Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />implement as soon as available, altematives to using the Snowmass Creek diversion, <br />so as to avoid reducing flows to the "survival flow" level. <br /> <br />Contrary to the terms of the agreement, the parties did not hire an <br />independent consultant to study the bypass flow needs. Instead, the District appears <br />to have referred the survival flow determination to the CWCB. The sole evidence of <br />and support for the resulting 4 cfs survival flow figure is a May 24, 1978, letter from <br />Duane Helton of the CWCB to a Glenwood Springs attomey who represented Pitkin <br />County. Ex. 5. That letter attributed the 4 cfs figure to a Division of Wildlife <br />"determination." The letter neither provided nor referred to any scientific or <br />biological basis for the 4 cfs figure, and no basis has ever been found in DOWor <br />CWCB rues. Neither the District nor the County ever retained an "engineer <br />specializing in water resources and hydrology" to establish the survival flow <br />requirement. The Caucus was not informed of the "determination" that a 4 cfs <br />survival flow would suffice in Snowmass Creek, nor was it given an opportunity to <br />participate or comment on this determination. <br /> <br />After the County signed its agreement with the District and just days before <br />the Cotps held a public hearing on the ~ 404 pennit, the District met with the Caucus <br />to allay Caucus concerns about the project. In attendance on June 23,1978, were <br />Richard Wall, chairman of the board of the District, Steven Child, president of the <br />Caucus, Paul Wilson, a Caucus member, J arnes Light, one of the developers of the <br />Snowmass resort, and others. The Caucus was looking for "as much assurance as <br />you can give us" that impacts of the project on Snowmass Creek would be <br />minimized. Ex. 6, meeting transcript at 14. The point was made to the Caucus that <br />the District needed the Caucus's support, too. Id at 5. <br /> <br />The tone of the meeting was one of assuaging the concerns of the Caucus. <br />Mr. Wall stated that "I think that usage should be so minimal as far as you are <br />concerned." Id at 32. He downplayed the extent of the diversion, stating that "our <br />planned use for that water would be during peak winter months. And it would be to <br />backup our present water supply." Id at 3. <br /> <br />Mr. Wall used reassuring words to describe the District's promise to safeguard <br />instream flows in Snowmass Creek, an issue about which the Caucus representatives <br />were concerned. ... "[W]e gotta mininuun stream flow to guarantee." Id at 3. And, <br />"... [W]e indicated we would guarantee certain amount of stream flow so that it <br />wouldn't be harmful there." Id. When Mr. Child pressed him on whether <br />downstream inigators on the Creek would receive the water they were due, Mr. Wall <br />deflected the concern, and stressed the bypass flow promise asking "you feel that <br />even with minimum streamflow guarantees?" Id at 4. The word "guarantee" <br /> <br />5 <br />