WSP06322

• File Number: 7630.125
• Description: Wild and Scenic - Colorado Wilderness Act - 1991
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 9/29/1989
• Author: Various
• Title: Newspaper Articles-Press Releases - 9-29-1989 through 11-13-1989
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: News Article/Press Release

C....lo "'i~

c;.r

tCS/2.'le7

Wilderness bill backers attack Springs, water providers

. By Barry Noreen
Gazette Telegraph
m';NVER - Water developers
in general and Colorado
Springs In particular received
a bashing Saturday during a
hearing on a wilderness
proposal.
Water developers, spear-
headed by lIarold Mlskel of the
Culf1rado Springs [)(opartrncnt
of Utilities. say 8('n. Tim
Wirth's bill would block (ulure
attempts to develop water
ncarly everywhere In the state.
Miskel, also speaking (or
Dt'nvt'r. Aurora and Pueblo Inl('rcsls, has helped block
creation of new wilderness lands, charging that water-
rights language In the bill threatens the state's future.
Miskel and other water provlden have agree~ that

Tim Wirth: Question.
Sprlnr;,' opposition

. ,

. Governor supports Wirth's proposal/SS

the lands In Wirth's 7GO,OOO-acre bill are all headwa- '
ters areas, and as such, do not threaten municipal
water program5. Hut Mi5kel said environmental
groups want to create downstream wilderness areas
that would hamstr:lng future water development.
"No one can deny that the preservationists want
downstream wildernesses," Miskelllald, during a field
hearlng of the Senate Subcommittee on I'ublic l.ands
National Parks and Forests. '
I-:nvlrOllmentalists acknowledge they will push for
downstream wilderness areas an Bureau of Land Man-
agement Lands in the 1990s. Hut they, along with
Wirth, argue that. each of those proposals CIUl be de:
bated on a case-by.case basis later, after water rights
In the headwaters areas are reserved. _
Wirth, who was clearly disturbed when the Colo- ,~
rado Springs City Council un~nlmously opposed his

.'

bill a few weeks ago, attacked Miskd anti oOwrs who
claimed that reserving water rights fur Colorado wll.
derness sets a dangerous precedent. "I have !H'v('r un-
derstood why Colorado Springs thinks it has sneh all
enormous stake In this that it Is lending the ollpositioll
on It," Wirth said.
Wirth cited examples In On'gun, New Mexico, Wash-
ington and Arizona, where water rights already havl'
been set aside for federally designated lantls. "The
precedent language Is nonsense:' Wirth chided.
To accommodate Colorado Sl)rlng~ and Aurora,
Wirth's bill contains a provislun thul rl"affirms tht:' dt.
ies' water rights in the existinl( Holy CflJSS Wilderlless
for the lIomestake II wal('r project.
Mlskel has said the bill's language i~n't strong
enough and should prohibit wlldcrnfss water rights
from interfering with water projl'ctS In any WilY.
Already, a federal court has upheld the cities' rights
to the lIomestake water, but the project has been de-
layed by lawsuits from environmentalists.

..

"

""
W

-"