Print View From: To: CC: Date: Tuesday - September 29, 2009 9:41 PM Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Rights We have read the draft agreement and appreciate the opportunity to comment. We are familiar with Snake Valley, having spent several weeks doing archaeological field work and wildlife observation there. We are dismayed at the historical legal definition of "beneficial use" and "senior rights", which ignores prior beneficial use by wildlife. In our view using precious water to float pirate ships at casinos in Las Vegas is an abomination and not worth the life of a single Snake Valley midge. But by law just about any human use is beneficial and senior wildlife rights are not part of the picture. We recognize that this agreement includes provisions for environmental monitoring. However, aside from focusing on two important native indicator species, the Columbia spotted frog and the least chub, which we applaud, the stated criteria for preservation of wildlife is that no species should be reduced in numbers so as to end up on the Endangered Species listing. This sets the bar almost at ground level. Thus, for example, it appears that reducing the Snake Valley antelope population by a significant fraction would not be considered an adverse impact. Later in Appendix C it is stated that impacts are expected and some such impacts are acceptable. We think the draft agreement should require NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTIONS in any wildlife species that can be attributed to loss of surface water. We are concerned that withdrawals of ground water will cause unacceptable reductions in the level of the underlying aquifer. The agreement says that withdrawal is permitted that "results in a reasonable amount of drawdown in the Groundwater aquifer". The key issue here is sustainability, which the agreement mentions as a goal. But sustained at what level? Half of the present level? This needs to be quantified. Any withdrawal that results in significant loss of phreatophytes should be unacceptable. We are concerned that the enforcement process for adverse wildlife impacts is too limited. The management committee tasked with wildlife protection can only make recommendations, which could be disregarded by SNWA. Since the bar for wildlife protection is set so low, it is highly unlikely that much will come of such recommendations. Thus we think the current agreement provides woefully inadequate protection for existing wildlife species and needs to be amended to do so. Sincerely, Carleton DeTar Laurel Casjens 953 Little Valley Rd Salt Lake City, UT 84103