|
<br />RKIDERS FORUM '0"1';.<: ..\t-<>to,1
<br />Cri;iicism and support for the WirthjBrown Wilderness Bill~)
<br />
<br />000130
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />,. Re:garding your editorial of Aug. 7. en.
<br />liUer J "Save our wilderness":
<br />1" ve lived in Colorado Cor 16 years and
<br />hP ":ve worked on wilderness protection Cor
<br />'13 oC those years. J disagree with the
<br />thrust of your editorial that the Wirth/-
<br />Brown biII is opposed only by national en-
<br />vironmental groups. or that they are tell.
<br />iog local members what position to take.
<br />Many of us in Colorado who have work-
<br />ed for wilderness protection for years
<br />want to improve this legislation because
<br />it doesn't adequately protect wilderness.
<br />It denies Colorado wilderness areas the
<br />water rights that are possessed by every
<br />other wilderness area nationwide. It
<br />opens downstream areas like the Piedra
<br />near Pagosa Springs in southwestern Col-
<br />orado to being sucked dry by ever-thirsty
<br />water developers. And, to add insult to in-
<br />jury, it protects less than half of the lands
<br />proposed by a coalition of over 40 Colora-
<br />do-based grassroots groups.
<br />Colorado wilderness lovers (whom polls
<br />show are supported by a majority of Colo-
<br />radans) badly want a Colorado wilderness
<br />bill. We do not want a bad Colorado wil-
<br />derness bill. We want adequate acreage
<br />to protect the Sangre de Cristos, Spanish
<br />Peaks, FO$Sil Ridge and other areas left
<br />out of this bill; we want water to keep
<br />tbese areas wet and healthy. Anyone con-
<br />sidering this issue should know that most
<br />of the areas in the Wirth/Brown bUJ are
<br />currenlly protected because they were
<br />made "WiJdernessStudy Areas" by Jaw in
<br />1980 and are supposed to be managed to
<br />protect their wilderness character until
<br />Congress acts. We1) lose some areas like
<br />Sand Bench to the cba.insaw because pe0-
<br />ple like Hank Brown opposes wilderness
<br />protection and because Wirth isn't willing
<br />to work hard eoough to protect them.
<br />NORMAN J. MULLEN
<br />Boulder
<br />
<br />from Colorado flows to CaliCornia, it is
<br />not flowing to a wilderness area. It is
<br />Clowing to the largest concrete water de-
<br />livery and storage system in the world.
<br />Colorado is not some kind of Third
<br />World colony oC California, and it is out-
<br />rageous for the Wilderness Society to sug-
<br />gest Colorado is like Beirut.
<br />Rather than attacking the Colorado
<br />delegation, the Wilderness Society would
<br />be better served to reject the misinfonn-
<br />ed and vitriolic attack oC its Denver di-
<br />rector, Darrell Knuffke, whose use oC
<br />mixed metaphors does not add any posi-
<br />tive contribution to resolving tbe complex
<br />water issues facing Colorado. As a Carmer
<br />Californian now living in Colorado, I find
<br />appalling KnufCke's attack on three out-
<br />standing Colorado congressmen.
<br />SHEILA HAGOOD
<br />Lakewood
<br />
<br />ODD
<br />The head oC the wilderness Society in
<br />Denver (Darrell Knuffke's Aug. 3 letter)
<br />has resorted to the vernacular oC the Mid.
<br />east war to attack the honorable con-
<br />gressmen from Colorado over wilderness
<br />legislation and water,
<br />It is bizarre that the Wilderness Society
<br />implies that it "speaks for a Calilornia
<br />congressman in Colorado, wh.ile conve-
<br />niently ignoring the rampant waste 01
<br />water which is driving California's inter.
<br />est in Colorado water. No amount of Wil-
<br />derness Society sophistry can hide the
<br />lact that California has more dams than
<br />any other state; cheap water-pricing poli-
<br />cies; a practice oC nonpayment on federal
<br />water projects, and an avaricious water
<br />appetite. Its vast storage facilities of bil-
<br />lions 01 acre-feet of water are not a fig-
<br />ment of the imagination. When water
<br />
<br />ODD
<br />Wilderness without a water rigbt? The
<br />Wirth/Brown Wilderness Bill speciCically
<br />denies a water right to areas being desig.
<br />nated as wilderness. The senators say its
<br />OK because the areas are protected from
<br />water development. We don't think so.
