11

• Board Meeting Date: 9/18/2007
• Description: WSP Section - Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Support
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Agenda Item 11
September 18-19. 2007 Board Meeting
Page 2 of 4

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.

Bany Spear, General Counselfor Southwestern Water Conservation District, "When this process started
for us, we asked New Mexicofor a number (~lassurances to protect the water users in the southern part (~l
the State (~l 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 (~l the letter which Mr. D 'Antonio mentioned earlier. We are looking
j(J/ward to the good~faith compliance (~lthe terms (~lthat letterji-om New Mexico and working with New
Mexico in thejilture.

I also would like to say that the Southwestern District has had a long hist(J/Y (~lsupporting Indian tribes
in their pursuit (~lwater rights and establishing their water rights. We have supported the Southern Ute
Indian Tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, and 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 ..

Southwestern Water Conservation District (SWWCD) Concerns

The SWWCD has been involved with the San Juan 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:

1. NGWSP 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 Guarantee" circumvents
the purpose of the SJRIP. The desire is to have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USF&WS) 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 to 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 formal or early section 7 consultations and the impact of
State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation." 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 paIi of the Navajo Indian Water
Rights Settlement and Colorado has no reason to fmstrate the Settlement in this