My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PUB00056
CWCB
>
Publications
>
Backfile
>
PUB00056
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:40:44 AM
Creation date
9/30/2006 10:10:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Publications
Year
2001
Title
Conference Proceedings: 26th Annual Gunnison Water Workshop
CWCB Section
Administration
Description
Theme of the conference was Who's in Charge?
Publications - Doc Type
Other
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
<br />~I <br /> <br />~, ? <br /> <br /> <br />Who's in Charge? <br /> <br />it <br />I;!"i <br /> <br />."..1,....,..' <br />~~-i ) <br /> <br />-.1;\ <br /> <br />Gunnison Water Workshop <br />Melinda Kassen, Trout Unlimited <br />(substituting for Pam Eaton, Wilderness Society) <br />July 25,2001 <br /> <br />~"'I' <br />~-'; " <br />,I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />'."'.. <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />'.........1..'... <br />, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />,cl' <br />;" ~- <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />.......1.,.' <br />,:, " <br /> <br /> <br />....1, <br />- -, <br /> <br /> <br />" <br />Ii <br />"1" <br />..?' f.; <br />'j - <br />;:' ) <br /> <br /> <br />~I" <br />~- ~ <br /> <br />Short Answer: Water users (just like always), who drive state policy and action <br /> <br />Next Ouestion: What does this mean if one's goal is to Protect Public Values? <br /> <br />Federal Lands <br />Principl~: Notwithstanding fact that federal govennnent agencies have asserted <br />reserved rights and sought to impose bypass flows, as a practical matter, current <br />federal policy appears to be deference to state assertions of exclusive authority over <br />water allo.cation. <br />Thus, as applied, this dynamic means that: <br />Where afiational Park seeks a reserved right to protect its ecosystem, the state <br />and hundreds of water users oppose the Park Service claim. Direct result is no <br />protecti9n of federal values supported by instream flows (i.e., fishery, unique <br />canyon environment and aesthetic) beyond state instream flow program. <br />Secondary result is no protection of basin of origin from transmountain <br />diversions. <br />Where the Forest Service seeks Reserved Rights to maintain or ill)prove stream <br />flow conditions on forest lands, state and many water users oppose, to the <br />detriment of the forest ecosystem and recreational users. <br />Where kderal agencies try to impose bypass flows (in pennits for those who <br />want to use federal lands for private purposes) to protect streams and riparian <br />systems on federal lands, state and many water users oppose. Direct result is <br />no protection for forest values, including ecosystem, channel maintenance, <br />clean water or stream recreation. <br /> <br />Native Species <br />State and many users oppose federal control or influence over flows outside state water <br />law for the purpose of recovering threatened and endangered species. Direct result is <br />stalemated recovery program. <br /> <br />Clean Water <br />By stat~ law, water courts can only consider water quality impacts in the context of <br />exchanges. Water Quality Protection agencies cannot protect water quality by <br />"superceding, abrogating or impairing the exercise ofa water right." Therefore, when <br />a divertion adversely affects water quality, only voluntary action on the part of t~e <br />diverter will result in stream protection. (This was the result in the Arapahoe Basin <br />case.) Whether this is consistent with the Clean Water Act is a question left to another <br />day. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.