Laserfiche WebLink
Statement <br /> Water project development in Colorado inevitably entails <br /> federal agency action of some sorts. Even when projects are <br /> privately financed, the large amount of federal land ownership in <br /> Colorado (about one-third of the state 's land area) or the <br /> requirement for section 404 permits under the Clean Water Act <br /> bring the federal government into the project development <br /> process. <br /> Consequently, the consultation procedure called for in <br /> section 7(a) (2) and (b) of the Act is triggered for every water <br /> development project proposed in the Colorado River and Platte <br /> River Basins within Colorado. The involved federal agency must <br /> insure that its actions are not likely to jeopardize the <br /> continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or <br /> result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical <br /> habitat of such species. If jeopardy or adverse modification is <br /> found, reasonable and prudent alternatives must be implemented. <br /> Because of section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the <br /> application of the Endangered Species Act to water development <br /> projects is not limited to isolated circumstances in Colorado or <br /> the other western states. The Act applies with equal force <br /> to water project development throughout the country. <br /> Furthermore, listed endangered fish species, and listed plants <br /> and birds which utilize riverine habitats, are found in at least <br /> 10 states outside the west. In short, the problems created by <br /> the Act for water development will be nationwide in scope, <br /> although problems in the western states seem to be receiving the <br /> most attention at this time. <br /> Over the past four or five years, in both the Colorado River <br /> and the Platte River basins, the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service <br /> (Service) has consistently taken the position when issuing <br /> biological opinions pursuant to section 7(b) that nearly any <br /> additional depletion of water, no matter how small and even <br /> though within the entitlement of a state pursuant to interstate <br /> compact, would necessarily jeopardize the continued existence of <br /> three endangered Colorado River fishes or of the whooping crane, <br /> or adversely affect the critical habitat for the same. The <br /> scientific bases for these judgments have been, at best, <br /> uncertain due to a lack of information about habitat require- <br /> ments, life stages, etc. <br /> Nonetheless, the Service has taken the position that the <br /> entire burden of such uncertainty about the condition or <br /> requirements of a species falls on a project proponent when the <br /> Service renders a biological opinion. It is not clear that this <br /> is either appropriate or authorized by the Act. <br /> In certain instances, the Service has suggested in its <br /> • biological opinions that the only reasonable and prudent <br /> -2- <br />