Laserfiche WebLink
<br />O(Hl545 <br /> <br />"It is also pretty clear that we can work out any problems <br />that appear to exist in protecting water entitlements under . <br />interstate compacts around the state. And I also have said that <br />we should be able to find a way to address the need for <br />development of water supplies during emergencies. <br /> <br />"The only thing that appears to be new is concern <br />water rights in future wilderness areas. Apparently, <br />Rights Negotiating Team now wants to add language for <br />may be considered for wilderness at some future date. <br />understanding that this new concern would cover: <br /> <br />about <br />the Water <br />areas that <br />It is my <br /> <br />*** lands that have not even been proposed for <br />wilderness, in my proposal, by the Administration, or <br />anyone else; <br /> <br />*** downstream BLM areas currently being studied for <br />wilderness by the Administration but for which no <br />recommendations have been made; <br /> <br />*** lands that lie well beyond any of the geograph~,. <br />areas that have been agreed upon over the last four <br />years. <br /> <br />"The wilderness legislation discussed over the last four <br />years covers discrete, well-defined, high-country areas. The <br />purpose of adding this totally new idea is unclear -- why don't <br />we just codify all of the agreements made to date and finish <br />legislation on the high-elevation wilderness areas we have been <br />looking at for years. <br /> <br />"On this final issue of low-elevation, BLM lands, we should <br />do what every other state is doing and leave the whole question <br />of downstream BLM lands for future negotiations. This wquld <br />occur after we receive the Administration's proposals for what to <br />do with these lands. <br /> <br />"With all the areas of agreement on the high-elevation <br />forest lands, we can snap a bill. together right away." <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />30 <br /> <br />30 <br />