WSP11662 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

U. 1992 Oj3136 High Country News - February 24, 1992 Wilderness water takes another turn ~, Colorado's wilderness bill- a con- troversial compromise between Sen. Hank Brown, R-Colo., and Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo. - was intended LO create 641,690 acres of new wilderness. Instead, the bill has become an engine pushing on Colaado's water developen, environmentalists and bureaucrau to redefine the state'S approach LO water within and ouuide of wilderness areas. Initially, environmentalists were ensnared by !he bill. A mid-1980s law. suit by the Sie:rT3 Club Legal Defense Fund asking for reserved water rights in wilderness entwined two fannerly sepa- (;lte issues: wilderness and stare control of W:llel". That halted progress 00 a new Colorado wilderness law until the Wirth. Brown compromise bill specifically rejected federal reserved wilderness water rights. Environmentalists were OUtT3ged at the national precedent they feared the: compromise might sel. They were unable to prevent the bill from passing the u.s. Senate this summer, but have thus far stalled the biD in the House:. In pan, the water rightS contrOversy is academic. Most of the 641,690 acres of proposed wilderness land do not them. selves need protection. Eighty-seven per- cent is higklev::ltion. head.wat.elS land not subject to upstream diversion. But lhree areas. constituting 13 per. cent of the acreage, are downstream of agriculwralland; addiLional water diver- sions could dry up wilderness streams, although this is unlikely. As part of the compromise, the three lower-elevaLion wilderness areas would be protected through Colorado's instream flow program. In effect., a fed. eral wilderness area would depe'nd on a state water system for iu water. Water developers were pleased. while: environ- mentalists, who see Colorado's instre3m now program as a sham, felt further betrayed by this JYCtend proteCtion. The three areas take in sections of the Piedra, Roubideau and Tabeguache ri~rs. Perhaps as a way to test the work. ability of lhe instream flo..... approach. Brown and Wirth asked the U.S. Forest Service to quantify the water needed to protect the wilderness values of the tJuu ..... (HeN. 12M1). On Jan. 23, the Forest Service's Rocky Mounuin Region submitIbj iu rec- ommendations for the Piedra to the Col. orado Water Conservation Boord. which administers the insueam flow JrOgr.lm. The repon was a shocker. This first effoo anywhere by the Forest Service to quantify wilderness water needs sur- prised even the Wilderness Society's Denver.based Darrell Knuffke in its gen- erosity to instream flows. The 30-page repon recommended instream flows up to 1.614 cubic feet per second (ds) during peak spring flows, ......hich have exceeded 1,800 ds in recent years. This is well above the river's cw- rent instream flow rights of 20 to 70 cfs, designed only to protect the river's cold- water fishery, The authors, William Gabben and Katherine Foster. used a "dynamic claim" approach mat tries to mimic the river's actual now. It differs from the traditional stepped method that claims a fixed amount of water. Region 2 Forester Gary Cargill says the Piedr3 repon "represents the best sci- ence we know how to do." But he acknowledges th31 the approach is simi- lar to that used by his agern:y to quantify water needs for stream channel mainte- nance. That draws the Piedra effon into yet another fight. The Forest Service and Colorado have been in water coun for years over how much water it takes to maintain "favorable conditions of now" in nation- al forest streams (lieN, 9/10r;lO). With final arguments LO be heard in Greeley water coun in March. the Colorado attor- ney general's office worries that if Col- orado agrees to the Piedra compromise. it could undermine the fight against channel mainICnance. Wendy Weiss. the state's ftrSt assis- tant attorney general, says the state "is opposed to any flows for channel main- tenance" under the Forest Service's organic act. (The Forest Service says its mission is to protect watenheds. and that requires occasional high nows to main. tain stream channels. The stale opposes the Forest Service's request for high maintenance flows..) But Weiss also says her office "wants to work with the Forest Service 10 develop a methodology" for the Piedra that both l.he state and the federal government can live with. Much is 31 stake !l(:re. 1be State has spent an estimated 55 to S10 million in court to oppose the Forest Service's claims, and is not about to walk away from its position. On the other hand, a fellow st3te agency. the ColOr.ldo Wat.er Conservation Board, appears interested in creating a viable instream flow pro- gram. And at the moment, the Piedra recommendaLion is a test of the board's commitment 10 instream flow. There is also the federal angle. The Brown-Wirth compromise, which the water develope" favor. is credible only if the state shows it can protect wilder- ness water rights. Failure of the Piedra approach could aid opponents of the bill. '''The stale can't have its cake and eat it too," comments the Colorado Mounuin Club's Anne Vickery. Most Colorado environmentalists acknowl. edge that the Colcndo Water Conserva- tion Board wants to strengthen its ane. mic instream now program. But the Wilderness Society's Knuffke says. 'The state's water politics is going to make the board's job very difficult. if not impossible." Knuffke adds, "If the board with. stands the challenges from Sam Maynes (a Durango water attorney) and others, then the legislature will get involved" and weaken the board's ability to protect wilderness waler. '"This is the trouble with protecting federal public values through Sl.3.lesYSlems." On March 5-6. the Colorado Water Conservation Board will hold a public hearing in Denver on the Piedra recom- mendalions. It could delay action. But then Congress might want to take the Piedra and the other two downstream areas out of the wilderness bill to pr~ vide f3.Sterpassage. However a spokesman for Sen. Brown says he opposes such deletions. Some environmental critics see Brown's opposition as his way of scuttling the bill. Other observers say Brown sees the Piedra as the ideal opportunity to encourage an improvement of Col- orndo's insutam flow program and pr0.- vide a believable alternative to federal rc:sc:rved wilderness water rights. Copies of "In stream Flow Needs Assessment and Recommendations for the Proposed Piedra Wilderness" can be obtained from the ColClr.\do Water Con- servation Board, 1313 Sherman St., Room 721. Denver. Colo. 80203 (3031866-3441). - UJ"1 JtosJur The writer fr~.lances fran( Craw. ford, Colorado. ""