|
<br />
<br />., ,-' -'-','.", " ,..'..--.,.').'---'::'" '-':- ,,:":--:"'--'
<br />t/Sun6ay;Ati!\i1~t23, i'~;"il
<br />
<br />STATE ®I'O'N .
<br />
<br />
<br />Denver Post File Photo
<br />Station.
<br />
<br />wars'
<br />
<br />lrded $4.7 million con-
<br />t year to develop con-
<br />preliminary design for
<br />lal Test Facility and its
<br />~rminals.
<br />31, "to widen the com-
<br />and encourage other
<br />mbmlt their ideas aud
<br />Leib said the electron- .
<br />n sent bid proposals to
<br />1 100 aerospace compa-
<br />
<br />id his office will begin
<br />proposals .in mid-Sep-
<br />od expect to a ward a
<br />n December to the firm
<br />equip and run the Na-
<br />l Facility at Falcon.
<br />
<br />ioed to reveal the con-
<br />)ected amount but said
<br />e $750 million operation
<br />lent at Falcon."
<br />
<br />;ight
<br />
<br />y at Falcon, nine miles
<br />terson Air Force Base,
<br />the U .S, Space Com-
<br />tighter now than at
<br />!tary bases, including
<br />~on.
<br />
<br />Hoot steel fences, top-
<br />barbed wire, encircle
<br />center complex and
<br />. a:", ~oUce, armed
<br />. ,- .,'
<br />
<br />..J::;.;,:...
<br />
<br />U..... . C.. .1.... .~. .... ... l~L'1Ul .
<br />. ...tes,. . a IlornlaC~I_i~::j
<br />:Qn water-project plan~>
<br />
<br />
<br />. . ,.~.:
<br />porters) keep saying the bill is neu- a total prohibition" onexporting:lli' ,
<br />tral on exporting but that's simply water across state lines as a comlf .
<br />not true," said Myron Holburt, as- tion of supporting Animas-La Fll\'c:
<br />sistant general manager of the ta. Such a hard-line stance wOlllU
<br />Metropolitan Water District of make a showdown with the ColJ1ra-..
<br />Southern California. do tribes inevitabie. .c_ 0'1
<br />Joe Keck, economic deyel&~
<br />'Dangerous risk' ment coordinator for the Ute:
<br />Holburt coiltends CampbeU's leg- Mountain Ute Tribe, said the 1'1l' .
<br />islatio.n poses "a dangerous fisk" dians "will insist that such illB-.
<br />.for the Metropolitan Water Dis- guage not be put into the legiSlli:
<br />triet, an agency that. supplies wa- tion." . _
<br />ter across the sprawling Los An- Vehement opposition. to water
<br />geles suburbs: The water district is exporting is an outgrowth of th~
<br />among the most vocal critics of the delicate balance between. wat!!,
<br />Campbell bill. supply and demand on the Colom- . .
<br />"We're saying that if you trans- do River. Under the 65-year-ohl
<br />IeI' water between states, you're compact that governs use of t:lJe
<br />destroying the whole strueture, the fiver as it winds from the Coloralle
<br />entire history of the law of river;" Rockies to the Gulf of California;
<br />he added. 'each state and Mexico are alloClJ.l;.
<br />Campbell and other Colorado of- ed predetermined amounts .of wa-
<br />ficials say they hope the conflict tel'. .! ;;..
<br />can pe resolved simply by rewrit- Amounts used by Colorado aM
<br />ing sections of the legislation now other mountain states neverhaYe
<br />before Congress. reached tbe maximums set by tl<le
<br />. But attempts to lashiona quick compact, but population galns.
<br />compromise have been fruitless, have pushed demand in Califorilia
<br />and CampbeU abandoned his.initial and Arizona beyond allotments, ''',~.
<br />plans for a congressional hearing Flood 01 opposition
<br />in July or early August on his Anl- .;:-
<br />mas.La Plata measure. Despite growing interest in ~tl-
<br />Though the project is backed bi terstate water sales, most water
<br />the congressional delegations of officials have opposed the concept,
<br />Colorado and New Mexico, offi- contending it. would u. ndermrflll
<br />cials concede that any lobbying by basic tenants of a river compait
<br />California against . the .project based on in-state use.
