Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />"Voice of the Western Slope, since 1953" <br /> <br />A coalition of counties, communities, businesses & individuals <br /> <br />970/242.3264 * FAX 970/245.8300 . ,. <br />P.O. Box 550 . <br />GrandJunction, Colorado 81502.0550; <br />http://www.iti2.netlclub20/ <br />email: c1ub20@iti2.tiet <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />September 26, 1997 <br /> <br />Mr. Daries C. Lile, Director <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 72-1 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br /> <br />Dear Mr. Lile: <br /> <br />We are writing to formally request that the Colorado Water Conservation Board rewrite its applica:ions for ~ <br />instream flow rights on the Colorado and Yampa Rivers, to provide for the equitable distribution of the burden ~~!~:J:~~~~r;~" <br />between Front Range and \Vest Slope water users. .,' <br /> <br />f4;~; ,.. <br />\Ve are confident that the eweB did not intend, through these filings, to provide substantial benefits to the ....:.~~~t;:.: '~'~: <br />Front Range at the expense of the Western Slope. However, as the program is now structured, it does not require the ';..::.~~';~. <br />largest trans-mountain diverters to provide a single drop of water to help recover the fish. Instead, recovery flows are <br />taken out of the 'Western Slope's share of water in Green Mountain, Reudi and Wolford Mountain reservoirs, which <br />were built as compensatory storage projects with water belonging to the future of\Vestern Colorado. The Western <br />Slope agreed to several past trans-mountain diversions only in exchange for this compensatory storage. Thus, many <br />objectors now consider this outcome as another broken promise to the Western Slope, since compensatory storage will <br />now be taken away for the fish recovery program. In fact, the Bureau ofReclamation"s refusal to issue the Round II . <br />contracts from Reudi is evidence that more flows from Reudi may yet be required for the fish. <br /> <br />CLUB 20 believes Eastem Slope water users should bear an equal share of the burden fpr the recovery <br />program, at least. If the dcpletion ofwatcr, in fact, has anything to do with the decline of the endangered fish,then <br />those who depleted the water should havc some responsibility for that. Placing the entire recovery burden on the <br />\Vcstem Slope is patently unfair. We know the C\VCB did not intend to set up another East-West water battle in our <br />State, so rewriting the applications is the only logical course of action to preserve the program"s politi~al support. <br /> <br />Clearly, support for the instream flow filings has eroded badly as water users learn more about the potential <br />impacts. The USFWS's program director, John Hamil, publicly expressed concern in July that the program "may be <br />falling apart" because of the growing opposition to the filings. Mr. Lochhead has expressed similar concems. That <br />growing opposition is based on two central themes, one federal and one state. First, the USFWS"s refusal to define <br />recovery and to make long~tenn commitments places in doubt the effect of the filings on Colorado's compact <br />entitlements. C\VCB can only continue to help pressure USFWS to make those commitments, but this is primarily a <br />. federal problem, Second, the East Slope.West Slope problem lies squarely at the feet ofCWCB and cannot be <br />resolved except by rewriting the applications. We request that the Board do so at once in order to avoid a prolonged <br />intra-state battle. <br /> <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />.- <br /> <br />., <br /> <br />,{ <br />. i <br />. <br /> <br />. " <br /> <br />... <br /> <br />... <br />