OCR Text |
Show Comments received at or generated by the hearing represent a wide cross- section of local public and individual opinions. They also offered various positions ranging from conservation groups who advocated Lmriediate stoppage of all construction to water user organizations who felt that present plans should be adopted and expedited. From oral and written testimony the majority of those who responded felt that there should be no delay in the present construction schedule. There were some thoughtful and helpful suggestions which were of value in preparation of the final environmental statement. Conservation groups felt that the public had npt been adequately informed as to the environmental impacts of the proposed action and that the public vote of approval within the Conservancy District did not represent an informed citizenry. Other speakers pointed out the long length of time the Unit had been studied, the unanimity of political support from both parties, and the extent of public information that had been made available through the years. Other basic issues which were raised in the comments are discussed below. No attempt has been made to indicate the frequency with which various issues we?.* e raised nor future actions which have resulted iicom such comments. For discussion of the disposition of all comments, reference is made to paragraph 14. a. Legal Requirements Conservation groups maintained that the draft environmental statement failed to comply with the specific and implied requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and did not follow CEQ guidelines. They felt that an interdisciplinary approach had not been used in assessing the environmental impact of the Unit. Others felt that the extent of detail and studies requested by these groups was not the intent of NEPA. Organization of the Conservancy District, water rights, water delivery commitments, and repayment contracts represent legal actions and documents which obligate participators to certain courses of action with respect to the Unit. These must be considered when alternatives are discussed. It was pointed out that present water rights for the Bonneville Unit are based on existing Utah water law which would require change to satisfy some of the current environmental proposals. A law recently passed by the State Legislature recognizes recreation as a beneficial use of free- flowing water. It was suggested that sources of funds to purchase water for increasing streamflows for fishery benefits and esthetics be investigated. A further document was introduced which had been the basis for planning of the Bonneville Unit-- a 1965 resolution which represented a compromise between the State of Utah, Bureau of 635 |