<br />could jeopardize the legislation, In California, for instance, soJ;ll.t
<br />and the project. officials fear if water interests'4e
<br />"We vIew any'opposition as a their state were to buy water frOm'
<br />difficult problem for us," said Bill Indians in Colorado, the compac:t:'l;
<br />McDonald, director of the Colora- overaU cap on state shares wolllll
<br />do Water Conservation Board. . require aU other users Of .Coloraj.W
<br />At a June meeting in Los An- River water in California to redu!:!'
<br />geles, California water authorities their parts accordingly.._
<br />indicated they will come up with IronicaUy, there is a long histony
<br />new language to satisfy their con- .of opposition to water exports by
<br />cerns. Because Arizona and Neva- Colorado, . too, and Colorado of ii,
<br />da also may be affected, officials cials still don't sanction wate.-
<br />of all three states say they likely lease or sale arrangements beyoQ4
<br />will craft a proposal together. state borders. . co;
<br />A second meeting with Califor- State water authorities in Code.~.
<br />nia officials has been scheduled rado say they are willing to partial,
<br />for Thursday in Deriver. ly support the Indian exportpl~ .
<br />The biggest unresolved question. to increase chances that Animas-
<br />is how far California interests will La Plata will receive federal fUnd,
<br />push their concerns about water ing. Even so, McDonald concediis
<br />exporting. Colorado might join California l!l!1(l
<br />In a recent. interview, Holbur! ot.her. states to fight future at..
<br />said /Jis agency "/Jas not ruled out tempts t? export water. ,,,,
<br />,,'-:/.
<br />
<br />By Gary ,Schmit~
<br />Denver Post Washington Bureau
<br />WASHINGTON - California wa-
<br />ter interests have threatened to de-
<br />feat federal legislation needed to
<br />build .Colorado's Animas-La Plata
<br />water project, unless changes are
<br />made in the measure.
<br />State and local water authorities
<br />ill California say they will urge
<br />their state's powerful congressio-
<br />nal delegation to work against the
<br />water project near Durango if ref-
<br />erences to water sales across state
<br />lines are not dropped from the leg.
<br />islation.
<br />The Animas-La Plata bill, spon-
<br />sored by Democratic Rep. Ben
<br />Nighthorse Campbell of Ignacio,
<br />would grant two ute Indian tribes
<br />valuable rights to water from tbe
<br />long-delayed, $500 millionirriga-
<br />tion project.
<br />The Ute Mountain Utes and
<br />Southern Utes have fought Jor Ie.
<br />gal guarantees to large amounts of
<br />, water since the late 1800s, when
<br />the federal government relegated
<br />them to arid reservations in the far
<br />southwestern corner of Colorado.
<br />
<br />Right to sell water
<br />
<br />The tfibes insist the cost-sharing
<br />and water rights agreement
<br />among local, state and federal
<br />agencies - as well as federal legis-
<br />lation needed to ratify .it - must
<br />leave open the possibility 01 Indian
<br />water sales to downstream states.
<br />Ute leaders believe that once the
<br />project is completed in the late
<br />1990s, leases or sales of water
<br />could bring prosperity to their eco-
<br />nomicaUy depressed reservations.
<br />Water exports now are prohib.
<br />ited by state law and interstate
<br />compact, and the Utes are just one
<br />of many factions .across the West
<br />to challenge the ban in court.
<br />Colorado and New Mexico offi-
<br />cials expressed surprise at Califor-
<br />nia's staunch opposition to the Ani-
<br />mas-La Plata legislation. Colorado
<br />and New Mexico officials contend
<br />the legislation, as written, is care-
<br />lul not to address the increasingly
<br />sensitive issue of out-of-state sales
<br />- an argument hotly disputed by
<br />California.
<br />jl'l'h~v (Animas-La Plata sup-
<br />
<br />"-':: "Fy:,::'~}~~~F.~;~f:~~S~;i~~';:~E~,:
<br />
<br />
<br />i;
<br />
<br />" "'1:0,'-'
<br />,i,
<br />I
<br />
|