Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo - Endangered Species Issues <br />December S, 1996 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />Reservoir, Craig III Power Plant, etc., as well as future projects have, or will have, permits that <br />arc tied to the success of the Recovery Program. <br /> <br />The Board should also COIIJider whether defeating the proposed tilings would send a <br />message that state water law cannot (or should not) be used as a mechanism for the acquisition of <br />water for federally mandated environmental purposes. During negotiations for the Recovery <br />Program, a primary goal of water users was to demonstrate that state water law could be used to <br />secure the water necessary for endangered fish purposes. In the debate over reauthorization of <br />the ESA a primary goal of the River District, strongly shared by National Water Resources <br />Association (NWRA), is to include a provision that would require the federal government to abide <br />by state laws in protecrins habitat. In fairness, many oCthose familiar with Colorado's instream <br />flow program, past CWCS director Bill McDonald for example - perhaps Scott Balcomb, have <br />questioned the wisdom of using the eWCB prosram for federal purposes. <br /> <br />In considering a change or River District policy OD the Recovery Program or the eWCB <br />instream flow applications riiade in support orthe Recovery Program. the Board needs to consider <br />the political likelihood orany changes to the ESA that might ofFset the need for a Recovery <br />Program. Allached to this memo is a copy oC a lener from Don Young. Chainnan of the House <br />Resources Committee to the NWRA. In his letter, Chairman Young states that the debate in the <br />House of Representatives over the ESA is not political (Democrat vs. Republican) in nature. <br />Rather, the division is between urban and rural Americans. Last year Representatives Young and <br />Pombo sponsored an ESA reform bill, Although it passed out oCthe Resources Committee with <br />bipanisan support, the Young-Pombo bill was opposed by House leadership and never made it to <br />the floor for a Yote. Tom Pitts, who participated in drafting the bill, has advised that even if the <br />Young-Pombo bill had passed and been signed by the President, the bill would not have changed <br />the need Cor the Recovery Program or CWCB filings. It did not change the Section 7 process. <br /> <br />Finally, Scott's letter raises the issue of my role as Secretary of the River District and my <br />participation on the CWCB. There is a broader issue associated with my role on the CWeB that <br />we should discuss at the January meeting. I have made a commitment to address this matter and <br />I'm preparing a memo discussing the pros/cons/options. <br /> <br />To this point, the River District and eWCB have shared a similar commitment to support <br />the Recovery Program and my actions on the eWCB have been consistenr with the River <br />District's policies and the specific October 1995 Board motion. A problem could arise in the <br />future if the River District and eWeB become involved iil serious litigation, If this were to <br />happen while I serve as a ewcs board member, I will not participate in the related CWCS <br />discussions or actioDJ. I don't Coresee that happening in the immediate future. As David Hallford <br />reported, the instream flow casca are essentially on hold until the Service completes its review of <br />