| OCR Text |
Show Page 2 December 3, 1973 looked at in isolated fashion, concerns twenty-two miles of stream at the most, a figure that must be compared with the entire Colorado River Basin. Due to the nature of our first claim, and even our second claim, the limited construction contemplated would not nee-cessarily be determinative. However, when Secretary Morton announced his decision to proceed with the Strawberry Collection System, he stated that due to many comments received on minimal flows be lot*; diversion points, the entire minimum flow situation and thus trout fishery mitigation situation was to be completely re-analysed. This was not a comment in passing by the Secretary, but rather a central part of his decision to proceed, apparently, a step at a time. It strikes me that the defendants are thus provided with an excellent defense regarding Section 8 and the Central Utah Project. In addition, I don't see that our ability to assert a Section 8 claim is harmed by not exercising it at this time. We are entitled to rely upon the good assurances of the Secretary, &nd if activities should accelerate and continue without the mitigation aspects being reviewed as promised, then we can bring an action, and possibly, at that time, such an action will have been set up for us very nicely. Thus I have stricken Section 8 from the complaint. However, if any of you have objections, please let me know. Naturally, I will appreciate any comments and suggestions you have regarding the third claim as enclosed and the requests for relief. Regarding the third claim, it would appear on the surface that difficulties might be encountered due to the very recent effective date of the principles and standards. I feel, however, that the relationship of the various units of the CUP, their tenuous claim to recognition as reasonable and sensible water projects, the various stages of planning still going on, the legislative instructions regarding the ultimate phase of CUP, the language of the standards particularly regarding on-going projects, etc., all argue to one degree or another in our favor and thus serve to reduce problems with the late effective date. Please bear in mind, regarding our comments, that we are operating with a December 17, 1973, filing date deadline. I look forward to hearing from you*- S L ;rel If. Anttpny Ruckel Denves// Office HAR/jl End. cc: David Raskin |
