My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
14d (2)
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
DayForward
>
1-1000
>
14d (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:35:34 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 8:32:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
7/22/2008
Description
Directors' Reports - CWCB Director
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
High Country Citizens' Alliance <br />~~1o~os <br />Linda Bassi, Jeff Baessler <br />Stream and Lake Protection Section <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1525 Sherman St., 5th Floor <br />Denver CO 80203 <br />Dear Linda, Jeff and the CWCB, <br />.~ <br />-, <br />^ <br />.~ <br />~'. <br />~ . <br />^~ <br />. ~ <br />_~~, <br />~ ~ <br />~ - <br />On 7/ 8, after a lengthy discussion, the Board of Directors of High Country Citizens' <br />Alliance (HCCA) decided to withdraw our request f or instream flow protection f or the <br />mainstem of the Gunnison River from Almont to the Curecanti National Recreation Area. We <br />made that request at the annual workshop in February and the CWCB staff had scheduled <br />field studies this summer to quantif y flows and review water availability issues. At this time, <br />we don't think the expenditures to move the recommendation f orward are warranted. <br />In the past several weeks there have been public discussions about the benefits and <br />drawbacks of having an instream f low water right for the Gunnison. Several water users and <br />the UGRWCD staff have expressed concern about how it will be more difficult to get new well <br />permits approved without new augmentation supplies and how some f lexibility would be lost <br />managing limited water supplies during periods of prolonged draught. <br />It became apparent that if we continued to pursue additional legal protection for this <br />segment of the river it would attract significant opposition. There are several mechanisms <br />already in place that offer partial protection of streamflows. The 1975 Taylor Reservoir <br />Operating Agreement provide for releases that offer this segment some protection. The RICD <br />is a more substantial right but is only aday-time right and only seasonal. <br />HCCA has been involved in several collaborative processes over the last two decades <br />with water users in the basin that have been quite productive in protecting both the <br />environment and the water users interests. Some examples of this cooperation include a joint <br />defense against the Union Park Project and the recent settlement agreement for water rights for <br />the Black Canyon National Park. <br />There are significant additional challenges that we hope to work collaboratively on with <br />the water users, specifically, the Aspinall Reoperation EIS. It does not make sense to be <br />involved in a dispute over the instream f low f fling when we need to be focused on getting a <br />preferred alternative f or flow recommendations to recover endangered f ish in the Lower <br />Gunnison River that will be f avorably received by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. <br />P.O. BOX 459, CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 <br />970 349-6646, 970 349-0164 (~, a-mail: steve@hccaonline.org <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.