HomeMy WebLinkAbout20000232.tiff j c4( Dave Miller
�Sp �( P. O. Box 567
/o4 t v,b ,'1�, ?l4T Palmer Lake,CO 80133
`7 v (719) 481-2003,Fax (719) 481-3452
Wij 50
Jpl ��16t1 ' .. ! • nJappary 10,2000
Honorable Bill Owens Honorable Ray Powers, Senate President
Governor, State of Colorado Honorable Russell George,House Speaker
State Capitol Building State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203 Denver,Colorado 80203
Re: Federal Control of Colorado's High Storage and Colorado River Compact Rights
Dear Governor Owens, Senator Powers and Representative George:
The enclosed Union Park Water Authority letter describes how the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is trying to
implement extra-legal policies for its Aspinall Unit reservoirs in Colorado's Upper Gunnison Basin. These
landmark state water rights vs. federal control issues are currently being challenged in Colorado Supreme Court.
Union Park Reservoir Case No. 98SA327. If the proposed policies against transbasin storage projects above
federal reservoirs become western water law, the water futures of Colorado and all western states are in serious
jeopardy. (Appellant's 50 page Answer-Reply Brief filed December 6, 1999 is must reading for Western
political leaders interested in saving state rights and wise use of water in the arid West.)
Union Park is the world's first high altitude pumped storage project that is designed to greatly expand
water use and reuse opportunities for multiple river basins on the wet and dry sides of a high mountain
range. Its 900,000 acre feet of off-river, carry-over storage and gravity delivery systems can convert wet-year
snowmelt into invaluable drought protection for the Taylor, East, Gunnison, Colorado, Platte, and Arkansas
River Basins. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer studies have confirmed that Union Park's drought insurance from
10,000 feet can multiply the safe water, power, and flood control yields of existing reservoirs throughout the
West. This unprecedented concept avoids the environmental problems of traditional river dams.
If federal and state water resource planners would conduct a preliminary 60 day cost-benefit analysis of Union
Park, they would soon realize that high altitude storage is the optimal water solution for the growing city. farm.
and environmental needs of the Western Region during the 21st Century. In fact, after the construction bonds
are repaid (about$750 million for Union Park Phases I and II), high altitude reservoirs can extend free.
sustainable, high quality water supplies throughout the next millennium.
In behalf of current and future generations, I respectfully request timely reversal of the previous administration's
fateful decision to cede control of Colorado's high storage and Colorado River rights to the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Union Park Case. Apparently, Colorado's former Director of Natural Resources and chief
witness for federal claims in Gunnison Water Court was following the political "NOT ONE DROP OVER
THE HILL" slogan of Gunnison activists. The Upper Gunnison is by far Colorado's largest unallocated
Colorado River source. Under Colorado's Constitution, appropriation of unallocated state waters for statewide
consumptive needs "shall not be denied". Ironically, the primary expert witness for Union Park was
Colorado's previous State Engineer. He had been fired for following legislative mandates regarding the priority \A
need to plan, protect. and use Colorado's federally-threatened Colorado River entitlements. Thank you. <gs
a `
4eiier, 1d '
y, 2
P.S. This may be the Western Region's D •` . 1ttP
CT- most important court case. Water Planner
Independent 0 y r \Pl -311 •tr
Encl: Union Park Water Authority letter to Bureau of Reclamation dated December 16, 1999 G ` p \)15
v r ott
cc: Western Governors Association, Western States Water Council, Upper Colorado River Commission, Q
((0111 Congressional Resource Committees, Colorado Congressional Delegation, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt
�(
Note: 60,000 AF from Union Park can increase Metro Denver's safe yield by 111,000 AF(see Two Forks Dam EIS). \d
2000-0232
VRANESH AND RAISCH. LLP Jerry W. Raisch
Ai-TAL. ATTORNEYS AT LAW John R. Henderson
Michael D. Shimmin
Eugene J. Riordan
1720 14th Street. Suite 200
Paul J. Zilis
P.O. Box 871
Boulder. Colorado 80306-0871 R. Woodruff Curran
Telephone 303/443-6151 Aslmakis P. latridis - Of Counsel
Telecopier 303/443-9586 George Vranesh (1926:1997)
December 16, 1999 —
Bureau of Reclamation
Attn: Carol De Angelis and Steve McCall
2764 Compass Drive, Suite 106
Grand Junction, CO 81506 -
Re: Draft Environmental Assessment on an Agreement Concerning the Administration
of Water Pursuant to Alleged Subordination of Wayne N. Aspinall Unit Water
Rights
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We would like to take this opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Assessment
("EA") on behalf of the Union Park Water Authority. The Authority is the successor in interest
to the County of Arapahoe as to the Union Park Reservoir Project, Gunnison County, Colorado.
