WSP09808 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

resulting in range deterioration and herd reduction." Following this comment, the Fish and Wildlife Service made the following recolDIIIendation: "That, to prevent big game losses, the project acquire 1,900 acres of land at an estimated cost of $90,000 to compensate for lost deer winter habitat." Subsequent to the preparation of the feasibility report, about 4,000 acres of land have been acquired on Log Hill Mesa by private interests for residential development. While not compatible with the original project plans, the purchase of these private, lands for a new community development was beyond the control of this board, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tri-County Water Con- servancy District. Accordingly, it was necessary to adjust the project plans to reduce the amount of irrigated lands on Log Hill Mesa which would be under the Dallas Creek Project. The definite plan report for the project now conte{llp1ates~only3;ggO'acres'of full service private lands on Log Hill Mesa, as contrasted"'to~the 14,690 acres described in the feasibility report. Despite this considerable decrease in project lands on Log Hill Mesa, the Fish and Wildlife Service has now increased its demands for the acqui- sition of private lands from 1,900 acres to 6,000 acres. This board has consistently followed a policy of favoring the preservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife values to the maximum extent possible, compatible with the development and preservation of the state's dwindling water resources. To that end, we have on several occasions approved fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement measures which were controversial. In such cases, however, we were motivated by the fact that public lands were being taken for project purposes which otherwise would have had an undiminished value as fish and wildlife habitat. The proposition now facing this board is whether or not it should agree to the mitigation principle when only private lands are involved. To put the present case in perspective - is any state or federal agency, or the general public, entitled to compensation because private grazing lands become private irrigated lands or planned cOlDIIIunity developments? We think not. This is indeed a novel principle of which we know of no legal or equitable precedent. Such a concept places a burden upon the ownership of private lands in a manner wholly inconsistent with our constitution and laws. Several of the local governmental agencies in the project area have already expressed their outrage at the demands of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The board staff shares their feelings. We therefore recolDIIIend that this board express its opposition to any principle which seeks to establish that wildlife mitigation is required because of the application of reclamation water, or any other water, to private lands; and that the director of natural resources be urged to express such opposition in his reply to the draft environmental impact statement for the Dallas Creek Project. Memorandum -2- May 3, 1976