WSPC07585 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 001971 By Roger C. Brol'ln \ \ explored. If Congress is to make a proper decision on the Eagles Nest lJildernEiss it must go beyond the information supplied in the Forest Service Proposal. If Congress accepts the Proposal, a great deal of highly suitable wilderness is going to be sacrificed. For what? Water will be supplied to an already overcrowded East Slope megacity for growth 20 years from now. Serious questions, other than more practial use of existing water supplies, have been raised as to whether or not the water will ever be needed since the Colorado East Slope is now suffering from severe overcr0\1ding (smog, crime, urban sprawl, etc.). r-lore water simply means more peo- ple and more problems. All lands have finite capacities. Hhy not settle for optimum rather than maximum population levels? Page Two orUSSIONS '. Hhile the Eagles Pest lJilderness Proposal discusses East Slope water needs, it never mentions !-Jest Slope \1a ter requi remeilts. Furthermore, the Forest Servi ce has done no impact study (or has anyone else) to indicate ~Ihat the effects of a 70% water removal ~Iill have on the Eagle, Piney, and Colorado River drainages. For instance, the Colorado River salinity problem which is greatly increased by each transmountain water diversion; is not even mentioned in the Prop:>sal. Yet without any studies the Forest Service still condones the development of the Den- ver Hater Boardls Eagle Piney Project. The main reason they offer for doing so is historical precedent. Almost no professional opinions are in the Proposal other than those of the Forest Service. They spend less than two pages summarizing the total imput of over 15,000 people, 36 organizations, and the Governor of the State of Colorado (not including his printed letter) all of whom supported a 125,000 acre Eagles iJest Wilderness area. It is incredible to me that the Forest Service would not at least enclose in -the Proposal a copy of the Colorado Game and Fish position (125,000 acres) which Governor Love endorsed. But it has been left out. . Hhere is the statement from Bill ~lounsey of the !!i lderness Society? r-lounsey has spent more time in the Eagles aest llilderness than any two Forest Service Rangers in Colorado added together. He is an expert on wilderness areas in general, and specifically on the Eagles Nest. Yet his testimony has been omitted. Where is one letter from any conservation organization? They all gave oral and written testimony, yet none of it is included. When you boi 1 it down, you can see that the Forest Servi ce quoted only names and numbers when it came to those who opposed their position. In place of professional testimony letters from political figures have been in- cluded. It appears that the Regional Office of the U.S. Forest Service is ~ore interested in politics than sound land use practices. i-lost interesting of all are the letters from the Denver area municipalities, which are almost exactly alike. Apparently a form letter was sent out by the Denver Hater Board to all of the municipalities they supplied water to, telling them what to say. The U.S. Forest Service has seen fit to include everyone of these letters (13 in all) in the Proposal.