|We watch the water.|
|1/3/2003||Sample comment letter on LORP DEIR/EIS|
|Perhaps you'd like to submit a comment letter on the LORP DEIR/EIS but don't have time to write one, or maybe you have a few comments but want to say more. If so, feel free to copy and paste part or all of our sample letter below into your own word processor and modify it as much or as little as you like (please do be sure to type in your own name rather than allowing Prudent Waters to take the credit). As the LORP DEIR/EIS comment deadline draws closer, we'll be adding copy-and-paste-ready paragraphs on other issues to our website "News" area; copy, paste, or part them into your comment letter as you like and as they become available.
Mr. Clarence Martin
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
300 Mandich Street
Bishop, CA 93514
Dear Mr. Martin,
I am writing to comment on the Lower Owens River Project Draft Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
I appreciate the great potential of the LORP. However, the DEIR/EIS fails to describe essential components of the project and presents project alternatives that directly violate the 1991 Long Term Water Agreement and the established project goals. Some of my concerns include:
1) Size of the pump station and delta flows: A 150 cfs pump station violates the Inyo-LA 1991 Water Agreement. LADWP has not justified using a pump station that is three times larger than the water agreement allows. A larger pump station won't allow enough water to reach the delta and may help LADWP to pump more groundwater from the valley. LADWP should select the 50 cfs pump station and 9 cfs annual average delta baseflows. This option allows the maximum amount of water flow to the delta under the agreements and approaches current flows. This is needed to meet the delta habitat goal of maintaining existing and new delta habitats for waterfowl and to comply with the water agreement.
2) Funding: Monitoring and adaptive management are absolutely essential to the success of the LORP, but the DEIR/EIS repeatedly states that funding limitations may prevent their full implementation. To meet its obligations, LADWP should select funding option 2, which is the only option that adequately funds the LORP.
3) Recreation plan: There is no recreation plan in the DEIR/EIS, nor is there a description of current and anticipated recreational uses of the LORP area. The document should contain a thorough assessment of current and potential recreational use in the LORP area and a plan to manage that recreation in order to protect natural habitats and cultural resources.
Mr. Martin, the LORP is a valuable project, and I want it to work. I urge LADWP to abide by the terms of the water agreement and the goals of the project, thoroughly describe all management plans to the public, choose the least environmentally damaging alternatives, and guarantee adequate funding.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments.
Prudent Waters, Concerned Citizen
|Contacts: || Phone:|