Laserfiche WebLink
(3) support for seeking committee report language which • <br /> would recognize and confirm the appropriateness of <br /> these efforts and would direct the Fish and Wildlife <br /> Service to report back to Congress on the results, <br /> (4) support for limiting reauthorization of the Act to as <br /> few years as possible, and <br /> (5) support for several substantive amendments to the Act. <br /> At my request, the Board gave me the discretion to modify and <br /> structure its position as I thought necessary in view of the fact <br /> that circumstances surrounding Congressional activities and <br /> strategy were rather fluid as of the time of the Board ' s March <br /> meeting. <br /> Enclosed is the written statement which I submitted on <br /> behalf of the Board to the House subcommittee for its hearing <br /> record. An identical written statement was also submitted- to the <br /> Subcommittee on the Environment, Senate Committee on Public <br /> Works and the Environment, before which I had the opportunity to <br /> orally testify in my capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Western <br /> States Water Council, as well as in the name of the Board. The <br /> Council ' s position was, in substance, the same as the Board ' s . <br /> You will note that I did exercise some discretion in <br /> preparing the Board's written testimony in that the statement: • <br /> ( 1) specifically requests that reauthorization of the Act be for <br /> only two years, and (2) does not ask for any substantive <br /> amendments to the Act. I reached a final judgment with respect <br /> to these particular elements of the Board' s position after seeing <br /> how the House hearings went, the periods of reathorization being <br /> supported by the Administration and proposed by the House and <br /> Senate bills, and the House testimony presented by national <br /> environmental groups; and after consulting with the Colorado <br /> Water Congress and other water interests . <br /> The key issues which have emerged are: <br /> ( 1) the length of reauthorization, <br /> (2) allegations by environmental groups that the "Windy Gap <br /> approach" to section 7 consultations is illegal and <br /> that all biological opinions concerning the endangered <br /> Colorado River fishes and whooping crane should <br /> necessarily find that water projects are likely to <br /> jeopardize the continued existence of these species <br /> until more is known about them and their recovery is <br /> assured, and <br /> (3) whether there will be substantive amendments to the <br /> Act. <br /> • <br /> MEMORANDUM -2- April 24, 1985 <br />