WSP10405 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U.S~-water plaifH8 hit by developers, environmentalists By Mark Obmascik 'DerlV8l' Post Enll'1I'Ol"Imenl Wmer A federal river protection plan. aimed at ending a lO-year impasse over the designation oC new Colo- rado wilderness areas, was de- nounced yesterday by water devel- opers and environmental groups. The U.S. Forest Service released the plan in an attempt to persuade the Colorado Water Conservation Board to guarantee streamflows through a IS-mile stretch of the Piedra River in southwestern Col- orado. It was the first time any govern- ment agency has tried to resolve the politically explosive issue of determining how mucb river wa- ter should be allocated to Colorado wilderness - and how much should be left for dam-builders and other water users. The Piedra proposal is a key test Cor a wilderness compromise struck last year by U.S. Sens. Tim Wirth and Hank Brown of Colora- do. giving the state control over wilderness streamflows. Other congressional leaders have doubted the stale's willingness to protect wild rivers in lederal ar- eas. Sam ~aynes, attorney for the Southwestern Water Conservation District, said the Forest Service was claiming too much river wa- ter for wilderness. "I am astonished, amazed and appalled by this presentation." Maynes said. "In terms of trying to grab off all this water for the Piedra wilderness area, you should remember that pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered" Tina Arapkiles of the Sierra Club said she didn't trust a state water board to guarantee stream- flows for a federal wilderness ar- ea. "Giving away federal property to a state board subject to the whims of a state legislature is bad public policy," she said. The 56,OOO-acre Piedra tract near Pagosa Springs is home to trout, rare river otters and one of tbe most challenging wilderness whitewater kayak runs in Colora- do. It also is one of the most con- troversial areas included in the Wirth-Brown wilderness bill, which won Senate approval last year, but awaits action in the House of Representatives. Key House members and major p'n.;rnn........n...l .,.".._.. ..... " ." . PROPOSED PIIDIIA WI1DIRNUS &alA ,e ~; ""'""' """ < ." 'i .' .. ::. ~c ,. __,COlOl'IAD9..__ ....."""" ThepltlJXl!MldP>ech.........."'"1ill <:oI*56.00Ja::r9SlIIo<'9ttwf'lE,n~" --""""" TI\eOef1vflrPOSl/e~G.\It: pressed skepticism at the wllder-, ness compromise because it faUs to give the lederal government a.. right to water flowing through pro-: posed wild areas. Adopting a position favored by water developers, Wirth and Brown instead proposed to give the state water conservation board control. In some wet years, the Forest,.; Service wants virtually all natural springtime flood flows to remain ,.-' Ul the Piedra. That would make it' tough for ranchers or other water developers to siphon away big... Quantities of river water with new" projects upstream of the proposed::\- wilderness. -: , In drier years. the Forest Ser- ' ,. : vice would allow about 15 percent' of peak springtime river flows to . . be diverted by future water devel-' , opers. Developers also would be':: allowed to take more than haU of<: the natural streamflows caused by ,- major late-summer rainstorms. '., Jim Martin, a top staffer for"': , Wirth. said he thought the Forest..' . Service water proposal pleased ' : him. But state water board mem- j bers, who must approve any water:' right for the Piedra, were noncom- mittal. ~ Tbe board will conduct a public .., : hearing on the proposed river pro- " , techoR plan in March. "There's a' - lot of people betting that we can't" : do this, that the U.S. Forest Ser-" . vice and the Colorado Water Con- servation Board can't agree," said', Gary Cargill. the Forest Service's'" Denver regional director. "I hope , '.