|
<br />-Potter.. cOnlu...dfr_ Pogo 5
<br />
<br />003131
<br />
<br />wilderness. Far from charging lhal wilderness water rights are
<br />objectionable because they are outside of the prior appropriation
<br />sySlem, this position concludes thai wilderness waler resources
<br />should have no place in the system.
<br />
<br />Thus. the objection to reserved rights for BLM wilderness and to a
<br />wilderness reserved right as a constraint on changing diversion
<br />points actually challenges the basic premise of the Wilderness Act:
<br />\hal wilderness deserves the highesl sl:mdard of prolection.
<br />Objection to a wilderness water right - even one with a 1986
<br />priority date, implicitly amends the Wilderness ACI to remove
<br />federal protection for water flowing through or arising in
<br />wilderness.
<br />
<br />Similarly, the contention lhal high elevation water projects are
<br />necessary and desirable challenges a fundamenlal premise from
<br />which Congress and wilderness advocates begin: thai wilderness
<br />designation conslitutes a recognition thai some areas are off limits
<br />to any Iype of hurnan,engineered development. The Willi'r
<br />Congress' response to DNR's repon reflects Ibe inherent tension
<br />between pennanent protection for waler reSOWCe5 in wilderness and
<br />water developers' desire for flexibility in siting fUlure waler
<br />projects.
<br />
<br />Seemingly, the resolution of wilderness water rights issues lies in
<br />assigning relative values to we aluibutes of wilderness water
<br />discussed in the opening paragraphs of this paper (science,
<br />recreation, the value of Ibe tourisl industry, watershed prolection,
<br />bequesl value) >'is a vis the merits of affording greater flexibility in
<br />siting water development projects, For example, to the extent lhal
<br />we as a society value high elevation wilderness and Ibe spiritual
<br />and scientific purposes it serves. we devalue high-altitude trans-
<br />basin diversion projects. fn the end, legalistic debates over the
<br />exislence and scope of federal reserved water rights for wilderness
<br />are empty; whal counts is our philosophy abouI the kind of
<br />resources we want to have for our future.
<br />
<br />11 Sierra Club v. Block, 622 F. Supp. 842 (D. Colo. 1985) (appeal
<br />pending).
<br />U See e.g., Uniled SlateS v. Denv..-. 656 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982); Avondale
<br />Irrigation Dist v. Nonhero Idaho Properties, sn P.2d 9 (Idaho 1978).
<br />3/ A 1985 poll by Rep. Ken Kramer (R) CO of over 11,000 of his 5!h
<br />District constituenlS revealed that 54.4% want federal protection for
<br />wilderness water, even if that prOlectlon makes it more difficuh for
<br />Coloradans to make tr3diLionaJ. conswnptive use of that water.
<br />4/ See 622 F. Supp. at 851-863, citing Uniled Stales v. Rio Grande Dam &
<br />lrr. Co.. 174 U.S. 69<l (1899).
<br />5/438 U.S. 696 (1978).
<br />61 622 F. Supp. at 862.
<br />71 United StaleS v, Denver, 656 P,2d l (Colo. 1982) (Rocky Mountain
<br />National Park).
<br />81 e,g, C"Pl'aert v. United Stales, 426 U.S. 128 (1976) (De:.!h Valley
<br />National Monument).
<br />9/ Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) (Lake Mead National
<br />Recreation Are.1.. Havasu Lake National WUdlife Refuge).
<br />101 Nevada '" rei. Shamberger v. United StateS. 165 F. Supp. 600 (D.
<br />Nev. 1958). rev'd on oIlier grounds. 279 F.ld 699 (9!h Cir. 1960).
<br />11/ Avondale Irrigation Dist, supra no[e 2 (Caribou and Coeur d.'Alene
<br />National Forests).
<br />lU WinlerS v. Uniled States, 207 U,S. 5M (19<l8) (Fort Belknap
<br />rescrva.r..ion).
<br />131 See 622 F. Supp. at 859.
<br />
<br />\
<br />
<br />14/ Colorado Tourism Board, May. 1986.
<br />15/ S. Rep. No. 109, 881h Cong.. 2d Sess. 17 (Ajrl 3, 1%3), reponing
<br />on S. 4 , which became !he Wilderness Act
<br />1611d. 8119.
<br />17/ 622 F. Supp. at 859.
<br />18/14 ELR 20026 (July 1984).
<br />19/ S.. ..g. Colorado River Wa1tr Conservation District v. U.S.. 424
<br />U.S. 800 (1976); Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 463 U.S. 545
<br />(1983).
<br />201 United Stales v. Denver. supra nOle 2.
<br />21/ Cappacrt v. United StaleS, supra n.8, and Winle" v. Uniled Stales,
<br />supra n.12.
<br />121 The Senate debated placing !hc exemption pow..- in !he hands of the
<br />appropriate Secretary (i.e.. Agriculture or Interior). The ulti.male decision
<br />\0 leave lhe exemption power wilh the President reflected Congress' desire
<br />to make exemptions difficult to obtain. 109 Congo Record 5897-8.
<br />23/ H.R. Report 94-939. 94!h Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1976) (describing the
<br />Forest Service's estimation of the greatest public value of Eagles Nest
<br />wilderness resources as \he water for users downstream in the Vail area).
<br />24/ See e,g. Sec. 2(e) of P.L 95-237. 92 Stat 42 (Feb. 24. 1978)
<br />(Fryingpan,Arkansas project in Hunter.Fryingpan wilderness area).
<br />251 See Hallford, Condi'ional Walet Righ1s Law. Colorado Lawyer at 353,
<br />362 (March. (985) (discussing Ihe value of survey work and other forms of
<br />notice of an intent to appropriate water).
<br />261 Letter from David Getches and Jens Danielson 10 Gary Hart. Hank
<br />Brown, and Ken Kram..-, dated February 24, 1986.
<br />27/ Letter from Colorado Water Congress to Congressmen Hart. Bro'Ml.
<br />and Kram..-, dated April 7, 1986.
<br />.. This art~fe represenls the views of tlu!. author and if not imended as the
<br />viewpoinl ofth.e Sierra Club Legal Difense Fund or the Sierra Club.
<br />
<br />,6-
<br />
|