Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />BENDELOW LAW FIRM. P.c. <br />Attorneys at Law <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Dan McAuliffe, Acting Director <br />Mr. Dan Merriman, Section Chief <br />December 8, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />The NWC anticipates commenting to the CWCB on this matter and wishes to be kept as fully <br />informed as possible. Initial analysis by NWC consultants suggests that the recommendations, if <br />adopted, could gravely impair the NWC's pending conditional water rights application for 5.0 <br />cfs from the San Miguel River mainstem at the Beaver Creek contluencc, which is within the <br />affected reach (Case No. 94CW244, Water Division 4). The BLM is a vigorous objector in that <br />case, although it does not own any water rights to protect. <br /> <br />The NWC believes that the BLM is likely to use any CWCB in-stream appropriative rights as a <br />minimum "bypass" requirement in any future Special Use Application that the NWC may file <br />with the BLM to authorize the diversion and transmission facilities. (Indeed, BLM officials have <br />informed the NWC that they will not feel bound to defer to any CWCB-adopted in-stream flow <br />amounts, and may choose to impose more stringent minimum flow standards, notwithstanding <br />contrary language in their governing planning documents.) Hence, any CWCB action on the <br />recommendation has the strong potential to indirectly and negatively impact the feasibility of the <br />NWC San Miguel River diversion. <br /> <br />The NWC Board has not yet had an opportunity to formally review the BLMICDOW <br />recommendation. The NWC will provide further comments before the CWCB's January <br />meeting. Based upon NWC's initial analysis, it is likely that certain aspects of the <br />recommendation may encounter significant opposition from the NWC and/or other San Miguel <br />River users, and may prove controversial. This may explain why the BLM has refrained from <br />timely communication with the NWC on its actions. The NWC is not against in-stream flow <br />protection in principle, but any such protection must be fairly balanced against existing and <br />future municipal and agricultural needs. <br /> <br />On _ behalf of the NWC, I request that your office provide me with notices of all public hearings, <br />public meetings, and any other proceedings which CWCB may engage in with respect to the <br />BLM/CDOW recommendations. Please also add the NWC to your mailing list at the following <br />address: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Norwood Water Commission <br />P. O. Box 528 <br />Norwood, CO 81423 <br />Attention: Tim Lippert, Superintendent <br />