Memorandum Agenda Item 22i 05/13/2002

• Board Meeting Date: 5/13/2002
• Description: Board Meeting Deep Creek Yampatika Ute Widerness Bill
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

H.R. .2963 would authorize the appropriation of $300,000 for a grant to
Colorado to allow the state to compensate willing parties for canceling
or conveying such rights.
Based on information from the state of Colorado, CEO expects the
proposed designation would take effect in 2003 . Based on information •
from the Forest Service and BLM, we estimate that designating the lands
as wilderness would not significantly affect the agencies ' costs and
that the grant authorized under H.R. 2963 would cost $300, 000 in 2003,
assuming the availability of appropriated funds. Withdrawing the lands
from leasing and development could result in forgone offsetting receipts
if, under current law, the lands would generate receipts from those
activities. According to the Forest Service and BLM, however, the lands
currently generate no significant receipts and are not expected to over
the next 10 years. Hence, we estimate that any changes in offsetting
receipts under H.R. 2963 would be negligible.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Megan Carroll. This
estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104 4
This bill contains no unfunded mandates.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing law.
DISSENTING VIEWS •
I regret that I cannot support H.R. 2963 as approved by the Committee
on March 20th.
I greatly appreciate the cooperative approach taken by the bill's
sponsor, Representative McInnis. We have worked together to try to
resolve the concerns of the Administration and other parties, and the
bill as approved by the Committee is a great improvement over the bill
as introduced.
Nonetheless, the bill as reported still falls short not only of the
best that could be achieved but also of what I think is necessary to
merit support.
The bill could and should be improved in several respects, including
the total area to which it would apply and the extent to which it would
address potential conflicts between wilderness designation and continued
use of the area for aerial navigation and training. However,.sits _ ost
serLous defect is the way in wh ch ?t adore ses threats to th
water related re=sources and Aralues of the proposed wilderness
As approved by the Committee, the bii,l in Ludes a< prQVLs�,ou del=aying
the effective date` o the-F wilderness des `c�na€t�on The pur ase; of -the
delay is to allow the State of: Colorado the threat that
upstream water rights, . if developed' could greatly reduce the water
flowing through Deep Creek Canyon and, sodegrade•the ecology of the
area.
I support that approach, because I think it is important to resolve
this problem before the wilderness is designated--the same point that
the Administration made in its testimony at the hearing,on the bill back
in October. I also support the idea of relying on Colorado water law,
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Flood Protection•Water Supply Planning and Financing•Stream and Lake Protection
Water Supply Protection•Conservation and Drought Planning