The Union Park Reservoir Project proposes to divert substantial amounts of water from the Upper
Gunnison Basin to the Colorado front range.
As this matter is of critical importance to the State of Colorado and the entire front range, we
would request that additional time be granted for comment to give all interested parties a realistic
chance of commenting on the draft EA. The December 20 deadline appears to be insufficient to
notify interested parties and to allow reasoned comment. In addition, and for the reasons cited
below, a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") is utterly unwarranted in this case.
We would request that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ("BUREC") closely review the materials
and authorities presented in this letter, and as attached.
1. The District Court Decision Relied Upon in the EA is on Appeal to the Colorado Supreme
Court
The proposal to execute the subordination contract is ostensibly based upon certain rulings
by the Division 4 Water Court in the pending Union Park case. The case is well known
to BUREC, as multiple BUREC witnesses have appeared as live witnesses or by deposition
testimony. The issues outlined on page 3 of the draft EA are currently on appeal to the
Colorado Supreme Court. We consider it an unprecedented step for BUREC to recognize
and to implement Water Court decisions on important questions of State and Federal law
that are currently being appealed. A right of direct appeal to the State Supreme Court
exists, and is being exercised.
December 16, 1999
Page 2
The Union Park Water Authority attaches hereto copies of its briefs before the Colorado
Supreme Court which set out legal positions contrary to those cited in the EA. This matter
should clearly be delayed until a definitive ruling is received from the Colorado Supreme
Court in the year 2000. Oral argument on the issues in litigation is expected prior to June,
2000.
The content of the EA gives the impression that BUREC is acting in unseemly haste to
implement its decision in such a way as to inhibit future Colorado appropriations from the
Gunnison River Basin, and the Colorado River drainage as a whole.
2. The EA Has Failed To Consider The Cumulative Impact of Other Restrictions on
Colorado River Usage
This proposal will have a major impact upon the ability of the State of Colorado to place
even a portion of its water under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact ("Upper Basin
Compact") to use. This issue has western and regional significance within the Upper
Basin and Lower Basin of the Colorado River.
The Gunnison River has average annual discharges to the Colorado mainstem of 1.8
million acre-feet per year. Discharges are higher during high runoff years. The Gunnison
could be the principle source of undeveloped Compact water within Colorado, given the
extensive development already in place on the Colorado mainstem. The Yampa and Green
Rivers are under significant development restriction, with no foreseeable use there of
significant portions of Colorado's Compact share due to lack of population, or achievable
access to the Colorado Front Range.
The EA has failed to consider the limited scope and extent of further development
opportunities on the Colorado mainstem, and environmental restrictions related to the
protection of endangered species which may further restrict mainstem development. It is
estimated that Colorado is entitled to 600,000 to 1 million acre feet of consumptive usage
development as being within its allocation under the Upper Basin Compact. There is no
analysis within the EA as to how the decision to strictly limit development within the
Upper Gunnison will impact the ability of Colorado, including the front range, to fully,
or even partially, utilize its Compact share. This is the last remaining basin where
diversion to the front range is practicable and feasible.
Comments have previously been submitted to BUREC by Arapahoe County concerning
148,000 acre feet of water proposed for release to benefit endangered species (Letter of
2\myfiles\j h\arap\wrap\dec 16 99 lute bureau of recbmadon
December 16, 1999
Page 3
March 14, 1995 concerning Redlands Fish Passageway). In that letter, Arapahoe County
commented that this proposed release should be included within the 219,000 acre feet of
releases already being made to benefit the Black Canyon. Of the 850,000 acre feet being
passed through the Aspinall Unit each year that are not diverted by the Gunnison Tunnel,
most are lost to the State of Colorado. The EA has failed to analyze the cumulative loss
to Colorado of all of these Compact share development opportunities. (A copy of the
March 14, 1995 letter is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.)
The cumulative impact of the multiple non-consumptive releases from the Aspinall Unit
should be analyzed together with the proposed action. All commitments for use from, and
above, Aspinall, should be analyzed for their cumulative impact.
