Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JOHN A. THULSON <br />EDWARD MUl.HALL. JR. <br />SCOTT BAlCOM8 <br />Lt.WRENCE R. GRE.EN <br />R09ERT M. NOONE <br /> <br />~ ~me. <br />~^'^W <br />DELANEY & BALCOMB, P. C.)eJt. ~ <br /> <br />A=ORNEYS AT LAW ~,O ~ 107"^L <br /> <br />818 COLORADO A~NUE ~ COU"'S!:l: ~ ./ <br />P. 0, DRAWER 790 I <br />ROBE:RT DEl.ANEY <br />GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 V KE:NNETH BAL.COMB <br /> <br />TIMOTHY A. rHULSON <br />LORI J. M. SATTERFIELD <br />EOWARD B. OL.SZEWSKI <br />KARL J. HANL.ON <br /> <br />Telephone: 970,945,6546 <br />Facsimile: 970,945.8902 <br /> <br />~- T/cK/.e.v- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />December 5, 1996 <br /> <br />RECENEO <br />Ofl, <) i \C\~O <br /> <br />Daries C. Lile, Director <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />721 State Centennial Building <br />1313 Sherman Street <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />, <br />~~, ~_,,"~. """,d <br /> <br />Re: lnstream Flow ProlITam for 15-Mile Reach in Colorado. River: <br />Case Nos. 95CW296 and 95CW297 <br /> <br />Dear Chuck: <br /> <br />We are writing to request the Colorado Water Conservation Board to reevaluate its policy <br />ofiJUtsUing the applications filed in Case Nos. 95CW296 and 95CW297. We believe the CWCB <br />could better 'serve Colorado's water community by withdrawing the applications and forcing the <br />United States Fish & Wildlife ServiCe ("Service") to prove that maintenance of recovery or target <br />flows in the 15-mile reach would actually promote recovery of the endangered fish populations. <br />We are certainly not opposed to the concept of a recovery program for the species. However, <br />we question why the CWCB and the water community should be forced to bear the tremendous <br />burden of adjudicating the subject stream flow claims, especially when data gathered to date' <br />indicates the flows will have little or no positive effect on the species' recovery. <br /> <br />As you are well aware, these 95CW296 and 95CW297 cases are highly contentious. We <br />need net belabor the point that the variety and number of water users who have objected to these <br />filings are indicative of the substantial "fight" which will ensue if the CWCB proceeds to <br />adjudicate them. Particularly in light of substantial evidence (including recent data regarding <br />selenium poisoning) that the claimed minimum stream flows will not cure the fishes' ills, we <br />question whether the expenditure (one may even say waste) of millions of dollars to adjudicate <br />these cases is sound public policy. <br /> <br />To date, the Service has not offered convincing evidence that the minimum flows will <br />promote, the fishes' recovery. In fact, the information we have reviewed leads to the conclusion <br />that fluctuations in river flows are not the cause of the species' decline.' The Service has thus <br /> <br />We note, for example, that studies regarding Yampa River flows reveal that the <br />fish species somehow survived, even though the river flow varies between 200% and 400% from <br />