Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The District agreed in its 404 permit that "if. subsequent to the issuance of this <br />permit. such information and data prove to be false. incomplete or inaccurate. this permit <br />mav be modified. susvended or revoked. in whole or in part,.." The Corps has a <br />regulation and a process which specifically provides for modification of 404 permits. <br />Modifications have occurred countless times in the history of 404 permits. Tn fact, the <br />Corps itself reopened and modified the District's permit in 1995 to require higher bypass <br />flows in the driest years. And, the Corps warned the District in 1995 thatfurther <br />modifications were possible, <br /> <br />Using the process set out in the Corps' regulations,2 the Caucus and other citizens' <br />groups last year asked the Corps to reexamine whether existing permit conditions <br />adequately protect the public interest in the fishery and other resources in Snowmass <br />Creek. There is a process for modification. The process gives the District a right to <br />request either a meeting with the Corps or a public hearing. <br /> <br />The Corps has met with and solicited the views of the District and the CWCB. <br />The District submitted a lengthy written response. The Corps has had its staff review all <br />ofthe available scientific data, including the District's consultant's studies. The Corps <br />has scheduled a meeting for October 11, 2001, to hear from technical experts for the <br />District, the State, and the Caucus in order to evaluate the evidence. It is our <br />understanding that the Corps' only action to date has been to evaluate our petition and <br />conclude that it warrants a close examination. <br /> <br />I'd like to make 3 points in closing. <br /> <br />. First, it has been suggested that modification of the District's permit might be a <br />"taking" of its water rights. However, the District agreed in its 404 permit that <br />"any modification of this permit shall not be the basis for any claim for damages <br />against the United States." <br /> <br />. Second, the District is not presently putting all of its water rights to consumptive <br />use. The petition purposely was filed when it was so that this question of <br />environmental health could be balanced against possible future consumptive use in <br />advance of any real crisis. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Last, the petition ask s that the state's instream flow rights be adhered to in all <br />respects, and that the state's instream flow regime be honored by the District to <br />protect the public interest. In summary, we ask that you respect the existing <br />public comment cwcb.doc <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />33 C.F.R. S 325.7. <br />