The EA also does not analyze the opportunities which will exist for development of the
lower reaches of the Gunnison given the existence of the newly created national park at
the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Unless more development occurs within the Upper
Gunnison, physical geography severely limits development opportunities before Gunnison
water enters the Colorado mainstem, and crosses the Utah border.
The decision addressed in the EA will prevent any development of Upper Gunnison water
for use on the eastern slope of Colorado, which is part of the Colorado River Basin in
terms of usage under the Colorado River Compact and the Upper Basin Compact. The
impact of this proposal, when considered with the dedication of ESA and Black Canyon
flows, is cumulative in its continued restriction of Colorado development, and should be
analyzed as such.
3. The EA Allows Informal Agreements to Prevent Exercise of State Guaranteed
Constitutional Rights
BUREC has taken the position that it may only dispose of water by written contract. Here,
BUREC attempts to give effect to an "informal understanding" with west-slope entities
that stands in clear violation of the right to appropriate water, which is guaranteed under
the Colorado Constitution. Neither BUREC nor Colorado entities have a right to contract
away either Colorado's Compact share, or the opportunity for citizens of the front range
to appropriate water from the Upper Gunnison Basin.
None of the proposed contracting entities (the United States, Colorado River Water
Conservation District, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, or the
Colorado Office of the State Engineer) are empowered to prevent the transbasin diversion
2\myfila\jrh\arap\uvp\dec 16 59 Itr to bureau of reclamation
December 16, 1999
Page 4
of Gunnison River water. The United States, particularly, has no authority to prevent the
transbasin diversion of water to the Colorado front range. This authority has never been
ceded to the United States, and does not fall within the authority of any of the contracting
entities.
4. The Decision Ignores the Primary Purpose of the Aspinall Unit
The decision analyzed by the EA has the effect of utilizing the Aspinall Unit to prevent
the development of Colorado's Compact share. This matter is covered in detail in the
attached Arapahoe briefs. The decision directly subverts the Colorado River Compact,
the Upper I3asin Compact and the Colorado River Storage Project Act ("CRSPA"), and
negates rights declared under the Colorado Constitution.
The use of the Aspinall Unit's incidental purposes (hydroelectric generation. fish and
wildlife, recreation, flood control) to prevent upstream development is prohibited by
CRSPA. This position would have the effect of undermining water development efforts
in the entire Upper Basin. The statutory purpose expressed in CRSPA overrides any water
right decrees for the Aspinall Unit under the U.S. v. California decision. The EA does
not incorporate or analyze this point.
The EA does not analyze the potential interference by execution of the contract with the
primary purposes of the Aspinall Unit established in CRSPA. BUREC has no authority
to take actions to defeat the statutory purposes of CRSPA in its proposed operation of the
Aspinall Unit, or to eliminate or restrict the operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet its
primary purposes.
5. The EA Does Not Analyze the Effect of the Proposed Contract on the Natural or Human
Environments—A Full EIS Is Essential in This Case
The Union Park Water Authority proposes to divert an average annual flow of 110,000
to 113,000 feet to the Colorado front range. This amount of water could serve a population
of from 500,000 to 1,000,000, depending upon the precise manner in which the water was
used.
The contract proposed to be executed would prevent diversion of the water to the front
range. The EA has not analyzed the alternatives for replacing this water supply with an
equally reliable source. The EA has not analyzed the potential impact of this lost water
2\myfiles\jrh\arap\wtap\dec 16 99 hr to bureau of reclamation
December 16, 1999
Page 5
source on the Colorado front range for the relevant time period, which may be 25-75
years, or more.
It is apparent that a full Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to analyze issues of
this scope and scale. The decision proposed here could have a major impact on the human
environment in the Colorado front range. within the Upper Basin of the Colorado River,
and within the Platte River drainage in the states of Colorado and Nebraska. The EA has
failed to consider the beneficial impacts of diversions from the Upper Gunnison upon
future front range water supplies, and upon endangered species within the Platte River
drainage. The ESA consultation did not appear to consider the beneficial impacts of
additional Gunnison waters on endangered species in the Platte River drainage.
Before the flows of the Upper Gunnison are permanently dedicated to minor usage within
the Upper Gunnison Basin, at the expense of the Union Park Water Authority and other
Colorado water users under Colorado's Compact apportionment, BUREC should fully
comply with all substantive and procedural requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act ("NEPA"). Those studies should analyze the impact of the decision on the
entire state of Colorado. and upon the front range not just in the Upper Gunnison Basin.
