|
<br />",,0
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />~;Ih' ,< --:.;"
<br />~~. ~_-.t. - _ ~ -~~~
<br />';'~"'.~'1>.3
<br />-~- .~
<br />~'. ~~-;.-: ':.. ..
<br />o"'~~..'~; ~~~
<br />'....:re-..,....t:r:"~~~
<br />
<br />"Voice of the Western Slope, since 1953"
<br />A coalition of counties, communities, businesses & individuals
<br />
<br />970/242-3264 * FAX 970/245-8300
<br />P.O. Box 550
<br />Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-0550,
<br />h tip ://www.iti2.neticlub20/
<br />email: c1ub20@id2.riet
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />:'~
<br />
<br />September 26, 1997
<br />
<br />Mr. Danes C. lite, Director
<br />Colorado Water Conservation Bonrd
<br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 721
<br />Denver, Colorado 80203
<br />
<br />Dear Mr. tile:
<br />
<br />,.
<br />
<br />We are writing to formally request that the Colorado \Vater Conser::lcion Board rewrite its applications for
<br />instream flow rights on the Colorado and Yampa Rivers, to provide for the equitable distribution of the burden
<br />between Front Range and \Vest Slope wilter users.
<br />
<br />t~~.o
<br />..,"fIr~r~.. ';1'- "J!
<br />-.- ". :~. .;/
<br />"',:',::1
<br />
<br />~;,.-,;.' . .
<br />We are confident that the ewes did not intend, through these filings. to provide substantial benefits to the ::,,'~';.~,~,;. ..:.~"
<br />Front Range at the expense of the 'Western Slope. However. as the program is now structured. it does not require the "1;j~':'.):'~
<br />largest trans~mount3in diverters to provide a single drop of water to help recover the fish. Instead, recovery flows are
<br />taken out of the \Vestem Slope's share of water in Green Mountain, Reudi and \Volford Mountain reservoirs, which
<br />were built as compens:ltory storage projects with water belonging to the future of\Vestern Colorado. The Western
<br />Slope agreed to several past trans~mountain diversions coly 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 of Reclamation's refusal to issue the Round II
<br />contracts from Reudi is evidence that more flows from Reudi m:lY yet be required for the fish.
<br />
<br />CLUB 20 believes Eastem Slope water users should bear an equal share of the burden (or the recovery
<br />program, at least. If the depletion of water, in fact, has anything to do with the decline of the endangered fish, then
<br />those who depleted the water should have some responsibility for that. Placing the entire recovery burden on the
<br />Westem Slope is patently unfair. We know the CWCB did not intend to set up another East-West water battle in our
<br />Stat~. so rewriting the applications is the only logical course of action to preserve the program's political suppon.
<br />
<br />Cle;rly, support for the instream flow filings has eroded badly as water users leam more about the potential
<br />impaets. The USFWS's program director, John Hamil, publicly expressed concem in July that the program "may be
<br />falling apart" because of the growing opposition to the filings. Mr. Lochhead has expressed similar eoncems. 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~term commitments pl:1ces in doubt the effect of the filings on Colorado's compact
<br />entitlements. C\VCB can only continue to help pressure llSF\VS to make those commitments, but this is primarily a
<br />federal problem. Seeond, the East Slope-West Slope problem lies squarely at the feet of CWCB and eannot be
<br />resolved except by rewriting the applications. \Ve request that the Board do so at once in order to a"'"oid a prolonged
<br />intra.state battle.
<br />
<br />
<br />-',-,.
<br />
<br />:i
<br />';
<br />:[
<br />
<br />,
<br />oi
<br />
<br />..,.
<br />
<br />, 'I
<br />1\
<br />II
<br />...![
<br />-1\
<br />")1
<br />
|