Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'001359 <br /> <br />comments. <br /> <br />The Board presumed, and properly so, the purpose <br /> <br />of such discussion was to allow them to make meaningful <br /> <br /> <br />public comment and input which would ultimately be of benefit <br /> <br /> <br />to the Congress of the United States in connection with any <br /> <br /> <br />decision on exclusion or inclusion of the subject river <br /> <br /> <br />segments in the National wild and. scenic river system. <br /> <br /> <br />This presumption regarding an opportunity to give <br /> <br /> <br />meaningful public comment was stultified, however, by three <br /> <br /> <br />circumstances. These were: (1) The arbitrary refusal (on <br /> <br /> <br />advice of counsel) of the National Park/Fish and Wildife <br /> <br /> <br />officials present to discuss or answer questions concerning <br /> <br /> <br />alleged federal reserved water rights sufficient for the <br /> <br /> <br />stated purposes of Segment D Yampa River wild river desig- <br /> <br /> <br />nation; (2) The arbitrary refusal (on advice of counsel) of <br /> <br /> <br />the National Park/Fish and ~Hldlife officials present to <br /> <br /> <br />discuss the.purported inhibitions imposed on development by <br /> <br /> <br />the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; and, (3) the <br /> <br /> <br />fact the proposed recommendations were subjective,i.e., an <br /> <br /> <br />individual feeling as to what was best, rather than objective, <br /> <br /> <br />i.e., conclusions based on adequate facts and study. <br /> <br /> <br />(1) Section 13, (16 U.S.C.A. 1284) of the Wild and <br /> <br /> <br />Scenic Rivers Act, and particularly subsections (b); (c), <br /> <br /> <br />(d) and (e) thereof addresses specifically the subject of <br /> <br />-2- <br />