6. The Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District ("Upper Gunnison District") Has
No Authority to Represent the Union Park Water Authority, or any Other "Entity" or
"Person," Whether Represented by Counsel, or Not
The attached agreement represents that the Upper Gunnison District , "...enters into this
Agreement in order to represent various individuals and entities who divert and use water
from the Upper Gunnison River Basin...." The Union Park Water Authority proposes to
divert water from the Upper Gunnison Basin, has a decree within the basin, and has
applications within the basin, now on appeal. It has given no authority to the Upper
Gunnison District to represent its interests, and disclaims such interest or right on the part
of the Upper Gunnison District. This "representation" is elaborated in Section 2 of the
Agreement., and misstates such "representation."
The legal authority for the Upper Gunnison District to "represent" unidentified individuals
or entities, who are presumably intended beneficiaries of the Agreement, is either unclear
or non-existent. Those "individuals and entities" and their interests must be identified in
the Agreement and the EA to make a reasoned analysis of the proposal possible.
2\myfiles\jrh\arap\wtap\dec 16 99 kr to bureau of reclamation
December 16, 1999
Page 6
The Authority does claim the right to benefit from any subordination which does exist, as
pointed out in the attached briefs. There is no authority under Colorado law to
differentiate between users in-basin, and those, such as the Authority, whose usage is out
of basin.
7. Additional Consultations Are Required on These Important Ouestions
The list of entities consulted with regard to this important contract is unduly limited.
Consultation with the Colorado congressional delegation, the Upper Colorado River Basin
Compact Commission, with the office of the Governor of the State of Colorado, and with
the western governors as a group, and individually, is both required and desirable. The
Union Park Water Authority believes that the Upper Basin Commission has not been
provided with a copy of this EA by BUREC.
8. Other Critical Comments
• The EA assumes that the Aspinail Unit's 1957 water rights could "call out" junior uses.
This statement fails to take into account the specific mandates of CRSPA, or the Supreme
Court's holdings in U.S. v. California. These issues are currently on appeal.
• The EA assumes the primacy of BUREC policy. Such policy may not alter the Law of the
River, CRSPA, or decisions such as that contained in U.S. v. California. The issue of the
true nature of historical BUREC policy is now on appeal.
• BUREC does not, and cannot, control the appropriation of water in Colorado.
• BUREC has never placed a "call" on the Upper Gunnison. The EA assumes that such a
call could take place, while avoiding any analysis of the legal authority for, or impacts
from, such 1 call.
•
• The County of Arapahoe and the Union Park Water Authority have been systematically
excluded from the negotiations leading to the proposed agreement, in derogation of law.
• The Colorado State Engineer has no unilateral authority to cede Colorado's Compact Share
to the United States, or to any other state or basin. This action would require, at
minimum, the approval of the Colorado Legislature, and possible amendment of the Upper
Basin Compact.
rmyfiles\jrh\arap\wtap\dec 16 99 Itr to bureau of reclamation
December 16, 1999
Page 7
• The Agreement purports to "culminate over 40 years of practices, commitments and legal
decisions." Such a statement is a fully developed falsehood, given that the key legal
decisions upon which the EA relies are on appeal to a higher court, and one with the final
right of determination under State law.
• The EA and the supporting contract fail to recite that the Colorado River Water
Conservation District("CRWCD") acted as a trustee for the United States in adjudicating
and assigning the Aspinall water rights. CRWCD was neither the owner of the water
rights, nor was it a contracting entity in providing for construction of the Aspinall Unit.
CRWCD had no authority either to override CRSPA in its adjudication of the rights, or
to impose conditions on the beneficial owner, the United States.
• Oral "commitments" made by the United States prior to the construction of CRSPA Units
do not override the authorizing statute, nor are they authority for depriving Colorado of
the right to develop its Compact share.
• Section 3 of the Agreement provides for representation by CRWCD of "various
individuals and entities" who divert upstream of Crystal or Morrow Point dams and "use
water downstream of Blue Mesa dam by exercising in-basin rights upstream and junior to
the Aspinall Unit Water Rights..." This provision makes no sense. The individuals and
entities intended to benefit are not identified, making full analysis of this provision
impossible. The nature of the ostensible usage is not identified, also making analysis
impossible.
Section 4, likewise, also provides for the representation of individuals and entities without
their consent. The Union Park Water Authority does not agree to be represented by the
Upper Gunnison District, and objects to the authority of the Upper Gunnison District to
represent any person or entity without its explicit consent.
