|
<br />~ --.....--_.... 1....--......-
<br />
<br />Colorado~s
<br />
<br />
<br />t>y Lawrence Mosher
<br />
<br />r
<br />~
<br />
<br />Colorado's Sen. TIm Winh ha~ been
<br />I'OlD1dly chastised by several environmen-
<br />tal organizations for "selling out" to the
<br />water im.erem in the wilderness compro-
<br />mi~ he reached with Sen. Hank Brown
<br />earlier !his mon!h. (See story 00 p1ge 4.) I
<br />would like to politely disagree with the
<br />purin, who find Wirth's action 50 repre-
<br />hnlsible. Perha~ I lived in Washington,
<br />D.C., LOa long (23 years), and ~ am per_
<br />manently stair'l('d by it, proces.1 ofpolitica.l
<br />compromise. But there comes a lime
<br />when action is belter than endless stale-
<br />mate, and this i, one of them.
<br />On page S we carry a story about
<br />Idaho's wilderness hangup. in which the
<br />ideologues on both sides continue 10
<br />frust13le thai slate's eflons 10 mediate.
<br />laS! Sept. 24 we reponed Montana's
<br />wilderness "imbroglio" that managed to
<br />splil the environmenlalislS there. Nexl
<br />month we plan 10 run a front-page story
<br />ahout an historic struggle shaping up in
<br />Utah over how much of its nalionally
<br />unique Bureau of land Managemenl
<br />canyonlands 10 prOlect with wilderness
<br />designation. The dimensions of that
<br />wilderness fight make Colorado's fuss
<br />over federal rc.'crved water rights in the
<br />proposed nalional forest headwalers
<br />additions a nitpicker's delighl
<br />"The intense long-standing public
<br />debate over the exislence or non-exis-
<br />tence of fcde131 re:<:erved water rights has
<br />Ix-cn largely hypothetical and ideological
<br />on both sides of the tolble," argue.~ Greg
<br />Hobbs, a Denver anomey who lOOk pan
<br />in Ihe Wirth. Brown negotiations as
<br />
<br />I
<br />~
<br />
<br />counsel to the Northern Colorado Waler
<br />Conservancy Dislrict. "Future down-
<br />stream wilderness designalions pose dif-
<br />ferent problems that must be dealt with,
<br />but cosmic language for all situations
<br />appears unattainable at this time. And
<br />it's time 10 deal with headwaten wilder-
<br />ness where negotiated resolulions art
<br />at:t.a.inable."
<br />Hobbs maintains Ihat the Sierra
<br />Club and The Wilderness SocielY, in
<br />particular, have held Col0t3do's wilder-
<br />ness designatiOn! hostage to the separate
<br />issue of federal vs. stale waler rights.
<br />Afler eight years of controversy over
<br />federal resefYed water rights and four
<br />years of fruitless negotiations by a 16-
<br />member team appoinled by Wirth and
<br />Brown's predecessor, William Arm-
<br />strong, Ihe time for compromise was
<br />ripe. But does the Wirth-Brown deal y.el
<br />the stage for "second<la~s wildemes.~,"
<br />as The Wilderness Sociely's Darrell
<br />Knuftke charges? I don't think.so.
<br />let's examine the compromise.
<br />Sen. Wirth specifically di~claimed a fed.
<br />e131 re.<oefYro water righl for the 641,690
<br />acres that would be designated a~ wilder.
<br />ness. This was a reversal of his previous
<br />position. But will anything really change
<br />concerning Ihe amount of waler these
<br />headwalers wilderne!';s areas actually
<br />get? The answer is no. Does the dis-
<br />claimer open these areas to water devel.
<br />opcrs in the future? Not really. Aa:e.~ is
<br />the real is!';ut, and the.'e "rock and ice"
<br />areas are largely inaccessible to diven.
<br />e~. Beyond that, the compromise elimi-
<br />nales the Presidenl'S authorily to allow
<br />new waler development in wilderne!';s
<br />- .. . - ..
<br />'. ,.
