Correspondence on Bonneville Unit of Central Utah Project

Page 119

CUP MEMO II October 17, 197J I wr not mentioned at all. In almost every important ins Lance thiougn-out the EIS where reference is made to them a#following statement, is included stating merely that environmental impacts of these um^s will be investigated at a later date. No analysis of the benefits of the Bonneville Unit compared to the costs of the Unit, particularly the environmental costs appears anywhere in the EIS. In that part of the EIS which purports^ respond to objections raised by those who critiqued the dratt bli>, the Bureau of Reclamation freely admits that, with the exception c^ economic costs in comparing alternatives, the EIS does not address cost-benefit problems. nie discussion of alternatives is involved and complicated. Preliminary review indicates that no clear explanation appears relating why the present contemplated plan was chosen over ail alternatives other than sporatic inferences of cost probers Of rmirse one of the real reasons lies in the fact that, tne Bureau of Reclamation wants to get 136,600 acre feet over to the BonneviUe Basin. The catch here Is that this appears to be an.arbitrary ^ r e selected by the Bureau of Reclamation; it is not a figure#appearing in any of the Colorado River Storage Project Act legislation. _r __ Obviously, this diversion figure is quite probably a^part of Oie Bureau of Reclamation plans submitted to Congressional com.mit.ees and thus, afte-r a^ashion! is part of the legislative history Nevertheless, such indirect Congressional imprimatur is not the besu position the Bureau of Reclamation could wish to find itself in when required by the law to seriously consider and evaluate alternatives. The cost-benefit analysis is particularly ^ « t m ^ ? r e v 4 ^ t i o n of alternatives, and authorities have suggested this Agair with the exception of economic cost references, cost-beneriu material and analysis is not to be found. Finally, it would appear that the secondary environmental impacts, eg, economic changes growth, socio-economi^p^C^ho--ties. etc are not covered in the detail required oy the bette, authorities. Certainly they are given rather curtailed * J f ^ u 7 ^ 8 f l n ^ the wildlife and water resource impacts of the Bonneville ynux. Tentative Legal Evaluation The Central Utah Project is obviously a very complicated affair. The Bureau of Reclamation has to go through a „ot o; cnanges to gee what really is a minimal amount or water irom one OuSU. > o ^ f n l and yet honor the rights of the Ute Indians. rhe^Denver^Oi^ice, SCLDF, does not pretend to have a ciear^picture or ^ Y ^ ^ ^ ^ Z ^ t Z However, with Interior Department decision expected in une ve^y ^ * future, it behooves us to reduce our review ana current tnougnus uo vriting for our people to critique. Therefore, please accept the UuU^HM v\xlT;« vc\\lch follow as -vollminnry, anu te assurec taa~ o^r -6-