My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02222
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02222
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:35:23 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 10:59:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.175
Description
Wild and Scenic-Dolores River
State
CO
Basin
San Juan/Dolores
Water Division
7
Date
10/7/1975
Author
Bureau Outdoor Rec
Title
Dolores Study-Wild and Scenic-Corresp Reports tech etc 1968-81-Dolores Wild and Scenic River Study Fact Sheet
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />,;~ <br /> <br />9. A WILD RIVER WITH A DAM: Some individuals asked how a river could <br />possibly be considered wild or scenic when a dam is to be constructed <br />on it. <br /> <br />'W- <br /> <br />When the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was moving toward its original <br />passage back in 1968, Congress very carefully inserted wording which <br />would allow segments of rivers to be included in the national system <br />even though there were dams, proposed dams, or other developments else- <br />where on the same rivers. This was no more than a concession to <br />historical facts; all but a very few of America's major rivers are <br />in part developed in some way; were the 1968 act to insist that only <br />completely undeveloped rivers be allowed in the national system, then <br />such a system would barely be able to exist. <br /> <br />By allowing segments of rivers to be placed in the national system, <br />Congress recognized that some parts of rivers could be wild and <br />scenic or recreational, while other more heavily developed sections <br />would not be designated. The Study, Team has identified a total <br />of 17 rivers proposed for or already included in the national system <br />which are dammed in one place or another. As noted earlier, McPhee <br />Dam is not within a designated study segment of the Dolores River. <br /> <br />10. LEAVE THE RIVER AS IT IS. A very large number of persons asked why <br />the Dolores could not be left as is. They maintained that already <br />existing local, state, and Federal laws afforded more than enough <br />protection. <br /> <br />First, this is the basic purpose of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act - <br />to leave rivers as they are. Secondly, the Dolores River is presently <br />under a diverse complex of management authorities - local, state, <br />and Federal. It would be quite possible for this situation to <br />persist, and for the river to maintain some, while gradually losing <br />much, of its present character. <br /> <br />,r <br /> <br />Inclusion in the national system, however, would have several distinct <br />advantages toward the goal of leaving the river essentially "as is": <br />'notable among these is a guaranteed freedom from dams and undesirable, <br />unsightly development on any designated segment. Perhaps most signi- <br />'ficant, however, wild and scenic designation will bring about a <br />]coordinated, umbrella management plan for outstanding segments of <br />the Dolores. This will assure preservation of the river and its <br />corridor for future generations more effectively and with less <br />lik1ihood of undesirable changes than provided by the present mix <br />of author it ies. <br /> <br />:1 <br /> <br />0756 <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.