BOARD00176 ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 5/23/2007
• Description: WSP Section - Navajo-Gallup EIS and Status of Navajo Settlement Negotiations - Arizona Position
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Agenda Item 18
May 22-23, Board Meeting
Page 2 of 10

The resolution goes on to state that the UCRC should approve similar projects in the future and such approvals .
should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Secondly, the UCRC passed a resolution in support of the 2006 Hydrologic Determination, which support
included recognition of the concerns of the SWWCD. The following is taken from the minutes of the UCRC for
June 2006.

Barry Spear, General Counsel for Southwestern Water 90nservation District, "When this process started
for us, we asked New Mexico for a number of assurance~ to protect the water users in the southern part of
the State of Colorado in exchange for our recommendation to the State of Colorado to support the draft
HD. We have not received those assurances, and wefeel that --we are disappointed in that. However, we
have agreed to the language of the letter which Mr.' D 'Antonio mentioned earlier. We are looking
forward to the good-faith compliance of the terms of th(lt letter from New Mexico and working with New
Mexico in the future.

I
I also would like to say that the Southwestern District has had a long history of supporting Indian tribes
in their pursuit of water rights and establishing their water rights. We have supported the Southern Ute
I
Indian Tribe. the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, ant! we have supported the Navajo Nation and the
Jicarilla. We continue with that support. We support the Navajo Settlement Agreement. We support the
Navajo-Gallup Pipeline. But what we would like to do is, we do reserve our right to lobby our legislators
to add language to legislation which would protect water users in Southwestern Colorado.

With that, I do have the copy of the letter that we have Worked on language with New Mexico. I would
like to give it to Mr. Ostler to place into the record until;another formal letter can be substituted. "
I
i
A copy of the UCRC resolution is attached along witp a copy of the New Mexico letter.
i
Southwestern Water Conservation District (SWWCD) Concerns

.

The SWWCD has been involved with the San JtJan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program
(SJRIP) since the inception. The SWWCD has sought through the SJRIP and through actions related to Navajo
Settlement and the NGWSP to make sure the benefits of the SJRIP are maintained and shared equitably. The
SWWCD has expressed the following concerns related to the NGWSP:
I

1.

,
Biological Opinion (BO) "Depletion Guarantee": The BO assumes the SJRIP Flow Recommendations
cannot be violated by the NGWSP and presents a plan that is contrary to the SJRIP documents and
processes. While the proposal to use depletions in the San Juan as a trigger for implementing the
"Depletion Guarantee" might be acceptable, we would strongly object to the temporary use of basinwide
depletions below 851,000 AF as a means for offsetting NGWSP depletions for the following reasons:
a. First and foremost, the SJRIP is the tool for offsetting depletions resulting from water development in
the San Juan River Basin and the "Depletion Gliarantee" circumvents the purpose of the SJRIP. The
desire is to have the US Fish & Wildlife Servi~e reconsider this provision of the proposed BO and
knowledge the SJRIP is the tool for offsetting depletions.
b. The ESA states, "Effects of the action refers t6 the direct and indirect effects of an action on the
species or critical habitat, together with the' effects of other activities that are interrelated or
interdependent with that action that will be added to the environmental baseline. The environmental
baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human
activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area
that have already undergone fonnal or early section 7 consultations and the impact of State or private
actions which are contemporaneous with the con~ultation." This definition requires the impacts of new
actions to be added to the baseline not "borrowed" from the existing baseline.
c. We understand that the "Depletion Guarantee" is part of the Navajo Indian Water Rights Settlement.
and Colorado has no reason to frustrate the Settlement in this regard. In fact, it is in Colorado's'
interests iong-term to see this Settlement completed. Assuming the "Depletion Guarantee" remains
part of the BO, we ask the Service to considet; language that. acknowledges that unused depletions
identified in Table 4 as in Colorado are for Colorado water users, not New Mexico water users. This
I .
I

I

.