Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br /> <br />John Turner <br />July '27, 1990 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />No. 567, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess. 12, reprinted in 1982 U.S. <br />Code Congo & Admin. News 2807, 2812. ("[T]he Committee <br />nonetheless recognized that the critical habitat designation, <br />with its attendant economic analysis, offers some counter- <br />point to the listing of species without due consideration for <br />the effects on land use and other development interests.") <br />The Service has refused to engage in this process in which <br />the tribal interests could be considered. <br /> <br />In addition, there are a multitude of other actions in the <br />San Juan basin that appear to be subject to the Endangered <br />Species Act but which have been allowed to proceed. <br />Activities such as the stocking of gamefish and the release <br />of water from Navajo Reservoir to meet the needs of those <br />species all adversely affect the squawfish. Although the <br />Service now invokes the full force of its authority to try to <br />halt the Animas-La Plata Project, these activities, in <br />contrast, have not been challenged. <br /> <br />Indeed, during the intervening years since 1979, the Service <br />has simply neglected the San Juan, failing either to develop <br />the necessary information about the status and needs of the <br />fish in that basin, or to give any formal indication that it <br />had changed its view and concluded that the San Juan <br />population warranted protection. The Service's indifference <br />not only was misleading, it contributed substantially to the <br />lack of information which is the heart of the present <br />difficulty. <br /> <br />Finally, in developing the draft op~n~on, the Service <br />apparently failed to abide by the terms of the stipulation in <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District. et al. v. Watt, <br />Civil Action No. 78-A-1191. At the same time, we repeatedly <br />hear that the Department is afraid that it will be sued by <br />environmental groups over the subject of Departmental <br />compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The failure to <br />follow a court-approved stipulation while voicing fears over <br />a potential lawsuit demonstrates the Service's one-sided <br />approach to this topic. <br /> <br />In sum, the actions of the Fish and Wildlife Service have <br />been procedurally unusual and appear to have had a <br />preordained objective -- stop the project. That prejudice is <br />