| OCR Text |
Show 19. iWJtH so changed and committed, the ability on the part of the District to Al£<" move that water to other streams is limited C the State F & G fisheries biologist indicated that there would be mobility and choice in allocation of water (44,400 a f) and even in streams to allocate it to - possibly to others than those named in the agreement, in order and the District's obligation in regard to said 15,800 a f shall not be enlarged by the fishery interests shifting emphasis to some other stream where such purchased water may not thereafter be moved. ^ (As you read the agreement, the understanding of the State F & G does not coincide with what is stated in the «'" • • » agreement and, it seems to me, that the limitations being placed on the mechanisms of storage, through project reservoirs, may be more stringent than the instream resource requires.) However, the District will endeavor to develop and acquire such additional water at such places and in such amounts so that releases for minimum stream flows will be available for a reasonable alloca-tion (interpretation of this is just asking for trouble!, division or apportionment to augment critical stretches of Rock Creek, Currant s{ t Creek, and W. Fk. Duchesne River. (State F & G has no maneuverability on behalf of instream resources. This stipulation is made even though consequences of diminished instream flows are and will be uhkown , for some time to come. Even though the U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service has programmed criteria for fish survival, per species, with reduced instream flows, the State F & G fisheries biologist tells me that consequences cannot be determined beforehand. This is all the more important for the Forest Service which has responsibility for riparian habitat. Under this agreement some rivers will be dried up entirely, i.e. Wolf and Hades and Twin Creeks - and, even though these contain wetlands and some may qualify as floodplains. Terms of this agreement as written here may be illegal, let alone shortsighted and restrictive. Perhaps more alarming, is the possibility that water from all springs and seeps - which abound in the Uintas - as well as small tributary spawning streams - can be tapped by the District for its purposes - and not left available for instream flows. For example, the only reason 25 cfs was allowed for the proposed Lower Stillwater Reservoir was because of the existence of a prominant and perrenial spring which emerged just above the Indian boundary and could be allowed to "count" in the allowed stream flow below it.) |
