WSP07841 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- 5 - water in the Colorado Basin to which it is legally entitled. if the four federally-funded irrIgation projects are not constructed, we are inescapably drawn to a conclusion that funding for full utilization of Colorado's water wi 11 occur instead through pr'ivate investment. primari ly for energy related development. That being the case, the Council dealt with the question of how the State of Colorado could insure a significant dedication of Colorado River water to agricultural purposes. We concluded that federal funding for agriculturally oriented reclamation projects provides a unique opportunity to commit water to agr.iculture use. I f the Savery-Pot Hook Project is not real ized as a Bureau of Reclamation project, water in northwestern Colorado will undoubtedly be impounded .and utilized through private investment, not for agricultural pusposes, but more I ikely for industrial (energy development) and municipal uses. v. The PCC bel ieves'that it is important to insure the dedication of Savery-Pot Hook water to agricultural use for the years to come. In this regard, the Council . recommends that the Department of Natural Resources work with the Bureau of Reclamation to see that mechanisms are established which will protect such an agricultural dedication. Major Impact: Wildl ife The major potential adverse impact of the Project would be on fish and wildl ife. Fortunately, mitigation measures have been proposed and should be incorporated into final project design. As a result of testimony presented and published information, the Council bel ieves that adequate wildl ife mitigation can be .achieved, and that the net effects upon fish and wildl ife are not suffi- cient to warrant rejection of the Project. Nevertheless, the differing points of view concerning wi Idl ife impacts and mitigation measureS among the Bureau of Reclamation on one hand and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife are troublesome to the Council. On.the basis of its review, the Council believes that there are two major elements underlying achievement of adequate mitigation. ~. First, there must be a distinction between measures for antelope and sage grouse and those for deer and elk since their habitat requirements are different. Wi th that in mind, the second element is that lands for mi t igation must be carefully selected For purpose, relation to agriculture (no irrigated lands should be purchased for mitigation) and location in relation to existing prime habi tat. The Division of Wildlife (DNR) argues that the proposed mitigation measures in the Draft Environmental Statement, except for fisheries, are not adequate in relation to the items above. The suggested 16,000 acre ranch wi II not mitigate sptisfactorily, especially for the anticipated impacts on the antelope herd, The Council sugg.ests that the Department of Natural Resources identify an alternative game habitat mitigation proposal.