Record Details
page 3-144
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 3-144 Final environmental impact statement on the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project and Daniel Replacement Project, page 3-144 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Format | 3-144 text/PDF |
| Rights | Brigham Young University; http://lib.byu.edu/about/copyright/generic.php Public Domain Public |
| Language | English; eng; en |
| Relation | Central Utah Project; Western Waters Digital Library; comment letter no 25 the UOICC desires to modify the proposed action to include the westside ditch in the streams to be given supplemental flows it is our contention that the westside ditches were inadvertently left out of the analysis as no comparative data has been published for public scrutiny we believe the westside ditch 1 4 alternative alternativewill will prove to be far more beneficial to an ecological approach for the wcwepdrpprrp wcwep1drpprrp projects rock ditch 2 3 5 is much farther removed from the potential benefit to the PRRP and is characterized as a true irrigation ditch following political fence lines boundaries in some reaches its compliment of supplement flows would not result in as significant a benefit to spring creek when compared to the potential benefit of supplemental flows from westside 255 25.5 255 ditch 4 entering the provo river directly above the midway bridge UOICC has continually been concerned about the lack of inclusion of the westside ditch and has made those concerns well known please include a discussion of the westside ditch as a possible recipient of in stream flow under the proposed action related to that issue is the concept of providing public water in the tributary streams of the provo river which may inure solely to private benefit while the provision of in stream flow is a tremendous idea the risk that the public would be excluded through lack of foresight or that this expense would solely benefit private landowners causes us to question its efficacy generally speaking this is a fairly good draft NEPA document which speaks well of the planning process the district undertook prior to its preparation however the document reads as if you are trying to sell seli seii seil the proposed action rather than taking the requisite hard look required by NEPA there is bias represented throughout and you need to work that out before the final document is issued 2 page 4 of 10 3144 3 144 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/2773 |
