Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />PETER H. EVANS, ACTING DIRECTOR <br />DECEMBER 16, 1998 <br />PAGE 2 <br /> <br />The River District's Board now urges the CWCB to withdraw all of these claims. The Fish <br />& Wildlife Service has withdrawn support for the Colorado River claims, having determined that <br />those rights would not assist recovery and delisting. Without the support of the Service, it is now <br />untenable for the CWCB to prosecute those claims. The Service's reasoning about the Colorado <br />River claims certainly will apply with equal force to the Yampa River claims, which are modeled <br />on the same concepts that the Service has rejected on the Colorado River and which also face <br />significant opposition. <br /> <br />For the Colorado River, the Service now is advocating river management involving the <br />delivery of storage water to the "15-Mile" reach as a near-term strategy to provide endangered fish <br />flows. The discussions about the Yampa River have a similar focus. Provision and protection of <br />habitat necessary for delisting is a longer-term concern. Indeed, the Fish. & Wildlife Service's <br />"withdrawal of support" for the IS-Mile Reach claims refers to the need for instream flows to protect <br />habitat in order to support "delisting" of the species, an unscheduled event. <br /> <br />From a practical standpoint, it is very unlikely that the Water Courts would allow these <br />claims to be maintained in "suspended animation." The CWCB will not be able to maintain the <br />Yampa River claims "on hold" pending the completion of a multi-year "NEP A" process, the primary <br />rationale offered by those who suggest that it is premature to withdraw the Y ampa River claims. On <br />the Colorado River, the maintenance of the pending claims would impede the successful completion <br />of the anticipated "programmatic biological opinion" for the 15-Mile Reach. <br /> <br />As stated in my June 26, 1998 letter to you, the River District Board believes that flows for <br />the endangered fish should be based upon sound science and should be provided under state law. <br />If the CWCB withdraws its pending claims, the CWCB should carefully articulate the reasons for <br />that withdrawal. The State's novel claims, particularly the recovery flow claims, have been opposed <br />because they do not meet traditional standards for proof of need and beneficial use. The <br />unacceptability of the pending claims originates for many water users in the uncertainty concerning <br />the endangered fish species' flow needs. Conditions on the recovery flow claims were never <br />developed because of the Service's resistance to negotiating concepts that could have managed the <br />scientific and Compact development uncertainties within the constraints of Colorado law by <br />providing for "reality checks" on the species' flow needs. <br />