Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t:'1o'l.da:~, !\~~ust 20,2001 12:01 PM <br /> <br />Harold E. Mlskel 7192608128 <br /> <br />p.02 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br /> <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />1313 Shennan Street, Room 721 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (303) 866-3441 <br />FAX: (303) 866-4474 <br />www.cwcb.state.co.us <br /> <br />Q <br /> <br />Bill Owens <br />Governor <br /> <br />August 16,2001 <br /> <br />Grell E. Walcher <br />ExeCUtive Director <br /> <br />- - Coloncl(promotable)tarry-DaVis, COnun3nOer anaTIivislon-Engineer <br />So-uthPacific DiVision <br />U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <br />333 Market Street <br />. San Fmn.ci$~o, CAl.1!l WL ... <br /> <br />Rnd KlIharich <br />CWCB Dirtek:.I <br /> <br />Dan McAuliffe <br />Deputy Director <br /> <br />Re: Petition to the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers by Snowmass-Capitol Creek Caucus, et <br />ai, for reexamination and modification of Permit No. 190106516 <br /> <br />ear Colonel Davis: <br /> <br />The above referenced petition to modifY the 23 -year old Section 404 permit of the Snowmass Water and <br />Sanitation District has come to my attention fullowing a meeting on August 13,2001. At that time Rod <br />Kuharich, the CWCB Director and Art Champ, from your Sacramento office discussed a precedent setting <br />decision by your office to re-open a 404 permit based on il petition of a third party to impose bypass flows fur <br />environmental purposes. <br /> <br />This action would be of great concern to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the State of <br />Colorado because it would have the effect of "taking" the decreed water rights of the permittee and applying the <br />water to instream flow protection, This is a grave undertl!king and one that will be resisted. . <br /> <br />Fortunately, the decision to re-open the 404 permit has not been officially made. However, based on statements <br />made at the meeting, it appears that Mr. Champ and Brooks Carter, of your Salt Lake City office, may have <br />prejudged this issue and come to the conclusion that the permit should be re-opened. <br /> <br />Should this decision tore-open the permit be made it will most certainly result in a needless legal and political <br />confrontation. To avoid further expenditure of public funds and resources on all sides, I urge you to not re-open <br />this permit. At the very least, the COE should delay any decision on this matter and work with the State of <br />Colorado and others to carefully assess this situation and explore other possible remedies, should any be <br />warranted. <br /> <br />The COE representatives also indicated that the decision to re-open the permit is not governed by any formal <br />~rocedures and can be made within the COE without public input. This is unacceptable as it would deny the <br />water user due process, The gravity of this decision and the precedent that it will set warrants a full public <br />mvolvement process, prior to the COE making any decision, Also, we have been told that should the pennit be <br />re-opened an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection' Conservation Planning <br />