Agenda Item 20b: Colorado River Issues, Endangered Species Issues

Home Browse Search

Getty Oil Exploration Company P. O. Box 2ioo Denver, Colorado 8o2oi 46oi DTC Boulevard (303)793-4379 Denver, Colorado 8 o 2 37 (3 Fax RECEIVED April 4, 1997 W. Peter Evans Colorado Water Conservation Board 721 Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80302 Re: 15 mile Reach Strategy Process Dear Mr. Evans: APR 0 7 1997 Colorado Water Conservation Board For the past couple of years we have watched, as representatives of Getty / Texaco, with sincere interest the Colorado Water Conservation Board's review of the plight of the endangered fishes. in the Colorado river system. Our interest in the endangered fishes began when Congress passed the Endangered Species Act and we began considering our water systems in the early 1970's. In 1975 we first met with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding our proposed water project and had to address the endangered fishes. In the 1980's Getty and other oil shale interest holders expended significant time, energy and resources to develop mutually acceptable understandings and positions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. These understandings were developed with CORSIK fish studies, habitat analysis, and research through the Section 7e consultation process. The results of that process are reflected in depletion commitments, the resulting non- jeopardy opinions, near term conservation measure funding and long -term conservaation measure funding obligations. Through -out the process Getty and its legal counsel held firm to Colorado water law and the priority system. In reviewing your process, we notice that water rights which we so carefully nurtured over the years have been placed in Group 3 which embraces water rights that "...are not likely to be built in the next twenty -five years ". Our conditional water rights have the same viability as the conditional rights which your water group has placed in Groups 1 and 2. It is possible that some of the water rights which you placed in Group 3 will develop before the water rights which you now show as Group 1 and 2. We do not want to be in a position of agreeing that the river can be developed in any order which would grant vested interests contradictory to the appropriation dates of the respective water rights. - f If the overall plan is to allow development on the river of junior conditional rights at the expense of senior conditional rights, we vehemently object thereto and will stringently protect our interests. It would be entirely contradictory to Colorado water law if the work group were to "solve" the problem by helping junior conditional water rights development to the detriment of senior conditional rights.