Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.I <br />I <br /> <br />Fax:3038663558 <br /> <br />Feb 4 '99 13:42 <br /> <br />P.02 <br /> <br />DRAFT COMMENTS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN SALAZAR <br />FOR ANIMAS-LA PLATA SCOPING MEETING <br /> <br />February 4, 1999 <br /> <br />I am pleased that the Bureau is moving ahead with this supplemental EIS. The Settlement <br />Agreement was signed in 1986. The Settlement Act was passed in 1988. The Bureau and <br />EP A owe it to the Ute Tribes, water users, and the State of Colorado to complete this review <br />without further delay. <br /> <br />J. <br /> <br />It is important to remember that there is an agreement and that the United States is a <br />signatory to it. The United States cannot unilaterally rewrite that agreement. Any changes <br />must be acceptable to all the other signatories -- the tribes, the states of Colorado and New <br />Mexico, and the non-Indian water users. <br /> <br />I am disturbed by the attitudes of project opponents. Some claim to be looking out for the <br />best interests of the tribes. They in effect say to the tribes, "You have made a bad deal and <br />we are here to protect you from your own poor judgment." This is patronizing and offensive. <br />The tribes have proven to be very capable of taking care of themselves. Their insistence on <br />receiving water, not money, reflects sound long-term planning and deserves our respect. <br /> <br />Other opponents make nQ pretense of concern for the tribes. They argue that the tribes' <br />resClVed rights claims are worthless and the settlement a sham. This is simply wrong. The <br />tribes have strong legal arguments and precedents to support their claims. The settlement <br />was well. founded and remains so. Without it, the United States, the tribes, the State of <br />Colorado, and the non-Indian water users face many years of acrimonious litigation and <br />millions of dollars in costs, much of it to be paid for by federal, state, and local taxpayers. It <br />is easy for those whose water supply is not at stake to stand on the sidelines and second guess <br />the parties who have so much at risk here. More than twelve years ago the parties assessed <br />those risks and, after hard bargaining, reached a fair compromise. <br /> <br />It is frustrating to reexamine the alternatives over and over again. But, hopefully, this <br />analysis will finally lay some ill-founded proposals to rest. I would like to comment briefly <br />, on the alternatives one-by-one to alert you to some of the pitfalls with proposals that may <br />look appealing at first blush. I will discuss the so-called Animas-La Plata Ultra.Lite (the <br />"Administration Proposal") last. <br /> <br />I. Administration Proposal with recreation element added. The Administration <br />Proposal is flawed without the recreation element. Recreation is an important improvement <br />to the proposal. It would be foolish to build a reservoir with no recreational value simply out <br />of paranoia about future expanded uses. Moreover, there may be environmental benefits to a <br />larger reservoir. The supplemental EIS should consider [he environmental eftecrs of <br />