Laserfiche WebLink
<br />JI. <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />From: Chuck Wanner {mailto:cwanner@frontier.net] <br />Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2003 2:36 PM <br />To: SWSI (Statewide Water Supply Initiative) <br />Subject Re: SWSJ Dolores/San Juan/San Miguer Basin Update - November 2003 <br /> <br />Attached are my responses to the questions posed. <br />It would be good if the meeting summary page were posted~ The Ijnk was 1404 not found' <br />as of 12/13~ <br />Thanks, <br />Chuck <br /> <br />Responses of Charles Wanner to questions posed in SWSI e-mail of 11/26/03 San Juan <br />Dolores Roundtable <br /> <br />Question 1 <br />The indication so far js that current ISF will be the recommendation and that this wilr be <br />considered enough for the future. What about streams that have no current instream <br />ftows, but are badly stressed such as the La Plata? This river needs some type of flow <br />from Hesperus to Long Hollow. It will probably not be done with the current ISF <br />program~ If it is done the current methodology is not suited to the needs of the stream. <br />Every 2nd or 3rd order stream in the state should have some type of environmental flow <br />either under the ISF progra <br />m or through some type of cooperative management agreement among users~ Of course <br />this is beyond the scope of SWSI, but there is no standard for those of us concerned <br />about instream trows to respond to and instream flows that are necessary under the <br />benefjcial uses described in state law are Multi..faceted.. The furl compliment of uses was <br />not even recognized until S8 156, which was passed in the last two years.. Obviously a <br />comprehensive list of is stream flow needs, for even the larger streams in the state, does <br />not exist. The fact that the ewes still uses the R2 Cross method. which is aimed at <br />minimum flows for cold-water species, is an indicator of the lack of adequate response to <br />the new expanded definition of in stream purposes in 88156. R2 Cross is objectivef but <br />targets only the one parameter~ This method is not relevant to other stream needs and it <br />is imperative that the ewes respond to the new uses.. What better time than during this <br />process. The current method for calculating needs simply does not address or retate to <br />streams like the La Plata, Dolores and others where native warm water fish are a major <br />part of the requirement for flows in many reaches. As our state changes its <br />demographics and more of our residents are concerned about aesthetics and about long <br />term environmental effects we really do need to identify the needs of the rivers that will <br />be a part of our landscape into the foreseeabte future.. If we continue to identify structural <br />alternatives as the only response to our needs or to effectively give them priority in <br />processes such as this one we will end up with rivers that are simply conveyances and <br />not really rivers. Of course eventually the finite amount of water in our streams will be <br />put to use to satisfy a growing population. We need to recognize the limits of our <br />streams. A good time to start to do that wou'd be in thjs process. We need to generate a <br />realistic description of instream flows, which recognizes aU of the benefits in recent <br />legislation. We cannot give specific numbers for each stream in this process, but if we <br />had descriptive language that included the types of simple functions that a stream needs <br />in order to remain a stream instead of a conveyance we might have a shot at makjng <br />reasonable estimates for protecting the natural qualities of our streams~ Perhaps <br />recognition of a percentage of average flows might be starting point~ Obviously this is <br />