Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(3) support for seeking committee report language which . <br />would recognize and confirm the appropriateness of <br />these efforts and would direct the Fish and Wildlife <br />Service to report back to Congress on the results, <br /> <br />,(4) support for limiting reauthorization of the Act to as <br />few years as possible, and <br /> <br />(5) support for several substantive amendments to the Act. <br /> <br />At my request, the Board gave me the discretion to modify and <br />structure its position as I thought necessary in view of the fact <br />that circumstances surrounding Congressional activities and <br />strategy were rather fluid as of the time of the Board's March <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Enclosed is the written statement which I submitted on <br />behalf of the Board to the HOUSe subcommittee for its hearing <br />record. An identical written statement was also submitte~to the <br />Subcommittee on the Environment, Senate Committee on Public <br />Works and the Environment, before which I had the opportunity to <br />orally testify in my capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Western <br />States Water Council, as well as in the name of the Board. The <br />Council's position was, in substance, the same as the Board's. <br /> <br />You will note that I did exercise some discretion in <br />preparing the Board's written testimony in that the statement: . <br />(1) specifically requests that reauthorization of the Act be for <br />only two years, and (2) does not ask for any substantive <br />amendments to the Act. I reached a final judgment with respect <br />to these particular elements of the Board's position after seeing <br />how the House hearings went, the periods of reathorization being <br />supported by the Administration and proposed by the House and <br />Senate bills, and the House testimony presented by national <br />environmental groups; and after consulting with the Colorado <br />Water Congress and other water interests. <br /> <br />The key issues which have emerged are: <br /> <br />(1) the length of reauthorization, <br /> <br />(2) allegations by environmental groups that the "Windy Gap <br />approach" to section 7 consultations is illegal and <br />that all biological opinions concerning the endangered <br />Colorado River fishes and whooping crane should <br />necessarily find that water projects are likely to <br />jeopardize the continued existence of these species <br />until more is known about them and their recovery is <br />assured, and <br /> <br />(3) whether there will be substantive amendments to the <br />Act. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />-2- <br /> <br />April 24, 1985 <br />