BOARD02377

• Board Meeting Date: 7/13/1998
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - 15-Mile Reach Recovery Water Rights - Cases No. 5-95CW296 and 5-95CW297
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

RECEIVED
l
JUN 2'9 1998

Colorado Water
Conservation Board

ROUTT COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Box n3598 . Steamboat Springs, Colorado 804n .,970-879-0108
Fax: [phone]

Nancy J. Stahovilllk
District 1
Oak Creek

Ben S. BellI!
District 2
Hayden

Daniel R. Ellison
Olstrlct3
Steamboat Springs

.ay We Inland
ox 773599
Clerk to Ihe Board
879.1710

.

June 29, 1998
Via Facsimile to [phone]

Mr. Peter Evans
Acting Director
Colorado Water Conservation Board
721 Centennial Building
13 \3 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203

Re;

Endangered Fish Instream Flow Water Rights Applications

Dear Mr. Evans:

Thank you for the opportunity extended in your May 18 memorandum to
comment on whether the Water Conservation Board should withdraw the instream
flow filings. At the outset, it should be noted that Routt County has only minor
water rights on the Yampa River. The County's statement of opposition to the
insrream flow filings was filed primarily to remain a party to a process that could
have major impacts to Routt COllnty.

Our primary concerns, !lot listed in any order of importance, are: (1) the
desire to maintain the nearly natural flow of the Yampa River free from trans-
mountain and trans-basin diversions; (2) the desire tu maintain as much local/state
control of the Yampa River as possible given the Endangered Species Act; (3) the
desire to assure reasonable development of water rights within the Yampa River
basin to ensure and enhance the economic viability of the basin; and (4) the desire to
avoid the expense of water development in an administered river basin.

We have viewed the instteam flow filings as a possible means of addressing
some of the concerns listed above. However, they have the potential oflimiting the
inexpensive development of water rights and depriving Routt County citizens, and
Colorado, of their rights under the interstate compact. Moreover, it is unclear
whether these rights would assist in the recovery of the endangered fish.

If the withdrawal of the support of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
instream flow filings is to be taken at face value, it would seem that the instream
flow filings will not serve two of the purposes of the filings which Routt County
found of value, the avoidance of Section 7 consultations and federal jurisdiction
over water development. If the current position of the U,S.F.W.S is unlikely to
change then there seems little reason to continue pursuit of the filings. On the other
hand, if the current position might change then there are goud reasons to continue to