If the Upper. Gunnison District is aware of whom it claims to represent, those names
should be revealed in the EA. The Agreement appears to provide for the protection of the
Upper Gunnison District's own water rights as part of the contracted subordination. This
would appear to require the Upper Gunnison District and its counsel to explicitly reveal
any conflicts of interest with other persons purported to be represented.
• The Upper Gunnison District has applied to change its existing water rights to new
locations, for newly applied for purposes, and for possible use at differing locations. The
analysis does not reveal whether the new rights are included as within the subordination,
2\myfiks\jrh\arap\wtapklec 16 99 Itr to bureau of reclaznation
•
December 16, 1999
Page 8
and upon what terms. There is no discussion at all of the proposed Agreement on the
changes proposed.
• The Upper Gunnison District and CRWCD are without authority to restrict the beneficial
use of water from the Upper Gunnison Basin to the Upper Gunnison Basin alone.
• Section 17 of the Agreement appears to give the Upper Gunnison District the authority to
impose conditions, including those related to accounting, water measurement and
administration, upon water users in the Upper Gunnison Basin. Such a delegation of
authority does not rest with the United States, and results in an improper delegation of
authority resting properly, under applicable law, with the State Engineer and with the
Water Courts of this State.
• Pursuant to Section 18, the Agreement appears to pay lip service to compliance with the
Colorado River Compact and the Upper Basin Compact, while purporting to prohibit
diversions to the Colorado front range, each of which is permissible under the Compacts.
Transbasin diversion to the front range is contemplated by, and accounted for, under the
Compacts, and is not within the authority of the United States to prohibit.
9. Request for Information
The Union Park Water Authority would request that BUREC reveal the name of any
individual, official, representative, entity or agency which requested or encouraged the
assertion of U.S. authority over the right to appropriate water in the Upper Gunnison
River Basin. This would specifically include, but not be limited to, written, oral or e-mail
contacts pest-dating the deposition of Mr. Wayne Cook in February, 1990.
10. Summary
The Union Park Water Authority urges that BUREC closely examine the points raised in
this letter and in the attached documents. The proposed Agreement appears to be, at best,
an entirely extra-legal means to cede control over the right to appropriate in the Upper
Gunnison Basin to the United States or its contractees. Such a cession has never been
agreed to by the Courts or the Legislature of the State of Colorado, where such authority
properly.resides. The assertion of authority violates the Upper Basin Compact, the Upper
Colorado River Basin Compact, CRSPA and the Colorado Constitution.
2\myflles\jrh\arap\wtap\dee 16 99 lu to bureau of reclamation
December 16, 1999
Page 9
The proposed action should be postponed, or delayed indefinitely. At minimum, this
matter should be further evaluated after a ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of
Colorado on the issues upon which the EA relies. In addition, such a major action
requires a full EIS. •
Sincerely,
VRAi S R',iiriSCH) LLP
(K . ;/j
. enderson
For the Union Park Water Authority
JRH/kla
Enclosures
cc: Newell Wright
County of Arapahoe c/o Marie Mackenzie
Union Park Water Authority
2\myfiles\jrh\arap\wtap\dec 16 99 hr to bureau of reclamation
Zanetell officially r _. 50
named to CRWCD r
TTIT� TTC`Il1AP' � eThis
�
PAUL WAYNE FOREMAN charged that the commissioners r! 'r! ;'•
TIMES STAFF WRITER
violated the Colorado Sunshine L.i21 er of Gunnison County for 121 years TncesoAr,JANUARY 6,2000
Law by providing insufficient
On Tuesday, County Corn- notice that a CRWCD director Zanetell •missioner Marlene Zanetell's would be named at their Dec. 6
appointment to the Colorado meeting. continued hot page I
River Water Conservation Dis- Spann noted if the county can I do to gel re-elected? removed." mer UGRWCD directors Ramon
trict was made official. proceeded and ratified its Dec 6 "We are lucky never to have Martineau warned that Reed and Butch Clark,and High
Zanetell will replace Upper decision, the letter of intent had a political appointee as evi- Zanetell's environmental orien- Country Citizens' Alliance
Gunnison River Water Conser- reserves the Stockgrowers' right dented by the River District's tation would be to her detriment members Steve Glazer. - also a
vancy District director Bill to seek injunctive relief. The support for us in the Union Park as a CRWCD representative. UGRWCD director - and dirc'c-
Trampe,who served as the Gun- Stockgrowers have not decided trials "I can tell a large portion of for Vicki Shaw joined Starr in
nison County representative to whether to pursue litigation. "Bill Trmipe is an excellent this community is pleased to favoring Zanetell's appoint-
the CRWCD since 1997. On advice of County Attor- - person and the most knowledge- have an environmental repre- ment.
