Record Details
page 194
Digital Collections at BYU
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Title | page 194 Final Environmental Statement : authorized Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project, Utah, Volume II, page 194 |
| Coverage | Electronic reproduction; |
| Source | Central Utah Water Conservancy District |
| Publisher | Brigham Young University |
| Date | 2005-10-14 |
| Format | 194 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; 93 east first south lozan logan locan utah 84521 84321 ksierra kS IERRA lerra CLUB may 18 1979 bocc bccc bureau of reclamation PO box 11568 125 south state street salt lake laae la e city utah 84147 gentlemen Gent leaen the utah chanter of the sierra club is arate crate crateful grateful ful fui for the odor onor on or tunity eunity to submit comments for the official hearin heaning hearing record on the draft environmental statement DES of the M & I 1 system bonneville unit CUP we are concerned because a number of important issues have not been dealt with adequately in this document including cost benefit analysis of the project and of alternatives water quality effects in a number of affected areas geologic hazards and data for evalu evaluating evaluatina atina them water supply and conservation relationships socioeconomic socio economic impacts of the project and legal issues when further information and data are available and analyzed we urge that they be incorporated into a revised and more complete DES to be submitted for further nub lle lie lic ilc comment at a later date econtolv ECONOMIC IC ISSUES A AND D alternatives 1 A cost benefit analysis should be nart oart dart of the DES including an evaluation of the total costs of the M & I 1 system and what they mean in terms of der oer acre foot costs to retailers and consumers in salt lake and utah counties these should then be acm ccir ccm ared tc to our current per ner nen ren acre foot costs the costs and benefits of alternatives should be similarly analyzed including a thorough examination of a dual water system utilizing existing tin irrigation canals omission of this in the DES is a gross oversight in order to place these cost benefit analyses in properr oroperr propern perspective the DES should also disclose the total cost of the entire bonneville unit as planned ola oia nned 2 the DES should also include a discussion of total costs in relation to the repayment agreement between the central utah water conservancy ser vancy district and the bureau of reclamation by how much have current costs already exceeded the azre awrE awne agreement ement ceiling should the cues question of a new and hi higher hen her repayment ceiling go to the voters azain az a asin ain aln are existinp existing conservancy district contracts valid now that costs have exceeded this legal cei cel ceiling linz or must they be renegotiated 5 3 with construction of the jordanelle Jor danelle reservoir agrical agricul tural lands currently irriza irrigated ted by provo prove river water will have to oii 013 oll oil o13 obtain bain gain 5ain water from a different source tle the tie DES should disclose the facilities necessary for a replacement distribution system from the uintah basin the cost and who must pay day pey nay for it 194 |
| Identifier | http://cdm15999.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/WesternWatersProject/id/9331 |
