|
<br />l4. 1992
<br />
<br />G:l3.;{4
<br />High Country News - February 24, 1992
<br />
<br />Wilderness water takes another turn
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Colorado's 'Nildemess bill - a con-
<br />troversial compromise belween Sen.
<br />Hank Brown, R-Colo., and Sen. Tim
<br />Winh, o.colo. - was inlended to create
<br />641,690 acres of new wilderness.
<br />Inslead, lhe bill has become an engine
<br />pushing on Colorado's waler developers,
<br />environmenlalists and bureaucrats to
<br />redefine the Slate's approach to water
<br />within and olmide of wilderness areas.
<br />Initially, environmentalists were
<br />ensnared by the bill. A mid-1980s law-
<br />suit by the Sierra Club Legal Defense
<br />Fund asking for reserved water rights in
<br />wilderness ent'ol.iJled IWO fonnerly sepa_
<br />rate issues: wilderness and stale control
<br />of Water. lbat halted progress on a new
<br />Colorado wilderness law untillhe Wirth-
<br />Brown compromise bill specifically
<br />rejected federal reserved wilderness
<br />water rights.
<br />EnvironmentaJisu were outraged at
<br />me n:uional precedent they feared the
<br />compromise might set. They were
<br />unable to prevent the bill from passing
<br />the U.S. Senale this summer, but have
<br />thus far stalled the bill in the House.
<br />In pan.ihe water righlS COnlroveny is
<br />ac:l.demic. Most of the 641,690 acres of
<br />proposed wilderness land do not them-
<br />selves need prolb:tioo. Eighty-seven per-
<br />cent is high-elevation, headwaterS land nor.
<br />subject 10 upstream divenioo.
<br />Bul three areas, COnstiD.lling 13 per-
<br />cent of ihe acreage, are downstream of
<br />agriculwralland; additional water diver-
<br />sions could dry up wilderness streams,
<br />although Ihis is unlikely.
<br />As pan of the compromise, the three
<br />lower-elevation wilderness areas would
<br />be protected lhrough Colorado's
<br />insueam flow program. In effect. a fed-
<br />eral wilderness area would depend on a
<br />Slate watt:r system (or its waler. Watt:r
<br />developers were pleased, while environ-
<br />mentalists, who see Colorado's instream
<br />now program as a sham, felt further
<br />betrayed by this pretend proteCtion.
<br />The three areas take in sections of
<br />the Piedra, Roubideau and Tabeguache
<br />rivers. Perhaps as a way to IeSI the wort-
<br />ability of the instream now approach,
<br />Brown and Wirth asked the U.s, Forest
<br />Service 10 quantify the water nttded 10
<br />proteCllile wilderness values of lile three
<br />a<=(HCN.12/2II1),
<br />On Jan. 23, the Forest Service's
<br />Rocky Mountain Region submined its rec-
<br />ommendations fer the Piedra to the Col-
<br />orado Water Conservation Board. which
<br />
<br />administers the inslre3m now program.
<br />The report was a shocker. This fU'St
<br />effm anywhere by the Forest Service to
<br />quantify wilderness water needs sur-
<br />prised even the Wilderness Society's
<br />Denver-based Darren Knuffke in its gen-
<br />erosity to instream nows_
<br />The 3D-page r<:port recommended
<br />instream nows up to 1.614 cubic feel per
<br />second (cfs) during peak spring nows,
<br />which have e"ceeded 1,800 cfs in recent
<br />years. This is well above the river's cur-
<br />rent insueam now righlS of 20 10 70 cfs,
<br />designed only to proteCt the river's cold.
<br />watt:rfishery.
<br />The authors, William Gabbert and
<br />Katherine Foster. used a "dynamic
<br />claim~ approach that uies to mimic the
<br />river's actual now. It differs from the
<br />traditional stepped method that claims a
<br />fl"ed amount of water.
<br />Region 2 Forestt:r Gary Cargill says
<br />the Piedra report "represents the best sci-
<br />ence we know ho..... (Q do." BUI be
<br />acknowledges that the approach is simi-
<br />lar to thaI used by his agency 10 qLWltify
<br />water needs for stream channel mainte-
<br />nance. That draws the Piedra effort imo
<br />yet another fight.
