Laserfiche WebLink
<br />l~.- <br />.,- <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />-_.-.......~....... <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />__Jof':',_. ". <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />BOARD OF DIRECTORS, CRWCD <br />ERIC KUHN &cv \(" Q <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />DECEMBER S. 1996 <br /> <br />HE: <br /> <br />LETTER FROM scon BALCOMB CONCERNING ENDANGERED <br />SPEOES ISSUES <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />You have received a copy of a letter to President Signs from Scott Balcomb concerning <br />CWeB applications for instream flow rights in the IS-mile reach (9SCW296 and 9SeW297). On <br />December 2, 1996 we received an identical letter from Copper Mountain, which is also a client of <br />Mr. Balcomb. <br /> <br />Scott's letter raises . number of issues that are very imponant to the River District and <br />Western Colorado. His letter deserves thoughtful discussion and response. <br /> <br />First, the history of the filings is important. The two filings referred to by Scott <br />(9SCW296 and 95CW297), and two similar filings in the Yampa River Basin, were filed by the <br />eWCB in support of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fishes Recovery Program (Recovery <br />Program). The concept of using the state's instrcam flow program to acquire and protect the <br />water necessary to recover the endangered fish did not originate with the eWeB, but rather. <br />through the elTon! of Colorado water usen during negotiations creating the Recovery Program. <br /> <br />Throughout 1995, the CWCB held a number of meetings on the proposed filings. Public <br />meeting locations included Craig and Grand 1unction. The response was far ITom unanimous, but <br />molt water users urged the eWeB to proceed with the filings. <br /> <br />The River District Board discussed the proposed filings on several occasions. At the <br /> <br />, <br />