WSP11342 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Daries C. Lile, Director Colorado Water Conservation Board December 5, 1996 Page -2- far failed to address publicly the effects of competition by exotic fish species and selenium poisoning on the endangered fish populations. Bob Salle, noted Denver Post columnist, has appropriately called into question the policy of spendirig a litem! fortune on the endangered fish program when selenium (which is present throughout the Colorado River system) is a probable cause of the species decline.2 Even t.'le CWCB has adlI'Jtted the biolo:;iccl support for the flows clai:ned in 95CW296 aild 95CW297 is tenuous.) Even if the Service will recognize that the minimum stream flow decrees will constitute "substantial progress' lUlder the recovery program, such recognition is meaningless if the biological evidence will not support a fmding that the flows will constitute verifiable orOlITess in the fishes' actual recoverv. We submit that the 95CW296 and 95CW297 flows cannot promote actual recovery: These appropriations of the remaining Colorado River flows merely preserve the status quo; they do not increase the water available for delivery to the 15-mile reach. If the status quo is the answer, then the recovery program is very ill conceived indeed. year to year, and even more from season to'season. Depletions upstream of the proposed Yampa River minimum stream flows are estimated at only 8%. We are consequently baffled by the Service's position that an upstream depletion of this 8 % "magnitude" could result in the eradication of fish species from otherwise suitable habitat. 2 For YOUT ready reference, we enclose a copy of Saile's column entitled "A New Suspect in Rare-Fish Woes, Finding: Selenimn Kills Razorbacks; Denver Pose (Nov. 13, 1996). ) For example, it stated 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 evidence has been gathered . . . there remains some uncertainty as to the amount of water which can be appropriated by the board without depriving the people of Colorado of the beneficial use of those waters available by law and interstate compact. If the CWCB continues to pursue the 95CW296 and 95CW297 filings despite this "uncertainty," it may jeopardize the tapport it has carefully developed with Colotado water users.