My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ColoradoComments33
CWCB
>
SWSI
>
DayForward
>
ColoradoComments33
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 10:32:13 AM
Creation date
1/7/2008 3:55:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
SWSI
Basin
Colorado
Title
Comments 33
Date
5/11/2004
SWSI - Doc Type
Comments
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />RED RIVER RESEARCH <br />John Tramme~ Geologist <br />2040 Barberry Avenue <br />Grand Junction, CO 81506 <br />(970)243-4304 <br /> <br />RECEIVED <br />MAY 1 4 20M <br /> <br />G:bado Weter Conservation B~.UfI~ <br /> <br />May 11,2004 <br /> <br />To: Rick Brown and Susan Morea <br />From: John Trammell <br />Subj: Comments on Colorado Basin RT #3. <br /> <br />As a representative for Colorado Trout Unlimited, I'm most concerned about water conservation <br />and stream protection, and much less interested in dam building as solutions to statewide water <br />supplies. That said, the following conments are derived from six pages of notes I made at the <br />Apri128 SWSI meeting in Glenwood Springs. <br /> <br />Although you acknowledge that many participants would like to see more emphasis on <br />environmental concerns, you don't seem to know how to address those concerns. You ask us to <br />propose a project for environmental purposes, but building "environmental" dams is not what we <br />need. Instead, environmental needs (e.g. flows) should be fully integrated into all water- <br />development projects. If such integration requires that the majority of the developed water goes <br />to keep the stream in a semblance of normalcy, it should be un4erstood that is an acceptable <br />result. As several have said, people don't come to Colorado to see streams that have been . <br />reduced to trickles below dams. <br /> <br />Also, CWCB should organize water..conservation programs with teeth in them. Find a way to <br />convert the bluegrass-lawn cuhure to one where xeriscaping with native plans is the accepted and <br />admired norm statewide. Seek supporting legislation, if necessmy. Do whatever it takes to avoid <br />:further damage to the State's streams. The focus needs to be on conservation, protection and <br />restoration (CPR), and not on building reservoirs to service non-essential uses. <br /> <br />Residents of the Colorado and Gunnison basins live in fear of additional transmountain diversions, <br />yet every time RT members bring this up, you say that we are not going to pay much attention to <br />this subject. This supports the cynical view that SWSI is really about developing a prioritized list <br />of water developments, with little interest in other means of sustaining our water supplies. <br /> <br />Few on the RT appear willing to endorse a list of projects at this point. The project list continues <br />to becontroversia1, even though the Tier system has been IlOminally abandoned. I'm curious as to <br />why the AB LateralHydropOwer Project is even listed. . <br /> <br />. . <br /> <br />Many questions have been raised about the adequacy and accuracy of the d8ta used to identify the <br />Gap. You conmonly reply that RT members should supply data; however, this is clearly the <br />responsibility of CWCB and its consultants. In cases where participants are able to supply data, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.