My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Hermosa Creek Workgroup Meeting 12 Summary March 3 2009 Draft
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
Hermosa Creek Workgroup Meeting 12 Summary March 3 2009 Draft
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/16/2014 4:37:11 PM
Creation date
4/28/2014 2:26:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
River Protection Workgroup
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
3/3/2009
Author
River Protection Workgroup
Title
Hermosa Creek Workgroup Meeting 12 Summary March 3 2009 Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
4
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
in terms of 50 or 100 years and make it more difficult to diminish protection of the <br />watershed. <br />Alice Outwater of the Durango Water Commission said her concern is protection <br />of the creek's variable flow, and that would not be provided by keeping the <br />Hermosa area roadless through a wilderness designation or similar measure. <br />Roadlessness doesn't address possible water diversions. Some tools don't have <br />direct connection to the water flows. <br />Bruce said the workgroup was formed to protect the watershed while allowing <br />some water development to occur. <br />Mely Whiting of Trout Unlimited said some of the most effective stakeholder <br />systems are developed when there is a threat of federal action and the local <br />effort is designed to avoid that. An example is the recovery of the Colorado <br />River, the impetus for which is coming from the threat of endangered- species <br />listing for the native warmwater fish. It is valuable to have flexibility to create local <br />solutions and be responsive to changing circumstances, but a system relying <br />entirely on flexibility is too fickle. <br />Bruce asked why this group is wiser than future generations. Why shouldn't the <br />decisions be left to the future, so changing conditions can be considered? <br />Jeff Widen said if that were the philosophy, Yellowstone National Park would <br />never have been created. People do make decisions for future generations. <br />Congress can change laws as needed, but when something is so exceptional <br />that it deserves protection, we should make it difficult to undo that protection <br />without vigorous debate. <br />Mark Stiles said if the group establishes an overarching goal, there can be <br />different levels of flexibility underneath that. <br />Marsha asked if there is consensus that protecting the Hermosa Creek <br />watershed in perpetuity is the goal. Many agreed. Steve Fearn of San Juan <br />County said that would be fine except for the phrase "in perpetuity ". <br />It was suggested that if the WSR designation is the sticking point, it could be <br />taken out, but to have a scenario with no legislative designation would be <br />unacceptable. <br />Mely said a WSR designation can be valuable because it can dictate what other <br />federal agencies can do, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Without a <br />WSR, there is little you can do to stop the Army Corps if it wants to issue a <br />Section 404 permit for a project along the creek. A WSR designation can also <br />help Hermosa Creek compete for funding. <br />Buck Skillen of Trout Unlimited said he wants to ensure that the natural <br />hydrograph of the river is maintained. If other protections don't do that, they are <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.