BOARD02286 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, . "Voice of the Western Slope, since 1953" A coalition of counties, communities, businesses & individuals 970/242-3264 * FAX 970/245-8300 P,O. Box 550 Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-0550, http://www.iti2.net!c1\tb20/ email: c1ub20@itI2.net , September 26, 1997 Mr. Danes C. Lile, Director Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 . I Dear Mr. Lile: We are writing to fonnall)' request that the Colorado \Vater Conservation Board rewrite its applications for instream flow rights on the Colorado and Yampa Rivers, to provide for the equitable distribution orthe burden between Front Range and 'Vest Slope water users. _.;;;t:;~ .-' .. f.:,~...f,,~<.. <.... . "'~ ti We are confident that the CWCB did not intend, through these filings, to provide substantial benefits to the '. .." front Range at the expense of the Western Slope. However, as the program is now structured, it does not require the .....,~.J largest trans-mountain diverters to provide a single drop of water to help recover the fish. Instead, recovery flows are taken out of the \Vestern Slope's share of water in Green Mountain, Reudi and Wolford Mountain reservoirs. which were built as compensatory storage projects with water belonging to the future of Western Colorado. The Western Slope agreed to several past trans. mountain diversions only in exchange for this compensatory storage. Thus. many objectors now consider this outcome as another broken promise to the Western Slope, since compensatory storage will now be taken away for the fish recovery program. In fact, the Bureau of Reclamation's refusal to issue the Round II contracts from Reudi is evidence that more flo\vs from Reudi may yet be required for the fish. CLUB 20 believes Eastern Slope water users should bear an equal share of the burden f9r the recovery program, at least. If the depletion of water, in fact, has anything to do with the decline of the endangered fish, then those who depleted the water should have some responsibility for that. Placing the entire recovery burden on the Western Slope is patently unfair. We know the CWCB did not intend to set up another East-West water battle in our State, so rewriting the applications is the only logical course of action to preserve the program's political support. Clearly, support for the instream flow filings has eroded badly as water users learn more about the potential impacts. The USFWS's program director, lohn Hamil. publicly expressed concern in luly that the program '"may be falling apart" because of the growing opposition to the filings. Mr. Lochhead has expressed similar concerns. That growing opposition is based on two central themes, one federal and one state. First, the USFWS's refusal to define recovery and to make long-term commitments places in doubt the effect of the filings on Colorado's compact entitlements. C\VCB can only continue to help pressure USFWS to make those commitments, but this is primarily a federal problem. Second, the East Slope-West Slope problem lies squarely at the feet o[CWCB and cannot be resolved except by re\\o'riting the applications. \Ve request that the Board do so at once in order to avoid a prolonged intra-state battle. . . i i . .1 ,'I il t" i. I ~..