146 



Nevada State Engineer rendered in response to the application for 55 cfs of 

 water to be taken from resources in Coyote Spring Valley by Nevada Power 

 Company 



The Secretary will not oppose the annual use of 4,200 acre-feet of ground 

 water from Coyote Spring Valley by Aerojet 



It is interesting to note that the Agreement does not address the fourth point 

 ia the December 11. 1986 memo: 



The Secretary is granted a Right of First Refusal for 10 years from the 

 effective date of the exchange to purchase the Nevada land, or any portion 

 thereof, if Aerojet makes the land available for sale. 



Page 14: Why should Aerojet be offered "a right of first refusal" for the 

 land? 



Page 17: It appears that Aerojet is still concerned with the powerline 

 rights-of-way across Coyote Springs even though language addresses the issue 

 in some detail in preceding statements. Aerojet could terminate the 

 agreement. What this would do to the land exchange can be questioned? The 

 presence of Aerojet at Coyote Springs could force a rerouting of proposed 

 powerline corridors through more sensitive areas. 



Page 19: It is interesting that Aerojet wants the Secretary of Interior to 

 help defend the company against native Indian claims for disputed lands. 

 Perhaps Aerojet should seek other lands that are not contested for their site. 



Page 20: No mention is made of public involvement in an amendment of the 

 Agreement. 



Exhibit D, Page 2 of 2: This page demonstrates the lack of water at shallow 

 depths in the Coyote Springs area since every well drilled is dry. 



Exhibit F, Page 1 of 5: The Environmental Advisory Committee is "window 

 dressing" since its sole purpose is for Aerojet to inform the committee of its 

 "construction plans and other on-site activities." Aerojet "shall invite 

 representatives" from agencies and citizens' groups which Aerojet "may deem 

 appropriate." Aerojet decides when the committee will meet. No statement is 

 made about the powers of the committee because the committee has no power. If 

 past actions of Aerojet at their Sacramento facility and in Nevada are any 

 indication, citizens can expect to have very little influence over the 

 Corporation's conduct or plans. 



Item 2 specifies that the Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with 

 Aerojet "in any emergency response plan" give : "specific consideration to 

 measures intended to minimize any harm to federally-listed endangered or 

 threatened species." It is hard to i'liagine aa emergency plan addressing the 

 impact of a rocket explosion or rele.ise of toxic cheinLcals on the threatened 

 desert tortoise. Will Aerojet send people out to pick up tlie tortoises or 

 provide then with respirators? Clearly, rocket manufacturing and testing are 

 and the preservation of critical iiabUaL for the desert tortoise pose some 

 niaior conflicts and strain the effective administration of the Endangered 

 Species Act. 



