WSP11342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

." ) wesley Signs, President November 11, 1996 page -2- claimed minimum stream flows will in fact cure the endangered fish problem. In fact, the evidence thus far provided appears to be to the ' contrary. Even the CWCS admits the biological support for its applications i3 tenuous. For example, it stat3d in the 95CW296 application: The amount of water necessary 'to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree is necessarily complex in this particular situation. While considerable scientific information has been qathered . . . there remains some uncertainty.. to the amount of water which can be appropriated by the Board wit.hout depriving t.he people of Colorado of the beneficial use of those water available by law and interstate compact[.] To date, the River District haa not forced the Service and the CWCS to address the exotic fish competition question or to ensure sufficient biological support for the applications even exist.. SilverCreek's perception is the River District is instead iroviding the cwcs its unquestioning support. This support 8 particularly troubling to SilverCreek. because the claimed minimum stream flows are either biologically unsupportable or will not alone cure the endangered fish problem. unless th~ ~ivpr District takes the lead on behalf nf its ~ax- paying constituency to pressure the cwes, water users will be forced to spend literally millions of dollars to litigate the minimum stream flow filings. Consequently, SilverCreek respectfully requests the CRweD Board of Directors to evaluate the River District's role in these pending cases and thereaf~er resolve to do the following I 1. Vigorously oppose the cwes's claims; 2. Retain a biologist to investigate whether the m~n~mum stream flow claims are necessary or will substantially benefit endangered species; and