My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP01093
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
WSP01093
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:29:18 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:10:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.125
Description
Wild and Scenic - Colorado Wilderness Act - 1991
State
CO
Basin
Statewide
Date
5/5/1989
Author
Various
Title
Newspaper Articles-Press Releases - 5-5-1989 through 3-4-1990
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />2.1 3-+QO <br /> <br />nil;15:i~ <br /> <br />THE <br />DENVER <br />POST <br /> <br />Wilham Dean Singleton. <br />Chairmtm of Ire Board <br />Donald F. Hunt, Publisher <br />)0", Gilman Spencer, FAltor <br />Chuck Gn>t'n, Editorial Pa,,"f! Editor <br />Gay Cook, M.maging F.diwr <br />William n_ Hornby. St>n;or F.ditor <br /> <br />'There is no hope for the satisfied man' . F.G. Bonms. Publisher, 1895-1933 <br /> <br />Keeping wilderness wet <br /> <br />NOBODY HAS figured out how <br />to dry up the water-rights mo- <br />rass that has mired eHorts to ex. <br />pand the wilderness network in Col- <br />orado for most of the past decade. <br />The state's two U.S. senators, <br />wbo must see eye-to-eye before <br />Congress will approve any addi- <br />tions to the system. have tried <br />manfully to balance the concerns <br />of tree-buggers and dam-builders. <br />But the two sides still are divided <br />by a raging river DC philosophical <br />differences. <br />Hence it's important to note that <br />the tide of opinion in Congress <br />seems to be running in favor of Sen. <br />Tim Wirth. The state's Democratic <br />senator believes the federal gov. <br />ernment should be able to reserve <br />enough water "to fuUm the pur- <br />poses" of any new wilderness area, <br />but Wirth also believes the govern- <br />ment should stand in line in state <br />water court to assert this right - <br />like any other claimant. <br />Congress endorsed this approach <br />in passing a Nevada wilderness bill <br />last fall, and the House of Repre- <br />sentati\'es last week approved sim- <br />ilar wording in an Arizona bill that <br />now appears certain to be ratified <br />in the Senate. <br />Sen. Bill Armstrong, however, is <br />floating off in the opposite direc- <br />tion. Mindful of the political whirl- <br />pool that engulfed Colorado <br />Springs and Aurora when they tried <br />to divert water out of the Holy <br />Cross Wilderness Area, the state's <br />Republican senator would deny any <br />federal right to water in wilderness <br />areas. <br />Instead, he would require the <br />agency responsible for the land in <br /> <br />Question to go hat.in-hand to the <br />Colorado Water Conservation <br />Board and seek "the appropriation <br />of such water rights as it deems <br />necessary to carry out its responsi. <br />bilities." That's a limited conces- <br />sion to wilderness values under any <br />interpretation. <br />Worse, the allotment would be <br />doled out under the state's in. <br />stream flow law, which was de-- <br />signed to protect fish - not to <br />guarantee the kind of gushing exu- <br />berance that high-country wilder. <br />ness areas are known for. <br />U's hard to understand why <br />Armstrong has taken such a hard. <br />line stand, especially in view of the <br />consensus that's been reached re- <br />garding Arizona and Nevada - <br />two dry, downstream states whose <br />senators certainly would have <br />screamed H their water interests <br />truly were threatened. <br />Perhaps Armstrong's rigidity is a <br />reflection of a new defensiveness <br />among Colorado water developers in <br />the wake oC Washington's decision to <br />veto the Two Forks project. Perhaps <br />he's merely trying to negate the con- <br />troversial 1985 ruling by U.S. Dis. <br />trict Judge John Kane, who Cound <br />that Congress intended to create wa- <br />ter rights when it passed the original <br />Wilderness Act in 1964. <br />In anv case, it seems obvious <br />that Armstrong will have to quit <br />swimming against a strong pro- <br />wilderness current if he hopes to <br />win any support for the other pro- <br />visions in his bill - particularly his <br />commendable attempt to deal with <br />scenic but not-quite-pristine areas <br />by designating them as national re- <br />creation areas. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.