Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00 <br />o <br />I ':"J <br /> <br />It by: K/H/G & K LLC <br />(~ <br />-' <br /> <br />303 293 6705 j <br /> <br />03/11/97 1 : 29PUjJet#ax #646jpage 2/3 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />ANIMAS RIVER CITlZENS' COALmoN <br /> <br />March I 1,1997 <br /> <br />The HollOIllble Roy Romer, Governor <br />The Honorable Gail Schoettler, lieutenant Governor <br />State Capitol <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br /> <br />Re: Romer/Schoettler Process Regarding Animas-La Plata. Project <br /> <br />Dear Governor Romer and lieutenant Governor Schoett1er: <br /> <br />We write to request your attention to an emerging issue which, in our vi~, criUcaUy <br />threatens the RomcrlSdJoettler Process by undermining its integrity and by violating the <br />IIS90Ciated Standstill Agreement, We write this letter at a pom in the Process when all parlies <br />already have invested COIIIItIess hours. All parties have put ..~ons for altunatives on the <br />table, We l1lIderBtand the fiustration some are feeling because the atizeas' Coalition bas not been <br />able to produce a further. teclmical stUdy of our alternative options. Likewise,. we' are ftustrated <br />by the utter lack offiJnding for teobnical aasistance, despite ourrqreated requests for such, when <br />aU of the other parties have eagineering stafIi; or consul1ants available to them. The good-fiith <br />efforts that all are making to get past these issues now are put at risk because the State of <br />Colorado is being asked to predetermine the outcome of the Process itself <br /> <br />We were dismayed to learn that ~week.llmeniber()ftl1eCo1o~oWaterCpnsetvatioD ' <br />, B<i4rd (eWCB) requellted that the Board take actliln8t its March 21; 1997 ineetinglo'eOdotse "a' <br />" sttuctuia1 J\ tiunas:.Lil Plata project: n (See letter Of Jamce 'Slieftd,enclolied, Cefereoomglin . <br />attached ~ by project proponent Animas-LaPIata Water CoDSerVllllCy Distriot.) Iftbe <br />Statc's principal water policy_mo~ asency were to endorse a structural alternative, it would <br />thereby preclude c:onsideration of the many non-st.roctural aI1ematives which the Citizens <br />Coalition, the Navajo Nation, and Co/orQdo itselfhavc put on the table. Even if the CWCB were <br />to hold ptillic heiuiIlss on the concept Of utruCtural ~~e, one wonders wI1atpurpose <br />would be scn'ed. Is that not, in effect, what this PI'OCeS$is <lesigned to do? Further, the CWCB's <br />proposed action potentially compromises the position of one important participant in the process <br />(Jim Locl1head) and the neutrality ofanotber (Lt. Governor SchoettIer). How could the CWCB's <br />endotSeoteDt tall to afIfct the positions taIren in the proceaR by the State of Colorado. who is <br />represented by Mr. LodJhead, an ex officio member oftbe CWCB? Would not the CWCB's <br />endorsement of a structura1 altemativein some way affect you or the perception of you, Lt. <br />Governor Schoett1er, as the Process's neutrsl iiwilitator. when as a state officer you must be <br />cognizant of the expressed policy directives of the state's leading water policy-rro1cing agency? <br />We believe, in short, that the proposed CWCB action threatens to compromise the very purpose, <br />as well u the integrity, of the Process. ,Surely the project proponents would not approve of a <br />preemptive CWCB resolution endorsing a 1I01NIruchtraJ alternative, were we to seek: one. <br /> <br />~~, <br />'i. <br />-.-'t <br /> <br />> <br />