My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD00356
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
BOARD00356
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:49:19 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:36:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
5/22/2000
Description
CWCB Director's Report
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
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 />.iT' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />the listing. Several environmental groups sued. In Forest Guardians v. Babbitt~, the Tenth <br />Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling that the USFWS must declare habitat <br />for the minnow. The order required the designation within 90 days of the court decision, unless <br />an environmental impact statement (EIS) was required. The USFWS relied on a simpler <br />environmental assessment (EA), and issued a designation of critical habitat on June 30, 1999. <br /> <br />CRISIS ON THE RIVER <br /> <br />Over the last five years, tensions on the river have increased due to the dry-up of the <br />middle Rio Grande from San Acacia to Elephant Butte Reservoir. In this stretch of the river, the <br />MRGCD claims the right to take all the water in the river. In 1996, over 10,000 fish <br />(approximately 2/3 of the remaining population) were asphyxiated when MRGCD dried up about <br />40 miles of the river. Because there is such a short life span for the minnow, the <br />environmentalists considered the loss devastating. Since that time, the Silvery Minnow <br />Recovery Team has created a Recovery Plan and helped draft a "white paper" laying out the <br />steps necessary to begin saving the fish. Neither of these plans has been implemented. <br /> <br />As a stopgap measure to avoid another fish-kill, the Bureau bought surplus San Juan-Chama <br />water stored in Heron Reservoir from Albuquerque. MRGCD then diverted that water, allowing <br />Rio Grande water to remain in the river for the minnow. This solution is only temporary, since <br />Albuquerque plans to use its water in the near future to refill its aquifer as part of a long-term <br />water supply plan. <br /> <br />. The environmentalists have been pressuring the Bureau of Reclamation and the Army <br />Corps of Engineers to use their control of the many structures on the river to assure water for the <br />minnow. However, as stated in a 1999 biological assessment, the federal agencies believe they <br />are bound by their contracts and authorizing legislation and have little, if any, discretion in <br />delivering water. <br /> <br />The crisis germinated many "collaborative" organizations, in addition to the Recovery <br />Plan workgroup, looking for solutions to provide enough water for the fish and the consumptive <br />water uses. There are over twenty working groups and projects launched to improve the riverine <br />habitat. However, the irrigators, the municipalities, and the environmentalists can find little <br />common ground, let alone feasible projects. <br /> <br />CURRENT LAWSUITS <br /> <br />Middle Rio Grande Water Conservancy Dist. v. Dept. of the Interior.:! After the <br />USFWS declared 163 river miles of critical habitat on the Rio Grande, the State of New Mexico, <br />the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, the City of Socorro, MRGCD, Defenders of <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3174 F.3d 1178 (C.A. 10 (N.M.) 1999). <br />4 No. 99-CV-870 (D.N.M. filed Aug. 1999). <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.