|
<br />. 2BTb~ D~ijy Sentinel- Sunday, December 7, 2003
<br />
<br />. . . .,
<br />.". ' "'- '.'..... : " .
<br />
<br />. ....u" .'. THEWDAILY ..' .
<br />,Found'dln1893S13NTINELAcoxNewspaper
<br />
<br />....,: .
<br />. .' ..,' ....George Orbanek, Editor and Publisher
<br />: Derinl~M.ilerzog; Managing Editor . Bud Winslow, Operations Director
<br />., :. -','
<br />
<br />"'r:.,'
<br />
<br />': Bob Silbernagel, Editorial Page Editor.
<br />Tim Harty, City Editor .
<br />
<br />".""
<br />
<br />t.
<br />
<br />........>.,Editorials
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />)VIo~eroilywater ahead
<br />forl11ackCanyon acCord
<br />
<br />. "';:- . '" '
<br />, L' ,'. at.,e. i.~,s,f week; a consortium of conserVation groups
<br />. led by Colorado Trout Unlimited. fIled suit before the
<br />Colura.dci Supreme Court challenging a complex wa,
<br />. teragfeem~ntthatsought to quantify at long last the
<br />. federal :goverument's, reserved water rights through the
<br />Black Canyon of the Gunnison NatIOnal Park.
<br />, The carefully calibrated agreement - crafted after
<br />years of controversy. over multiple federal administra.
<br />. tions"':-' ultimately was hanunered out between U.S. Inte.
<br />I . rior Secretary Gale Norton and the state of Coloradoas
<br />! well as scores of water interests throughout the state,
<br />The high court gave a.ttorneys until the day of Christmas
<br />to submit their briefs in the case.
<br />'To beentir~ly candid about it, we have deCidedly
<br />: , miXed emotions about the legal challenge mounted by
<br />: ColoradO Trout .Dnlirriited and the other conservation
<br />Woups,:That's because there are no obvious ~lack hats
<br />, : and- white hats in this case that make one SIde of the
<br />,:jigumentsbbstantially more compelling than the other,
<br />. : . . Ideally,a perfect Wack Canyon settlement would pro.
<br />:.' videassU,rances that the water needs of everyone, :-ang.
<br />: ing frOln decades-old ranches to those of the NatIOnal
<br />ParkService, would be fully protected. But any Western
<br />Slope. res.ictent who appreciates not (Jnly all the values,
<br />.: represented by a healthy Black Canyon of the GunnIson
<br />, ecosysteUl but the importance of Western Slope water
<br />: . remaining in Western Colorado )'ather than flowmg to I
<br />, the FrontB-ange would be hard pressed to fault the con.
<br />i, servatlongroups' decision to challenge the agreement.
<br />, .' In brief; the settlement assigned a minimum 3D? cfs,
<br />yeat.roiind, minimum streanIflow right to the NatIOnal
<br />. Park Service's 1933reserved water nght.The agreement
<br />'. als6 ~ssigned the NatiOnal Park Service junior nghts to
<br />sprillgtime flushingtlows of up to 10,000 acre feet or pos-
<br />siblvmore. '
<br />
<br />, -
<br />: . · However, those springtime flushing rights were hot:
<br />.. .. assigned the .1eg3.1 certitude of' the 300 Cfs mininmm-
<br />. stri€ianIflow . And the very junior priority date assigned to
<br />'thesP)'inirtimeflushing flows - the fine print of the
<br />,agreement suggests -;- would .itself be subordinated to
<br />. , other j)liiior ,water rights in years of severe droughts. .
<br />. '. "Front RaiIgewater interests have their eyes on the
<br />". Gunnison River," noted Colorado Trout Unlimited attor.
<br />ney DrewPeternell. And theCTU legal beagle was dead
<br />righf on,thafscore>The clear intent.of all the signatories
<br />. to the agreement that generous springtinle flushing,flows
<br />be"released from Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal
<br />Res~rVolrs oll1y in years of healthy snowpack leaves a
<br />1,. htlgetransinountain' loophole through which Front
<br />" 'Range .interests potentially can. suck water from the
<br />~ "Gunnison. .: "'..:' .... ' .
<br />. (Tiie P9tep.tiaid~e consequence of that loophole was
<br />eicii:lentto many of us last summer when Gov. Bill Owens
<br />, was, atteJiipting.to sell his Referendum A'flim.flam to
<br />"'$keJiticanVestem Slope voters. At precisely the same
<br />i time th,at the governor was pitching Referendum A to .
<br />-, G\iniIison residents by vowing that he and his adminis-
<br />,tratiqu WPu1doppose diversions from the GUIDlison ba-
<br />, sui until:thecows come home and the streams run dry,
<br />water~ .aj:torneys .for the state were busy opposing the
<br />town-of GUIDlison's application for an instreamrecre.
<br />'ational\va.ter right on the grounds that - you guessed it!
<br />:~ it w()iJld' ).ll1dulyc(Jmplicate potential future trans-
<br />mountairidiversions from. the GUIDlison basin to the'
<br />: 'Fr()nt Riiilge. ' , .' .
<br />, ',Weremaj.n: offiCially (and genuinely) ambiv~nt about
<br />, 'CTU~s,'i3lackC<:myon legal challenge. However, should
<br />' .theQTU1~wsU:it.~ventuallY fail and.a fmal judicial impri-
<br />. mat\it be, accorded the current settlement, tens of thou.'
<br />':'sMdsotWe'stei'Ii Slope residents some years down the
<br />:'. rOp.dW~YYerywellcome to wish that it did not.
<br />,'.. '^.,"
<br />
<br />.001802
<br />
|