Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />John Turner <br />July 27, 1990 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />of the federal government to meet that responsibility. <br />Unless the tribe receives its water from the project by that <br />date, the tribal claims on the La Plata and Animas Rivers <br />will be revived and the tribe will again be faced with long <br />and bitter litigation against its non-Indian neighbors in <br />order to obtain the water promised to it so long ago. <br />Accordingly, the tribe is committed to taking all steps <br />necessary for the construction of the project in a timely <br />fashion. <br /> <br />The draft biological opinion concludes that the operation of <br />the project will jeopardize the continued existence of the <br />squawfish and that there are no reasonable and prudent <br />alternatives that would permit the project to proceed without <br />jeopardizing the squawfish. The underlying premise of the <br />opinion is that so little is known about the fish and its <br />requirements for flows that any further depletion of the San <br />Juan should not be allowed. If the final opinion reflects <br />that perspective, construction of the project will be <br />substantially delayed while the necessary studies are <br />conducted. <br /> <br />The most troubling aspect of the draft op~n~on is its failure <br />to find a reasonable and prudent alternative that would <br />permit the project to go forward. The history of the draft <br />opinion and the prior lack of involvement of the Service in <br />the San Juan Basin strongly suggests that the goal of the <br />Service was to stop the project, not to protect the fish. As <br />a result, it is not surprising that the opinion failed to <br />find reasonable and prudent alternatives that would enable <br />the project to be built. <br /> <br />Your comments on June 21 demonstrate the Service's bias. In <br />seeking to defend the draft opinion, you called the Animas-La <br />Plata Project a "wreck." Although you insisted that you were <br />only concerned with your obligations under the Endangered <br />Species Act, you described a number of problems you perceived <br />with the project which are completely unrelated to the <br />biological issues related to the protection of the squawfish. <br />In short, based on your responses, it appears that the draft <br />opinion represents the viewpoint of those who oppose the <br />project for reasons having nothing to do with the Endangered <br />Species Act. You obviously had been briefed on certain of <br />