More than 50 people attended ney David Baumgarten, the able person available to i epre- sentative," he said. "In 20 years Klingsinilh asked the conr-
the commissioners' meeting to commissioners added a motion sent us on the CRWCD. A coon- of working with the CRWCD, I missioners to consider Trampe's
express strong sentiment for and by Starr to rescind Zanetell's ty commissioner cannot really have observed environmental- record as a director and presi-
against Zanetell. Following a appointment to an earlier justify holding both positions." ists have not been warmly dent of the UGRWCD,citing the
motion by Commissioner Jim motion by Starr to reconsider Peter son, Slockgiuwer s' vice received board's failure to secure a subor-
Starr and Zanetell's second, she her appointment. president, stated that organiza- "Colorado is a conservative diva lion agreement with the
was confirmed 2-1 as a CRWCD "Zanetell's nomination has lion's rationale. slate with conservative water Bureau of Reclamation, its fail-
director. Commissioner Fred been nullified," Baumgarten "Our membership holds most laves- We have been successful use to tie up basin water
Field voted against Zanetell's told the commissioners. "lire of the water rights in the Gunni- in (having CRWCD support for) through in-stream flow rights
appointment. board is freed to make...a virgin son Basin," he said. "The notice the Union 1'ark case because our and its failure to secure call pro-
With her appointment to the decision today" given (for the Dec. 6 meeting) representatives haven't been tection for irrigators. He saidA
CRWCD, a majority of that 15- Following an executive ses- was woefully inadequate. Many environmentalists. /that in 1990 the board supported
member board -eight directors- sion to discuss legal ramifica- members believed the Dec 6 "Bill 'Irampe and Lee Spann a feasibility study that recom-
are county commissioners or for- trans of the Stockgrowers' letter meeting was only to discuss the have been so spectacularly mended using revenue from
mer county commissioners. of intent, Commissioner Fred process. The action taken on effective because they are tradi- trausmountain diversion to
Zanetell was..seated despite Field moved to reappoint-Bill Dec. 6 was unlawful and invalid tional water users." build reservoirs in the Upper
rancher, Ken,Spann's revelation 'launpe. and any action taken today is Field's motion died for lack \Gunnison Basin.
that the Gunnison Stockgrowers Field, former Gunnison unlawful and invalid. of a second. Lain reminded the commis-
Association had filed a letter of Mayor Bob Decker,former UGR- "Mr. Trampe's integrity ... is Starr clarified why he sioners of the role Zanetell
intent in court to sue. The letter rnrCD Manager Tyler Martineau, above reproach. favored Zanetell over'I7ampe. played in 1990.
V V former UGRWCD and CRWCD "Our membership is out- "I think Marlene can work / "We were signed, sealed andA
5\ X member I.ce Spann, and stock- raged and awaits your explana- within the traditional setting (of not quite delivered on Union
a/ �� c'' \ 'rowers Ted Bemis and Greg bon of why Mr. 'bra mpe was the CRWct))," he said. "Mar- Park," he said. "A group called
5 . �l I'elerson, among others, spoke ��i lent' knows when to stand tough POWER was formed to oppose
�Q/ \)))1 •sq in favor of retaining"Irampe. and she will know when it's lea nsnmunlain diversion. The
9
�� �� �� �A "There are those counties that ,i�� �� and sh DM to step back." water board then made its deci-
Q/ �� _G,• nra kt' political appointments to �� �( �� I't MIT representatives Ger- shin ... to back off. I remember
If y '1 ��1(r Vile ed soaps;• tee Spann `•t /J, aid Lain, Steve Schechter and that it was Zanetell who spear-
noted. "These people have I�q,, president fete Klingsinilh, for- dreaded that effort." /
Very difficult time getting the job- J� t/IAni
Get kA
Vt.)
� done. Many political appointees A�
v►I �O� have a personal agenda: What WATER STRESS CRACKS ARE APPEARING IN GUNNISON COUNTY
4 Cne Zanetell nil I,.'IT"" 8
Hello