Windy Gap Firming Project not without its detractors

A picture named windygap.jpg

Here’s a joint release from Clean Water Action, Fort Collins Audubon Society, Sierra Club PCG, Colorado Environmental Coalition, Environment Colorado and Western Resource Advocates. From the release:

WGFP engages the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Water Supply Act, and the Endangered Species Act. Because of this engagement with federal environmental laws, the process is likely to be long, expensive, and high risk. Specifically, such engagements often boil down to a yes/no permitting decision after years and millions of dollars have already been spent. Additionally, any farmer, city, oil shale company, county, water district, organization, or member of the public can challenge these decisions, thus resulting in potentially more time and expense. Consider examining recent water-supply examples where delay, expense, and conflict have occurred: Two Forks (Colorado), Animas La Plata (Colorado), and King Williams Reservoir (Virginia). Alternatives to WGFP that are less time-consuming, expensive, and risky should be immediately investigated and implemented.

WGFP participants, including PRPA and Fort Collins, should be aware that the WGFP water right is a junior right that is junior to many of the oil shale rights placed on this same Colorado River water.

More Windy Gap coverage here and here.

Leave a Reply