Letter April 11 2008 Concerning Comments of the SOuthwester Water Conservation District in response to Notice of Availability of Draft San Juan Public Lands Land Management Plan and Draft Envrionmental Impact Statement

• Description: Comments on the SJLP
• State: CO
• Basin: San Juan/Dolores
• Water Division: 7
• Date: 4/11/2008
• Author: Sheftel, Janice
• Title: Letter April 11 2008 Concerning Comments of the SOuthwester Water Conservation District in response to Notice of Availability of Draft San Juan Public Lands Land Management Plan and Draft Envrionmental Impact Statement
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Correspondence

April 11, 2008
Page 12
Statement 3.5: What is required to "enhance" the quality of municipal water supplies
needs to be specified. This provision is impermissibly ambiguous and violates the tenet that the
State has authority to manage water quality under the Clean Water Act.
Draft Plan, Volume 2, p. 23
Statement 3.6: The Final Plan must detail how it was determined that overbank flows are
to occur every 1.5 years. References must be cited. The Forest Service has no authority to limit
current or future water diversions to obtain overbank flows.
Statement 3.7: The process for the determination of how "natural ranges of discharge and
load" were determined must be clearly presented, as well as the relationship of this idea to the
impermissible HRV concept. The "expected riparian vegetation composition" also requires a
clear representation of its determination and the relationship of this idea to the undefined
"reference conditions" and the HRV concept.
Statement 3.8: The relationship of these design criteria to the HRV concept needs to be
spelled out. How "floodplain development" is to occur must be set out clearly and must confirm
that floodplain development may in no way limit existing absolute or conditional water rights.
Statement 3.9: "Natural patterns of recharge and discharge" must be defined and this
condition must be clearly distinguished from the impermissible HRV concept. The goal should
confirm that surface features dependent upon groundwater will be protected by the acquisition of
Colorado appropriative water rights, not by conditioning access to SJPL to water users that might
impact those features.
Statement 3.10: The clear meaning of maintaining water quality "at natural conditions"
must be stated and distinguished from the impermissible HRV concept. (Emphasis added.)
Statement 3.12: The term "favorable conditions of flow" should be defined consistent
with Supreme Court precedent and clarify that water for multiple use objectives will be obtained
pursuant to state law, not in derogation of the Forest Service's primary obligation to secure
favorable conditions of flow for beneficial consumptive uses. The relationship between flow and
"high- quality water" requires a discussion of whether it encompass the concept that dilution is a
solution to pollution and clarification that the State has authority to manage water quality under
the Clean Water Act.
Statement 3.13: The SJPLC has no authority to advance this goal. Even though a
standard much less disruptive to water facilities' development proposed for the White River
Forest Plan, provides: "Maintain sufficient stream flow under appropriate authorities to
minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values, fish, and wildlife and to protect the
environment," this standard was withdrawn. See White River Amendment at 3.