WSP07841

• File Number: 8220.127
• Description: Savery-Pot Hook Project
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 1/1/1976
• Title: Report on the Planning Coordinating Council Review of the Savery-Pot Hook Project & related Correspondence
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

''''-;-~~'"''<---.,=----'''''''''~

,,_.,-,,-, ,~"",-._ ' .';">>~"-~,,'..---.;> ,..:,~ .. ,'''''-~A,.''--A-;Z:;'~>t,.7~''"v<.:<;~~;:-<~",:,{_%,,;-;'~;':'tc.~~;.:~'c:;.::':;'\,'~'~~_j,;;'

LIj
C\J
00

- 3 -

local residents affected by the Project. The State has the primary responsibil ity
. and has the expertise and resources to ascertain what is best for Colorado and
its citizens. Therefore, our review has focused primarily on whether Savery-Pot
Hook is in the best interest'tlf this S~ate.

When presented with the proper point of intervention into the federal
decision-making process and when possessing the information and expertise in order
to. assess adequately the "national perspective," it may very wel I be proper for a
state government to go beyond this state perspective.

With respect to the Savery-Pot Hook Project, this administration was not
presented with such an o~portunity to evaluate the national costs and benefits
in a timely fashion and, further, the PCC does not possess a body of knowledge
upon which to base such views and decisions.

The Need for a Programmatic Envi ronmental Impact Statement

A number of organizations have ur~ed that the Bureau of Reclamation prepare
a programmatic Envi ronmental Impact Statement on the projects involved in the
Colorado River storage project. The two purposes for such a generic review
appear to be the acquisition of information concerning the cumulative impacts
of the water reclamation projects as well as an analysis of location priorities.

The Planning Coordinating Council found that the drafting and approval of a
programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the seven designated projects
in Colorado would take two to three years to complete. This being the case,
the PCC concluded that a delay in construction of the four projects that have
already been funded and are ready for construction would s~riously jeopardize
the ultimate construction of these projects. In other words, the review itself,
while seen as a device to acquire additional information on these projects,
could cause a lowering of the projects' priority for funding. it could ultimately
result in the demise of the projects themselves. With this understanding, the
PCC examined the request for a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Were either the cumulative impacts of the four funded projects or the individual
site specific impacts of such a nature as to constitute a sufficient reason to
... veto the project(s)? No evidence was brought before the Planning Coordinating
Counci I that would lead members to .such an assumption.

It would be useful to divide the two questions raised in the request for a
programmatic EIS. With respect to the actual site location of the Savery-Pot
Hook Project, the PCC attempted to determine whether a generic statement would
offer a better or more feasible site for the Project in northwest Colorado. It
was acknowledged that the site selection of the Savery-Pot Hook Project had
been the result of an extensive review process, part of a federal/state planning
effort spanning over thirty years. There was no evidence brought to the PCC
to indicate that-this process, which selected the proposed location for Savery-Pot
Hook, was inadequate in such si te. location aspects. In the same manner, there
was no evidence brought before the PCC that would indicate a more feasible site
in northwest Colorado for this Project.