Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~i <br /> <br />Cochiti to San Marcial. There are several aspects of this issue that rimain to be clarified including <br /> <br />litigation over the critical habitat designation, the status and implement~tion of a recovery plan for the <br /> <br /> <br />species, and the operation of federal projects subject to consultation withtthe FWS and possible changes <br /> <br />to the operation of the fedeTal projects as a result of the consultation. <br /> <br />Finally, the 1997 complaint filed by the United States in Federal Court.frequesting the court to enter a <br /> <br /> <br />declaratory judgment quieting the title of the United States to the right i~ the waters of the Rio Grande <br /> <br />and its tributaries for the purposes of the proj ect and its treaty obligation to Mexico must be resolved. <br /> <br />The issue is still under litigation after efforts to mediate the issue appears!lo have failed. It is Colorado's <br />position that the Bureau of Reclamation must operate the reservoir an~rthe project as intended by the <br /> <br />'I <br />authorizing legislation and the Compact. The Bureau of Reclamation, a;cting as an independent entity, <br /> <br />can assure that water is delivered and accounted for without waste to th~ project beneficiaries, Mexico, <br /> <br />and Hudspeth County Irrigation District. <br /> <br />As Colorado and New Mexico have learned in interstate compact li'ation over the waters of the <br />,! <br /> <br />Arkansas River and the Pecos River, respectively, it is important to con1ply with the obligations of the <br /> <br />specific Compact. Likewise, it is just as important to protect our Conipact entitlements that were so <br />. . <br /> <br />carefully negotiated by our Compact Commissioners. <br /> <br />~: <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />;' <br />