|
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />page 4 WRW washn x x x for
<br />
<br />"He snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory," an Arizonan who
<br />attended the meeting on April 23 said of Lujan on May 1. By failing
<br />to provide the witnesses that Miller had asked for, Lujan gave Miller
<br />the opening to beat up on him publicly and move the Grand Canyon bill
<br />ahead at the same time, the Arizonans told WRW. This was an unexpect-
<br />ed development that they were not prepared for, they said.
<br />Sens. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., and John McCain, R-Ariz., in a
<br />letter to Lujan on April 20, stated, .We believe the issue of interim
<br />flows, like the EIS, would be handled best and most appropriately by
<br />the Department administratively. We urge you to provide this interim
<br />flow protection." Otherwise, they stated, .without such a remedy by
<br />the Department, we feel we would have to pursue a legislative solu-
<br />tion." After the snafu which occurred over the Miller bill last week,
<br />the Arizona Senators now are considering introducing their own Colo-
<br />rado River interim flow bill which would be less restrictive than the
<br />Miller bill, WRW was told by their staffs on May 1.
<br />ENVIRONMENTALISTS BACK BILL; STATES, WAPA, PUBLIC POWER OPPOSE IT
<br />Several witnesses representing environmental and recreational
<br />organizations favored the bi 11, which they had a hand in drafting,
<br />while the states, WAPA's Clagett and public power groups opposed it.
<br />Edward R. Osann, director of the water resources program for the
<br />National Wildlife Federation, testified, "We agree with the premise
<br />of the bill that interim flows must be subordinate to special test
<br />flows required to carry out the EIS and other studies authorized in
<br />Section 4. This provision assures that any scientific research flows
<br />necessary for data gathering will not be impaired or affected by in-
<br />terim flow requirements." Altho Osann strongly favored enactment of
<br />the Miller bill, his position on interim flows was like that sought
<br />administratively by the Arizonans.
<br />Others who testified in favor of the legislation were Tom Moody
<br />of Grand Canyon River Guides, Rob Elliott and David Marcus of the
<br />Western River Guides Association (Marcus also represented other or-
<br />ganizationsl; John Echeverria of American Rivers, Joni Bosh of Sierra
<br />Club, and Duane L. Shroufe, director of the Arizona Game and Fish De-
<br />partment. Also testifying in favor of the bill were two experts on
<br />the ecology of the river: Dr. W. Linn Montgomery of Northern Arizona
<br />University and Dr. Jack Schmidt of Middlebury College, both of whom
<br />have served on scientific panels monitoring the river. All of these
<br />witnesses, some of whom are Arizona residents, were skeptical about
<br />the ability and willingness of Reclamation and WAPA to operate the
<br />Colorado River to protect endangered species, native fisheries,
<br />trout, wildlife, beaches, indigenous vegetation, fishing and white-
<br />water recreation. The guides noted, in particular, the loss of
<br />beaches along the river, which they claimed was due to major water
<br />fluctations. All agreed with Miller that an emergency situation
<br />exists on the river, hence action on the Miller bill is needed now.
<br />"The Bureau of Reclamation treats the Grand Canyon as nothing more
<br />than a ditch for wastewater outfall from its Glen Canyon turbines.
<br />Its ideas of appropriate alternatives...include building another dam
<br />in the canyon to reregulate flows, channelizing the river and
<br />restricting public use of this magnificant resource," Ms. Bosh, who
<br />resides in Phoenix, testified. (morel
<br />
|