WSPP00112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,.. 1.':; ~...... T ~~... ,.. n, .....__.. _"'-' 'W"''i''''-- -- _ '''' . _ -- I __r...... I! c1'3 I r I ~ BRIEFING PAPER ON ANIMAS-LA PLATA ("AlLP") PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Opponents of the AlLP Project have alleged that the Bureau of Reclamation ("Reclamation") has not adequately analyzed alternatives to the AlLP ProJ~w Reclamation has performed a thorough anaJysis of all reasonable alternatives to the AlLP Project. No new circumstances require reevaluatIon of the prior alternatives analysis and, In fact, there are new circumstances, including the Agreement In Principle Concerning the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement and BInding Agreement for Animas-La Plata ~R)ject Cost Sharing dated June 30,1986 (the .Cost Sharing Agreement"); the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Agreement executed December 10, 1986 (the "Settlement Agreement"): the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (PL 100-585) (the "Settlement Act"): public elections In two states; the Memorandum at Understanding regarding endangered fish In the San Juan River; and the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Plan, which mandate the construction of the current Project plan. The Southern Ute Indian and Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribes. have r&J8Cted the' alt.matlves of providing the Tribes money rather than water and an Indlan-only project: There Is no alternative to the AlLP Project. A, MP Prol~ Declslonmakfna il'! the 1 ~70's At the request of Ihe Animas La Plata Water Conservancy . DIstrict and the Southwestern Water Conservation District (the "Water Districts"), a thorough analysis of the planning history of the AlLP Project was conducted by Harris Water Engineering, Inc. at Durango, Colorado, The Harris report Indicates that the Southwestern Water Conservation District and Reclamation jointly sponsored a thorough process of public involvement from 1974 to 1976, which compared four major alternatives and dozens 01 sub-alternatlv.s for each of the four major plans. In total, approximately 100 alternatives were considered. This public alternatives process Involved an Advisory Team consisting 01 representatives of all of the entities potentially Interested In receiving water from the Project and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the San Juan Ecological Society. The Advisory Team met eleven times In a two and a half year period. In addition, ten other pUblic meetings were held with specIfic groups during that sam. period. The Advisory Team .valuated alternatives by comparing critical items for each alternative; altematlves were eliminated until the best overall plan was identified. Critical Items Included: construction cosls, operation costs. salinity, water conservation, visual degradation, wildlife habitat, river flows for rafting and the fishery, power usage. recreation, Impact on National Historic Monuments, and others. Alternatives with gravity and sprinkler Irrigation were formulated to compare water conservation alternatives. All lands were evaluated for their salinity contribution to the Colorado River, and alternatives