<br />The Forest Service and Colorado
<br />have been in water coun for years over
<br />how much water it takes (0 maimain
<br />"favorable conditions of flow" in nation-
<br />al forest streams (HeN, 9/10190). With
<br />final arguments to be heard in Greeley
<br />water coun in March, the Colorado allOr-
<br />ney general's office worries that if Col-
<br />orado agrees to the Piedra compromise,
<br />it could undermine the fight against
<br />channel maintenance.
<br />Wendy Weiss, the state's fusl assis-
<br />tam attorney general, says lhe state "is
<br />opposed to any flows for channel main-
<br />tenance" under Ihe Foresl Service'!
<br />organic 3CL (The Forest Service says its
<br />mission is to proteCt watersheds. and that
<br />requifej; occasional high flows to main-
<br />uin sueam channels. The state opposes
<br />the Forest Service's request for high
<br />maintenance flow5-)
<br />But Weiss also says her office
<br />"wanlS to work with the Forest Serv)ce
<br />10 develop a methodology" for the
<br />Piedra lh.at both the Slale and the federal
<br />government can live with.
<br />Much is at stake here. The state has
<br />spent an estimated S5 to SID million in
<br />court to oppose the Forest Service's
<br />claims, and is not about to walk away
<br />from its position. On the other hand, a
<br />
<br />fellow state agency, the Colorado Warer
<br />Conservation Board, appears interested
<br />in creating a viable instream flow pro-
<br />gram. And at the moment, Ihe Piedra
<br />recommendation is a lest of the board's
<br />commitmeRlIO instream flow.
<br />There is also the federal angk. The
<br />Brown-Wirth compromise, which the
<br />water developers favor, is credible only
<br />if the stale shows it can pro~t wilder-
<br />ness watt:r rights. Failure of the Piedra
<br />approach could aid opponenlS of the bill.
<br />'The Slate can'l have its cake and
<br />eat it too,n comments the Colorado
<br />Mountain Club's Anne Vickery. Mosl
<br />Colorado environmentalisl..$ acknowl-
<br />edge that the Colorado Water Conserva.
<br />tion Board wants to strengthen ilS ane-
<br />mic instream now program. But the
<br />Wilderness Society's Knuftke says, 'The
<br />Slale'S water politics is going to make
<br />the board's job very difficult, jf not
<br />impossible."
<br />Knuffke adds, "If the board with-
<br />stands lile challenges from Sam Maynes
<br />(a Durango water attorney) and others,
<br />then the legislature will gel involved"
<br />and weaken the board's ability to protect
<br />wilderness water. "This is the trouble
<br />with protecting federal public values
<br />through sute systems."
<br />On Marth 5-6, the Colorado Water
<br />Conservation Board will hold a public
<br />hearing in Denver on the Piedra recom-
<br />mendalions. It could delay action. But
<br />then Congress might want to take the
<br />Piedra and the other two downstream
<br />areas out of the wilderness bill to pro.-
<br />vide faster passage.
<br />However a spokesman for Sen.
<br />Brown says he opposes such deletions.
<br />Some environmental critics see Brov.n's
<br />opposition as his way of scultling the
<br />biJl. Other obsaven say Brown sees !he
<br />Piedra as the ideal opportunily to
<br />encourage an improvement of Col-
<br />orado's insueam flow program and pr0-
<br />vide a believable alternative to federal
<br />reserved wilderness water righlS.
<br />Copies of "Instream Flow Needs
<br />Assessment and Recommendations for
<br />the Proposed Piedra Wilderness" can he
<br />obuined from ihe Colorado Water Con-
<br />servation Board, 1313 Sherman St..
<br />Room 721, Denver. Colo. 80203
<br />(30Jill66-344 I),
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />-La1TJMOSMr
<br />
<br />"'
<br />The writt:r free-lances from Craw-
<br />ford, Color3do. ~
<br />
|