish instream flow requirements were not considered or mentioned. <br /> <br />5. The folly of BOR paying mitigation costs for a riparian habitat that is currently non~existent <br />is ridiculous. <br /> <br />6. The Bureau of Reclamation's credibility is on the line as its actions show that as a last <br />resort, it has to manipulate figures to create business for itself. <br /> <br />I hope these comments will help you prepare a more comprehensive Draft Environmental Impact <br />Statement. At this time, a finding of no significant impact is not acceptable. Thank you again for this <br />opportunity to comment on the DEA, Price and Stubb Ditch Improvements. <br /> <br />Yours truly, <br /> <br />tfuJ). f !-Iwu,,;'J <br /> <br />Ruth P. Hutchins <br /> <br />55 <br />