My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Letter from Colorado River District
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
8001-9000
>
Letter from Colorado River District
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/24/2017 2:08:54 PM
Creation date
10/12/2016 2:51:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Documents related to the Little Snake River RMP
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White/Green
Water Division
6
Date
9/21/2010
Author
Colorado River District
Title
Protest of the BLM's Wild and Scenic River Suitability Determinations
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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
Page 5 of 6 <br /> CRWCD Protest of Proposed Little Snake Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental <br /> Impact Statement <br /> September 13, 2010 <br /> PRMP/FEIS adds that "BLM is obligated to not impair the free-flowing conditions of the <br /> segment by allowing major dams, diversions, rip-rap, and other water control infrastructure to be <br /> constructed in the river channel of a suitable segment."Id. The Juniper/Cross Mountain Projects <br /> would both require access to BLM lands for construction and would inundate the Yampa River <br /> segments identified in the PRMP/FEIS as suitable, thereby frustrating the BLM-designated <br /> ORV's and the free flowing nature of the eligible Yampa River segments. The existence of these <br /> very significant conditional water rights undermines any suitability determination and should <br /> have been more thoroughly addressed in the PRMP/FEIS and reconciled with the BLM's <br /> obligation pursuant to its own policies and federal law. <br /> We understand that Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association provided a <br /> extensive list of the decreed conditional water rights located either within or upstream of the <br /> eligible Yampa River segments. The PRMP/FEIS, however, ignores the fact that the exercise of <br /> both absolute and conditional water rights could change the free flowing character of the river <br /> and thereby be denied federal permitting. While adverse effects on water rights from WSR <br /> suitability determinations must certainly be considered, BLM must also consider the impacts <br /> vested water rights have on BLM's ability to manage proposed WSR segments for their free- <br /> flowing values. BLM may not just assume that any upstream development "would likely be <br /> small enough in scale that the suitable segments would not see any significant impact." <br /> The PRMP/FEIS recognizes that the development of the Juniper and Cross Mountain <br /> Reservoirs would be foreclosed if Congress designates the Yampa River segments. PRMP/FEIS <br /> at 4-30 (Under Congressional designation"the Juniper/Cross Mountain Project would not be able <br /> to be constructed in its presently decreed location."). The PRMP/FEIS then attempts to <br /> addresses this concern with the overly simplistic observation that any water rights holders in a <br /> designated segment would still retain the ability to change their conditional water rights for use <br /> elsewhere within the Yampa River basin. PRMP/FEIS at Q-8. The ability to find a suitable <br /> reservoir site of this capacity is unlikely if not impossible. To infer that these water rights are <br /> somehow not diminished by retention of the ability to "change" them to another location is <br /> disingenuous. This is especially true, because, as the PRMP/FEIS identifies, a junior federal <br /> water right could interfere with the ability of a senior water right holder to effectuate that change <br /> of water rights. PRMP/FEIS at 4-29 ("The only situation in which the junior federal right can <br /> impact senior water rights is if the senior rights apply for a change of use. If that change in use <br /> reduces river flow below the amount awarded to the federal water right, then the managing <br /> agency has the ability to object to the change of the senior right.") <br /> iii. Reliance on future BLM action and speculation about Colorado's Congressional <br /> delegation are not a substitute for analyzing the impacts to vested water rights. <br /> As discussed above, BLM is required to analyze"reasonably foreseeable potential uses of <br /> the land and related waters which would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were <br /> included in the NWSRS." 16 U.S.C. §1275; BLM Manual 8351.33.A.3. In analyzing the <br /> Yampa River segments, BLM concluded "that a suitability determination would not foreclose <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.