Environmental Impact Statement for Bonneville Unit, Central Utah Project

Page 101

NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1 - • '" - I. • i m REGION VIII . ft-SUSt-t^J J)(ZQ~f-T~ I860 LINCOLN STREET 5^/<^ *"Vi £- DENVER. COLORADO 80203 C-^-->-- SjSl )/- » MAY 2 5 1979 Ref: 8W-EE * ' ~ . Mr. Al Jones, Director Office of Environmental Affairs T o Bureau of Reclamation "U.S. Department of the"Interior Washington, D.C. 20240 Dear Mr. Jonez: We have reviewed the draft_environmental impact statgiient for the Bonneville Unit MunicfpaT^and Industr7al(M&j^Systim^ Sased on our"review of the draft impact statement and other~~Tnformation available to us5 we find the proposed project to be environmentally unsatisfactory. * ' , . ./ The evidence suggests there are alternative sources of water that can be developed for Salt Lake county and northern Utah County at less cost to the environment and the local water user and federal taxpayer. Optimum use of groundwater, agricultural irrigation water, front range streams and reasonable conservation methods should ful­fill the area's water needs fcr several decades. Using these alternative water sources would not engender the extensive streamflow depletions and water quality impacts associated with the Bonneville Unit MSI System. The project is contrary to the President's water policy initiatives In proposing construction of the Bonneville Unit M&I System, the Bureau is ignoring the national emphasis on water conservation. Ironi­cally, the project is meant to defer the need for water conservation measures for several decades, and this is in a metropolitan area with one of the highest per capita water use rates in the nation. The economic benefits, in our opinion, do not outweigh the adverse environ­mental effects of the project. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the project has no net national economic benefit. We believe there are environmentally preferable alternatives to the Bonneville Unit M&I System. If constructed, the project's effects on the environment would be widespread and significant, and for all practical purposes, permanent. The project also violates the basic precepts of our national water policy which places considerable emphasis on environmental quality. At a time when our nation finds it so impor­tant to husband our water resources, we think it would be setting a