Laserfiche WebLink
<br />00lS7~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />DOES THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE WORK <br /> <br />FOR THE DENVER HATER BOARD? <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />By Roger C. Brown, President <br />Eagle Piney I'later Protection Association <br /> <br />One certainly gets this impression reading through the 1971 Forest Service Proposal <br />for the Eagl es ['lest Hil derness. Thi s Proposal was recently approved by Pres i dent <br />Nixon, and is now under consideration by Congress. <br /> <br />I recommend that you obtain a copy of this Proposal and read it carefully. It is <br />a cleverly conceived document, factual in its statements on the one hand, and dis- <br />honest on the other by its gross omissions of significant testimony and necessary <br />study. <br /> <br />The U.S.F.S. Eagles Nest ~ilderness Proposal recommends that all land that might <br />in any way be needed for Denver \-Ia ter Board I s Eagl e Pi ney Project be excl uded from <br />wilderness classification. This is interesting considering that the Denver Ilater <br />Board has already developed an alternative diversion plan which would allow them <br />to remove water from the Eagle River, leaving many of the Gore Range streams un- <br />tapped because these streams flow into the Eagle. This is doubly interesting <br />when you consider Oenverls inefficient use of their present water supply. Denver <br />recycles virtually none of its existing water supply and meters, only one-third of <br />its water users. <br /> <br />Since the Ui lderness Act provides for \~ater development within its boundaries ~Ihy <br />does the Forest Service choose to exclude those lands before the need for water <br />development has been clearly proven. Instead of encouraging the Denver Hater <br />Board to consider more practical water uses, or alternative ways of obtaining <br />new water supplies, the Forest Service has simply chosen to sacrifice a very sig- <br />nificant and suitable part of the Eagles r~est !Jilderness. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />It has been the impression of several concerned citizens in Colorado, including <br />myself, that the Forest Service (I speak of the Denver Regional Office in parti- <br />cular. Some district rangers obviously have mixed feelings about, or are opposed <br />to, transmountain water diversions) was going to develop a relatively unbiased <br />proposal, passing the decision on to Congress as to whether or not the Federal <br />Government was going to challenge the right of a city, operating under state <br />law, to modify (destroy, in my opinion) a Federal wilderness heritage. As I have <br />understood the situation up until now, the Forest Service was going to send in <br />two recommendations to Congress of nearly equal weight. One alternative \~ould <br />"talk about "suitable" wilderness, that is wilderness that is in a relatively un- <br />touched condition, retaining its wild character for the ~ost part. The second <br />proposal was to talk about "available" wilderness, that is wilderness which has <br />no economic desi9ns on it such as timber harvesting or water development, etc. <br /> <br />Hell, that isnlt the way the proposal has turned out. Suitable \'Jilderness is <br />discussed in the Eagles ['lest toJilderness Proposal, in fact it is the second word <br />in the recommendation, but all suitable wilderness which might not be available <br />has been removed. There is one map of suitable wilderness which has no exclusions <br />in regard to availability, but no proposal accompanies it. The Forest Service <br />has presented a single proposal. To my mind no other alternatives are adequately <br />