<br />Groundwater could be developed out-
<br />side a wilderness and over time cause the
<br />water table inside tbe wildernes.~ to be
<br />lowered, slowly drying up wetlands and
<br />soils, affecting vegetation and the wildlife
<br />tbat depend on it Without a water right,
<br />wilderness supporters couldn't protest in
<br />court. For existing water diversions in-
<br />side wilderness areas, the senators' biD
<br />allows for an increase in the amount of
<br />water currently being diverted. Stream
<br />flows could be lowered and vegetation
<br />dried up, but since the area wouldn't have
<br />a water right. there would be no recourse
<br />to stop damage.
<br />The HOlL"f', which is sensitive to strip-
<br />ping federal wilderness areas oC legal
<br />protection, may not pass a bill that denies
<br />a water rigbt. The biD could die unless the
<br />Colorado senators accept other water lan-
<br />guage. Then, at least for now, there would
<br />be no additional wilderness. Neutral wa-
<br />ter language, neither granting nor deny.
<br />ing a water right, bas been proposed. This
<br />language is acceptable to a wide range of
<br />conservation and water interests. Anoth-
<br />er approach is that taken by the 1964 Wil-
<br />derness Act and the 1980 Colorado Wil-
<br />derness Bill. Both are silent on water
<br />rights - a silence whicb has protected
<br />designated wilderness for 27 years.
<br />In contrast, Brown's and Wirth's out-
<br />right denial of a water right leaves the
<br />areas vulnerable to water-development
<br />schemes. Coloradans want a wilderness
<br />bill which protects the network of surface
<br />and underground watel"S vital to the wil-
<br />derness ecology. The question is, are the
<br />
<br />,',
<br />',-,
<br />
<br />....:I ~
<br />senators too entrenched to get us thatrG<,
<br />bill? Are tbe senators wiJIing to accept':::.
<br />silence or neutral language on water anlf~':
<br />move the hill through Congress? Or are,lI"
<br />they willing to let the bill die because 0(;,
<br />their insistance on denying wilderness:B,:
<br />water rights? !ft-..
<br />ANNE VJCKERY, Conservation Director.rit.I~,
<br />GLENN PORZAK, Wilderness ~;
<br />Colorado Mountain Club-'tl:
<br />Denvef"l-!
<br />000 'H'
<br />This is in response to your Aug. 7 edito-~;'
<br />rial, "Save our wilderness." As a native-"'':~
<br />Coloradan, I been working to create a':i<
<br />Colorado Wilderness Bill Cor nearly a deJJ-<;
<br />cade and have traveled twice to Washiog:q. ~
<br />ton, D.C., to speak beCore Congress.";
<br />To cave in on the water issues at this.:)~tl
<br />point in order to gaiO two-thirds of what~.
<br />we want will jeopardize areas near andn"
<br />dear to others interested in saving wilder~r.'...~
<br />ness. t don't think local Colorado environ:"
<br />mental groups will go along with this. ..~:
<br />I do not advocate killing the bill. I....
<br />should be improved so that I and other"
<br />Colorado wilderness proponents can a~""'~
<br />cept it. In the long process we have gone.!'
<br />through to get a Colorado Wilderness Bi1IP I
<br />we bave seen the environmental grou~i\J;"
<br />compromise over and over again. We'f:'
<br />have all waited Car too long to either If.
<br />let this chance Cor a wilderness bill slip I
<br />away or to Z) attept ODe last compromise-~
<br />that gives us a second-class'wildernesj:
<br />bill and sets an unacceptable preceden~_l
<br />Cor wilderness bills pending in otber~
<br />states. There is no reason Coloradans'
<br />should accept a bill that is inferior to l~~
<br />those passed already in Arizona, Nevada;'!;::-
<br />New Mexico and Washington states. .~,.
<br />One reason wilderness protection is sd':'
<br />valuable to downstream ~rs is that it 1;,;.
<br />protects water quality. A cyanide gold~l:
<br />mining operation in Blanca Basin could"
<br />pollute water lor aU downstream users.~i
<br />The water rights language used in the Ar_-I~'f'
<br />izona, Nevada, New Mexico and Washing-;'.!
<br />ton bit,is protects private water rigbts"~
<br />recogruzes future development needs and'
<br />respects state law. Tbat language in a, ),r,
<br />Colorado Wilderness Bill will do the same"
<br />thing. It will not threaten any present wa:"
<br />ter user because aU wilderness watet.t'l-
<br />rigbts would be established as rights ju--"L,
<br />nior to all existing water rights. h'
<br />The present Wirth/Brown Wilderness ~~I.
<br />Bill can be improved to include the Span.l:ii
<br />ish Peaks and to include water language I
<br />that is acceptable_ It can be passed this"
<br />year, and it can be done in a manner that"
<br />doesn't leave us hanging our beads and ,\
<br />feeling guilty that we have compromised '
<br />away what we have sougbt to protect. )j
<br />ROSALYN McCAIN <;:
<br />Redwing'l'
<br />
|