Laserfiche WebLink
<br />uc:.. 1-- wr NH I U/"(HL /"(r:.;:lUU/"(l.l:.;J <br /> <br />4HN-~~-~~~O ~~.~( <br /> <br />"~ C-J <br />CJ) <br />N <br /> <br />.1 <br /> <br />~ <br />i .. <br />! 8 i ~ <br /> <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />I i <br /> <br />~ ~~~ 000 ~~~o ~.~l/~~ <br /> <br />C <br /> <br />EXECUTlVIE CHAMBERS <br /> <br />1.16 S.... Capitol <br />OQn"4r. Colorade 80203-1192 <br />Pho"" (303) B~6.2471 <br /> <br />December 31, 1997 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORAD <br /> <br /> <br />RECE\\f~"1 <br />JAM n Q 1998 <br /> <br />Ro'( ROtnCf <br /><::O~ffll~( <br /> <br />BruC(l Babbitt <br />Secretai)' <br />U.S. Department of the Interior <br />1849 C Street, N.W. <br />Washington, D.C. 20240 <br /> <br />cc <br />CO<,. <br /> <br />Dear Secretary Babbitt: <br /> <br />We are writing to follow-up on our meeting with you and U.S. Environmental <br />Protection Agency Administrator Carol Browner on December 3, 1997, where we <br />discussed our support for the "ALP-Lite" alternative to the Animas-La Plata water <br />Project. At that meeting, we urged the U.S. Department of the Interior to expedite its <br />review of this alternative and to coordinate that review with any necessary additional <br />environmental compliance. <br /> <br />Shortly after our meeting. the Bureau of Reclamation released on December 5, 1997, a <br />"plan of study" to do an "appraisal level" analysis of the two alternatives developed from <br />the Romer/Schoettler process. That plan descn"bed a process consuming 900 staff days, <br />S600,000 and 3 to 6 months. <br /> <br />We arc concerned and disappointed with this response. Although a review of <br />alternatives may be necessary, it can and should be done much more expeditiously, given <br />all the previous worlc that has.been done. <br /> <br />As you know, the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes and the State of Colorado selected as <br />"ALP.Lite" those facilities and depletions which were eWustively examined in the <br />Bureau's 1996 environmental documentation (Stage A) and found to be the preferred <br />alternative having the fewest environmental impacts and costing the least amount of <br />money. These $ilme filciIities were specifically endorsed by Congress when it directed <br />Interior in the 1996 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to proceed <br />"without delay." This consensus in favor of ALP.Lite facilities and depletions was <br />repeated in the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report for the <br />tiscal year 1998 Energy and Water Appropriations bill (House Report #105-271), which <br />instructed the Bureau to advance a modified project which assured a "new supply of <br />water" for the Ute Tribes. <br /> <br />!;-:. <br />'-~ <br /> <br />Unfortunately, the Bureau's "plan of stUdy" operates to confuse the public and Congress <br />as to what ""as accomplished in the !tomer/Schoettler process. Finding, after over <br />twelve months of meetinp, that there was no middle ground with project opponents, the <br />Colorado Ute Tribes and the .other ALP proponents selected reduced facilities and <br />