Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'--I.c.(.l~ <br /> <br />'. . <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />'l'::>tjM') <br /> <br />1"IU.t:OO <br /> <br />r... <br /> <br />tH..L 1"'111::> H::>::.(A; <br /> <br />To Gene lencsok <br />October 27, 1995 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />6. The Board cannot place itself in the position of making judgements on whether or not <br />the modification should be made on the basis of et:Onomics, environmental impacts, or <br />other judgmental factors. These judgements will be made in other forums, and are <br />beyond the scope of the Board's authority. <br /> <br />7. Wllh respect to the impact on the endangered fish of reducing these flows, the <br />Recovery Program is operating under the tel1et that Colorado will develop its compact <br />entitlement while the fish are being recovered. Given this basic tenet of the Recovery <br />Program, and the provisions of Colorado's instream flow law, we do not believe the <br />Board can find that water development within the state - or within a basin - that is <br />available by law and compact, is inconsistent with the Recovery Program. There would <br />be no Recovery Program unless it were g\l3I'3nteed that Colorado could develop its <br />compact entitlement. <br /> <br />8. The concept of the modifi:lhle flow is based on the fact that we cannot predict at this <br />time where compact development will take p1ace, or the magnitude of such development <br />within any subbasin. The modifiable approach allows development of Colorado's full <br />compact entitlement - wherever it may occur. There is no provision of the Recovery <br />Program or the Enforcement Agreement, or the instream flow rules and regulations, that <br />allow the Board to deprive any person of water that is available by law and compact. <br /> <br />9. We reject the notion that the Board can refuse to mooify the flow in one subbasin if <br />compact water is available in another subbasin. This, in effect, deprives the people of <br />the state of the beneficial uses of water. <br />