BOARD02098 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 23-24, 1998 Board Meeting Agenda Item 171 Page 2 00 of the Program documents; or (2) persuading the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("Service") Coordination Committee head to seek to reach consensus on all major issues. j'; The Program Document in Section 5.1.1 (page 41) states, "The Coordination Committee will be given sufficient time to resolve any problems. If issues cannot be resolved at the Coordination Committee level, those issues will be referred to the Signatories to the Cooperative Agreement for resolution." STACKING COORDINATION COMMITTEE WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES Another issue of concern is the Service's use of Section 7 consultations to require other federal agencies to participate in the SJRRIP with voting rights on the Coordination Committee. The Service has added the Buteau of Land Management to the Coordination Committee and is seeking to add the National Park Service. These actions reduce, if not eliminate, the ability of the States to have effective input into the Recovery Program, which the States will be funding, due to block voting by Federal agencies. While requiring other federal agencies to cooperate with the Program could be beneficial, granting such federal agencies voting privileges on the Coordination Committee significantly reduces the States' voice in Program activities. Our options are: (1) introducing an amendment seeking to change the Program documents; or (2) obtaining an understanding from the Service that this practice will cease. An Attorney General opinion that this practice is not required by the Program documents would help. DISCUSSION ~..; .. While the flow recommendations (see attached executive summary) as currently structured seemingly provide a significant amount of future development and maintain Colorado's ability to develop at least ALP Lite, the process by which they were adopted leaves much to be desired and, in fact, did not follow the process agre~d to by the Coordination Committee as indicated in the November 10, 1998 memorandum from Tom Pitts to Joe Dowhan of the Service (attached). This situation may get worse if the Service is allowed to keep adding other federal agencies to the Coordination Committee. The agencies are all Interior agencies and are subject to future Section 7 consultations. This gives the Service extraordinary influence over Coordination Committee activities. Furthermore, the SJRRIP will derive a substantial benefit with the passage of any long- term funding legislation for the Colorado River Recovery Programs. The States' ability to influence how these dollars are spent could be significantly limited, given the guidance in the current SJRRIP documents and present practices. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board direct it to seek amendments to the Recovery Program Documents that will restore an equitable voice for the States and water users in the recovery Program. Staff further recommends that any Federal agencies required by the Service to participate in the SJRRIP, pursuant to either a Section 7 Consultation or a . 2