Correspondence on Bonneville Unit of Central Utah Project

Page 117

CUP MEMO II October 17, 1973 The great complexity of this water development nightmare in all likelihood means that the writer has made some errors in the description set forth above. It is hoped that those receiving this memorandum will be able to enlighten the confused Denver lawyer where necessary. Statutory Background The Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 authorized, the Secretary of the Interior "to construct, operate, and maintain the following additional reclamation projects (including power generating and transmission facilities related thereto) . . . Central Utah (initial phase) . . . . " 4 3 U.S.C. Sec. 620. In 1964, authorization for construction was added for the Uintah Unit "Provided, that con­struction of the Uintah Unit of the Central Utah Project shall not be undertaken by the Secretary until he has completed a feasibility report on such unit and submitted such report to the Congress along with his certification that, in his judgment, the benefits of such unit or segment will exceed the cost and that such unit is physically and financially feasible and the Congress has authorized the appropri­ation of funds for the construction thereof." 43 U.S.C.A. 620, 1973 Supp. Also in 1964, Congress authorized project investigation for the Ute" Indian Unit. "In carrying out further investigations of projects under the federal reclamation laws and the upper Colorado River basin, the Secretary shall give priority to completion of planning reports on the . . . (inter alia)". . . Ute Indian Unit of the Central Utah Project . . . provided, that the planning report for the Ute Indian Unit of the Central Utah participation project shall be completed on or before December 31, 1974, to enable the United States of America to meet the commitments heretofore made to the Ute Indian tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservations under the agreement dated September 20, 1965 (Contract Numbered 14-06-W-194)." 43 U.S.C.A. 620a., 1973 Supp. NEPA requires that "all agencies of the federal government shall-- (C) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legis­lation and other major tederal action .significantly affecting the * quality of the human environment, a detailed statement . . .' (EiS) 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332. Thus NEPA requires an EIS on major federal actions significantly affecting the environment and for recommendations or reports on proposals for legislation. Certainly under the better case law the various units of the CUP should be reviewed in an EIS prior to construction of the Initial phase, the Bonneville Unit. As a result of the statutory picture of the Colorado River Storage Pro­ject Act, to wit, the Uintah Unit authorization coupled with a require­ment of a feasibility report thereon reviewing benefits, costs, and. feasibility, and the' apparently mandated study of the Ute Indian Unit -4-