WSP08562 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0003 The Forest Service has identified ten approvals or decisions which may be needed from the Forest Service, cooperating agencies, and other Federal, State, and local agencies. Only one authorization is required from the Forest Service. In addition, the Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers has consulted with the U.S. Department ofithe Interior to determine the effects of the project on threatened and ~ndangered species. The remaining actions are the responsibility of other Federal, State, or local agencies. These are listed in Exhibit 1, attached (FEIS Section 1.6.2, pages 1-18 and 1-19). II. ISSUES AND CONCERNS Water development proposals such as the Hbmestake Project bring many issues and concerns to the surface. The public comments on the DEIS, the many letters received since the comment periodiended, the hearing conducted by the House Subcommittee on Public Lands and National Parks, and the news and feature articles in newspapers and on television all indicate that water diversion proposals generate a wide variety of responses, including some that are intensely personal and emotional. The facts of Colorado's climate, topography, and social development intens~fy and polarize the water issue. The State is divided by the Continental D~vide into east and west slope interests. The major population centers are on the eastern slope, where there is a shortage of water; the lack ofi water on the eastern slope results in an east-west and a growth-no growth conflict. This is unfortunate but understandable since water is a necessary ingredient for economic growth and development, the continuation of preferred lifestyles, and for an enjoyable and healthful_environment (FEIS Section 1.4, pages 1-11 to 1-16). Several public issues can be identified as underlying the concern over transporting water from western Colorado across the Continental Divide to Colorado's Front Range communities. One ~s the desire of western Colorado interests to retain water which may be needed to serve future needs such as recreation and industrial growth. A secohd is whether growth along the Front Range is fostered by water development and, if so, whether growth should be controlled by limiting water availability. A third is whether current agricultural uses along the Front Range should be reduced or elimi- nated so that agricultural water could be; used as municipal supplies in lieu of additional west slope diversion. i These are serious and troublesome problems. They are, however, by and large institutional rather than tech- nical problems. A "water crisis" aura has been created by conflicting laws and regulations, political motives, agency missions, social customs, the seeming i nabil ity of west slope water users to fund water developments, and an outdated belief that water is "free for the taking." These conflicts are not being resolved and it appears that our institutional systems are floundering at an elementary level. The Forest Service recognizes this situatiion. Because of our responsi- bility to manage the Federal lands where many water developments occur, we are involved in controversies. For example, in the last five years, two of Denver's water projects, Foothills and Wtlliams Fork, resulted in extensive litigation and the Cheyenne, Wyoming transmountain diversion is under liti- gation now. This will not change in the future. 2 . , - ,