Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 9 <br />November 8. 1989 <br /> <br />(2) Monies from the fund would be available "for fish and <br />wildlife and conservation projects" throughout. <br />apparently. the Upper Basin (including areas <br />"affected" by transbasin diversions) and the Colorado <br />River from Glen Canyon Dam through the Grand Canyon <br />National Park. See section 402(d) on page 56 of the <br />draft bill. <br /> <br />(3) The fund would be administered by a 16 member Upper <br />Colorado Basin Conservation Council. State water <br />officials and water users would not be represented on <br />the Council. See section 401(b)(5) on pages 52-53 of <br />the draft bill. <br /> <br />In my opinion. the proposed Colorado Basin Conservation <br />Fund should not be enacted into law. There are several reasons <br />for this: <br /> <br />(1) Pursuant to section 8 of the 1956 CRSP Act. the costs <br />of fish and wildlife mitigation for CRSP projects are <br />to be funded by the federal government on a <br />non-reimbursable basis. To the extent that the issue <br />being addressed is the need to complete such <br />mitigation activities. then they should be funded by <br />Congress in the manner contemplated by section 8 of <br />the 1956 CRSP Act. No new fund or oversight council <br />is needed to accomplish this. <br /> <br />(2) It is often argued that there are basinwide. systemic <br />impacts from federal water development in the Upper <br />Basin which have not been adequately addressed and <br />that is the reason that a Colorado Basin Conservation <br />Fund is needed. However, I know of only two such <br />basinwide impacts--salinity and endangered fish. <br />Both of these are being addressed by programs that <br />are already in place and funded. Creation of a <br />Colorado Basin Conservation Fund and an Upper <br />Colorado Basin Conservation Council would only <br />duplicate those efforts and disrupt agreements and <br />institutional arrangements which have been hammered <br />out after many years of negotiations and <br />cooperation. <br /> <br />(3) Imposition of an annual charge of $1 per acre-foot of <br />depletions on water users is likely to have a major <br />adverse economic effect on irrigated agriculture in <br />western Colorado. Furthermore, it would be very <br />difficult. if not impossible, to administer in any <br />reasonable and equitable manner. <br /> <br />-3- <br />