WSP09490 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002094 9 The importance of water for wilderness has long been recognized, and the Committee's report about the Colorado wilderness areas designated in 1980 noted that "their natural production of invalu- able supplies of high quality water provide[s] a compelling reason for preserving them in their natural state." but the Committee then was of opinion that specific provisions related to water were not a necessary component of wilderness legislation, and neither the 1980 Colorado wild'emess legislation or previous wilderness bills had contained such 1- iOvisions. However, a 1985 U.S. District Court decision in Colorado cast se- rious doubt on the propriety of the Reagan Administration's policy of effectively re:.nquishing any claims to water rights for wilder- ness areas that were designated by legislation with no explicit water-rights provisions. Largely in response to this decision and re- visions in Administration policies, the Senate began to insist on in- cluding in wilderness legislation provisions to specify whether des- ignation of a wilderness area involved a reservation of water by the national government. Accordingly, since 1986 laws designating wilderness on western National Forests or BLM-managed public lands have included an explicit reservation of a Federal water right. Examples include Public Law 10~225, related to the EI Malpais National Monu- ment, National Conservation Area, and wilderness areas; the Ne- vada Wilderness Protection Act of 1989 (P.L. 101-195); the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-628); and the Los Padres Condor Range and River Protection Act (P.L. 102-301). In August, 1991, the Senate passed a bill (S. 1029 of the 102d Congress) to provide for designation as wilderness or otherwise of additional areas in Colorado not designated in 1980. That bill in- cluded an express disclaimer stating that nothing therein or in "any other Act" was to be construed as constituting "either an ex- press or implied reservation of water or water rights" arising from the designation (as wilderness or otherwise) of the lands covered by the bill. The bill also specified that the Secretary of Agriculture was to enter into a contractual arrangement with a Colorado State agency regarding certain in-stream-flow filings established under State law with respect to the Piedra area, designated as wilderness by the bill. In July, 1992, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs amended the bill, omitting all provisions dealing with water, and ordered it favorably reported. In its Report on the amended version of the bill (H. Rpt. 102- 810 Part I), the Committee explained that it had deleted the dis- claimer and other water-related provisions of the bill as passed by the Senate because "Their inclusion would have been inconsistent with the Committee's action including an express reservation to the United States of water rights for wilderness designated by other legislation recently enacted or passed by the House of Representa- tives. . ." The report explained further that "Instead the Committee sub- stitute is silent with respect to water and water rights. However, this silence should not be construed as meaning that the Commit- tee believes that proper protection of the water resources of wilder- nesses not an important aspect of the management of wilderness,