|
<br />some of the challenges that we're facing. I'll stop with
<br />these points and maybe others will want to comment.
<br />
<br />SNAPE: A quick answer to Bill Rinne's last question
<br />is, the Secretary, as part of his duty to regulate the
<br />river. In the Lower Basin, it seems to me that the
<br />tension, in fact the pain, is all going in one direction
<br />and it's with the fish and wildlife. For the most part,
<br />with maybe a couple of minor exceptions, I think
<br />water users are getting what they want. I think the
<br />tension, as Joe Sax, John Leshy and others stated
<br />yesterday, is what might occur in the future. In the
<br />future, what I see, is the continued decline of the fish
<br />species in the Lower Basin, unless we fix the problem,
<br />and the demand for growth, as usual, on the other
<br />hand. The MSCP process in the Lower Basin, while it
<br />certainly has accomplished some things, demonstrates
<br />the one-sided nature of the Lower Basin debate at this
<br />point.
<br />
<br />SWAN: Tom, do you have comments about the San
<br />Juan Recovery Program and the issue of dedication of
<br />water?
<br />
<br />TuRNEY: In the San Juan Program, there were two
<br />goals we were trying to achieve. One, we were trying
<br />to recover rhe fish and two, we were simultaneously
<br />trying to proceed with development. We're moving
<br />forward with the Animas La-Plata Project.
<br />About three or four weeks ago, there was a Section
<br />7 consultation done involving about 122,000 acre-
<br />feet for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Program, which
<br />was a positive step for the Navajo Nation. Further
<br />work on the river may allow us more depletions on
<br />the river. Now, at the same time we've been allowing
<br />this development, we're working on recovering the
<br />fish. There has been a population increase from
<br />stocking and there actually has been some spawning.
<br />I think we're moving in the right direction. We do
<br />anticipate that there will probably be fights along the
<br />way. Speaking of fights, there is a lawsuit that the city
<br />of Albuquerque filed about two or three weeks ago
<br />that caught us all by surprise. It came out of the blue.
<br />I brought half a dozen copies of it. What's interesting
<br />about it is that Albuquerque seems to be trying to pit
<br />the Bureau of Reclamation laws on contract water
<br />directly up against the Endangered Species Act.
<br />I also wanted to talk a little bit about this idea
<br />about dedicating certain water. This doesn't deal with
<br />the Colorado River system but it's another river in
<br />New Mexico that I believe became a win-win solution
<br />this last winter. On the Pecos River, there's an
<br />endangered species called the blunt nose shiner and it
<br />needs a certain minimum flow of water in the river.
<br />
<br />To accomplish that, certain water had to be released
<br />out of an upstream dam. They were going to re-
<br />operate the dam and there would be a lot of deple-
<br />tions that would be associated with this re-operation
<br />of the dam.
<br />It became a classic conflict between state water law
<br />and the Endangered Species Act. The Bureau of
<br />Reclamation came in and actually acquired wet water
<br />and water rights. They made an application directly
<br />to my office and we approved it. The purpose of the
<br />approval was to offset the increased depletions caused
<br />by re-operation of the dam. So we were able to satisfy
<br />the Endangered Species Act and we were able to do
<br />this in accordance with state law.
<br />
<br />PALMER: I wanted to mention the Upper Basin
<br />RIP [Recovery Implementation Program]. Thomas
<br />mentioned it with respect to the San Juan but I
<br />wanted to emphasize that there are two goals in the
<br />Upper Basin RIP. One is the recovery of the fish and
<br />the other one is the recovery of the fish while
<br />allowing water development to occur, which most
<br />people interpret as allowing the states to complete
<br />their compact entitlements.
<br />So there's a measure of success with respect to the
<br />Upper Basin program, at least in process. Bob Muth
<br />mentioned there is a biological success, too, as far as
<br />he can interpret it. This process success came about,
<br />in part, because the framework of this program starts
<br />off by saying, "We're going to achieve a balance, we're
<br />going to recover fish and allow water development to
<br />continue." So we have to think about ways to recover
<br />the fish while water development continues to occur.
<br />It has success at least in terms of process and
<br />additionally because it has a narrow focus - four
<br />listed fish in the Colorado. It has success in another
<br />respect because, in essence, it's a consultation under
<br />the Endangered Species Act where everybody is
<br />invited.
<br />It also has, as Bob mentioned, a consensus
<br />requirement, that is, everybody has to agree. So often
<br />compromises are made in the Upper Basin RIP to
<br />satisfy the significant, deep concerns of one or two
<br />parties. It has a funding mechanism, or at least it will
<br />have a funding mechanism if Congress passes the
<br />newly introduced bill. And it has a clear organiza-
<br />tional structure with some defined rules.
<br />These things contribute to the success of the
<br />Upper Basin Recovery Program at least in the process
<br />of getting things done. I don't think that's clearly the
<br />case, for example, in the Glen Canyon process. I
<br />think the application of the Endangered Species Act
<br />is not so clear and has caused some obstacles. I hope
<br />to attribute that to birthing pains for the Glen
<br />Canyon process.
<br />
<br />
<br />THE
<br />BALANCI NG
<br />ACT
<br />
<br />SYMPOSIUM
<br />PROCEEDINGS
<br />SEPTEMBER 1999
<br />
<br /><0
<br />
|