<br />
<br />--areas, which the 1964 National Wilder-
<br />ness Presef\lation Act specifically
<br />allows.
<br />Funher, the c:ompromi.,e allows the
<br />U.S. Forest Service and the Justice
<br />Department to file a waler claim in Col-
<br />. orado Water Cowt if a new water project
<br />ever injured one of the new wilderness
<br />areas. This is in line with 11.'1 year's Hl.h
<br />Circuit Coun of Appealll deci!';ion, which
<br />vacaled Judge John Kane Jr.'s 1985 mi.
<br />ing on a Sierra Club lawsuit (see lieN
<br />9124190), Kane had ~cogni7-ed federal
<br />rtSU\'ed water righlS in Col0t3do's cur-
<br />rent 24 wilderness areas. The circuit
<br />court said no injury had been alleged,
<br />which sets up tho exp<<=tation of fulure
<br />legal standing for actual injury ca<oes.
<br />Leaving a,ide the waler is.,ue, Wirth
<br />also won a significant concession by
<br />eliminating the "hard release" language
<br />concerning 16 olher potential wilderncss
<br />areas .so thallhat they may be considered
<br />for wilderness desi(tnation at a !aler dale.
<br />Annslrong had insiSled on the releases,
<br />but Brown conceded.
<br />It is significant to nOle how Col.
<br />01300'S water development inlerest1 splil
<br />over the Wirth.Brown compromi:<:e. The
<br />Colorado Farm BureAU, the cilY of Col.
<br />orado Springs and the Colorado River
<br />Water ConSCfYation District oppo~ Ihe
<br />deal because of it, provision!'; giving the
<br />federal government the right La file water
<br />claims as of the date of wilderness de.l;ig.
<br />nalion. These groups also disliked the
<br />cancellation of the pre~idcntial authority
<br />to grant waler.development rights in
<br />wildernesses, even though this authorily
<br />has never been ur.ed.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />4.__
<br />
<br />~_.. ..
<br />
<br />'"
<br />U
<br />U
<br />..-'
<br />W
<br />..-'
<br />
<br />Wirth's environmenlaJ ollics. how-
<br />ever, do have one legitimate worry. This
<br />concerns the Piedra River as I harbinger
<br />of future downstream Bureau of Land
<br />Management wilderness designalions.
<br />The Wirth-Brown compromise would
<br />require the feden.! government to accept
<br />streamnows in the Piedra .set by the Col.
<br />orado Water Consel'Vlllton Boord, which
<br />musl provide enough waler for the
<br />"preservation of the environment 10 a
<br />reasonable degree." The board has
<br />allowed a now of 70 cubic fect per se.c.
<br />ond. which supports the river's fisherics.
<br />Rut it has never been asked 10 increa~e
<br />this now for the sake of the river's
<br />"environment"
<br />The board should be given the
<br />opportunity 10 deal with the downstream
<br />problem first, before the handwringing
<br />begins. 1be Piedra River provision will
<br />test whether the OOwnstream water rights
<br />holders can live with its instream.now
<br />program, If the board ends up injuring
<br />the environment of the Piedra~ River,
<br />then environmentalists will have a rea-
<br />.son to wony.
<br />Yes, il would be nice to guarantee
<br />sufficient water to suppon fUlure down.
<br />stream wildernesses with a federal
<br />re.<:crved water right Bul at what price?
<br />Sens. Wirth and Brown decided not to
<br />kup Colorado's headwaters wilderness
<br />designalions in legislalive limbo for
<br />another eight ye:m, That is a good doci-
<br />sion, and their deal is a good compro.
<br />mise. Both should be congratulated for
<br />getting on with the slale's business.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Lawrence Mosher is lieN's editor.
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />~=w..uma
<br />
<br />.,,,...
<br />
<br />The 20.<<:nl difference, though. is fixed
<br />
<br />ranchers who hold pra7inR rv"_rmil<: f'n
<br />
<br />Cfltl<;rrl to\' nnh' Iu.'n "f rh.. ....,,,,-1,,,,,,,, !.",
<br />
|