|
<br />/ Y.JL
<br />
<br />GLENWOOD SPRINGS OFFICE
<br />JAMES S. LOCHHEAD
<br />P.O. BOX 357
<br />715 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE C
<br />.WOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-0357
<br />Phone (970) 945-5302
<br />Mobile (970) 618-3810
<br />FAX (970) 384.2360
<br />EMAIL: Jlochhead@bhfs.com
<br />
<br />BROWNSTEIN HYATT & FARBER, P.C.
<br />ATTORNEYS AT LAW
<br />TWENTY.SECOND FLOOR
<br />410 SEVENTEENTH STREET
<br />DENVER, COLORADO 80202-4437
<br />(303) 223-1100
<br />FAX (303) 223-1111
<br />
<br />January 7, 2002
<br />
<br />WASHINGTON OFFICE
<br />1615 L Street, NW.
<br />Suite 450
<br />Washington, D.C. 20036
<br />(202)296-7353
<br />RECEIVED FAX 12'2) 296-70"
<br />
<br />
<br />JAN 0 9 2002
<br />
<br />CoIOllldo Water C
<br />OI1selVaJion Board
<br />
<br />Randy Seaholm
<br />Chief, Water Supply Protection
<br />Colorado Water Conservation Board
<br />1313 Sherman St., Room 721
<br />Denver, CO 80203
<br />
<br />Re: Navajo-Gallup Water Project
<br />
<br />Dear Randy:
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />I am writing pursuant to your memorandum dated December II, 200 I, to provide
<br />comment on the proposed policy resolution of the CWCB to the Navajo-Gallop Water Project. I
<br />am writing on behalf of the City of Grand Junction, Colorado River Water Conservation District,
<br />Denver Water DepartD;lent, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Southeast Colorado
<br />Water Conservancy District" and the Southwestern Water Conservation District.
<br />'.' .',' '.". ":.1,<.. ..,..-..'....
<br />
<br />. ., .. ..
<br />Your revisedm~n:lbtandUnlbfNoveniber 7,2001, provides agood background and raises
<br />significant issues concerning the Na'vajo-GallopProject My c1ientssujJport.theconcerns and
<br />iSsues raised in your memorandum, and appreciate the opportunity to comment.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />However, as with all issues, this matter is complicated by a number of factors, Most
<br />importantly, the issue is evolving, and is currently under discussion by the Upper Colorado River
<br />Commission and the state of Arizona, Therefore, we do not believe that the interests of the state
<br />of Colorado would be best served by adoption of the proposed resolution at this time, The
<br />resolution may unduly restrict subsequent positions of the state of Colorado on this matter, as the
<br />proposal evolves, Moreover, there is not a final proposal or legislation at this time, and any
<br />formal resolution of the CWCBwould appear premature, Finally, as this matter is being
<br />discussed by the states through the Upper Colorado River Commission, it seems appropriate that
<br />Colorado's views be expressed through that forum,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />As a result, we would urge the CWCB not to adopt the proposed resolution at this time,
<br />Rather, we recommend that the state's position be co()rdiiiatedwith the CWCB, the DNR
<br />Executive DireCtor, the Upper Basin Ccnnrriissioner,' and interested. Colorado water users: That
<br />positionshould'beoia'lIy corruii.tiiucateathfough establishediirtersta'techa'I;illelsiinthe Upper.
<br />Colorado )3asin COmmission and the Governor's representatives on Colorado River matters, If
<br />and:wh~n,appropria'te, \Vtitten positlonscan'be taken 1ater. '.. "-'
<br />
<br />-~,,;.,
<br />
|