Football
Jerd Smith 17y

Feds may protect Colorado streams

Hundreds of Colorado streams are being analyzed for possible
protection under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the largest
such review in more than 30 years.

The study comes as cities and water districts race to develop water
in many of those same streams, efforts that will be much more
difficult -- and, in some cases, impossible -- once the federal
protective process is under way.

Since its passage in 1968, just one stream segment in the state --
on the Poudre River north of Fort Collins -- has been formally
protected under the act.

Several other streams have been recommended for wild- and-scenic
status but have never been formally listed by Congress in part because
of Colorado's opposition.

But the state's position may be shifting, said Mike King, deputy
director of Colorado's Department of Natural Resources.

"It is not this administration's perspective to say carte blanche
that wild and scenic is not something that should be considered. We
think, under some circumstances, it is appropriate,'' King said.

Water utilities, though, are deeply worried about the reviews by
the Bureau of Land Management -- particularly about a provision that
says stream segments initially identified as eligible have to be
managed to protect stream flows and shorelines until Congress makes a
decision on whether or not to include them under the act.

And Congress can delay action for decades, creating what water
providers view as a hellish, legal limbo.

River advocates, however, believe the reviews will provide
much-needed stream protection, as Colorado seeks water projects to
offset the effects of chronic droughts, global warming and population
growth.

"I'm hopeful that we'll get some new (wild-and-scenic)
designations in Colorado,'' said Andrew Fahlund, vice president of
conservation programs at Washington, D.C.-based American Rivers.

"When folks think about Colorado, they think about its
outstanding, remarkable values and its rivers. Designating a few of
them shouldn't be as controversial as it has been.''

Still, the reviews have begun at a time water demands in the state
are skyrocketing. Studies indicate Colorado will need 53 percent more
water in pipelines and reservoirs by 2030.

Last year, Russell George, then director of the Colorado Department
of Natural Resources, urged the BLM not to do reviews in the Yampa
River Basin until the state had finished its own water planning, a
process that may result in a new water project on the Yampa.

But the BLM is required by law to do the studies.

As a result, a segment of the Little Snake River, a tributary of
the Yampa, is now close to being listed as suitable by the BLM, a move
that water utilities, including the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, adamantly oppose because it could hamper any new
project there.

Roy Smith, who is spearheading the BLM reviews, said the
wild-and-scenic analyses don't automatically mean rivers can't be
tapped for additional water supplies.

"People need to understand that we've gone through this process in
lots of places and the world did not blow up,'' he said.

Colorado's water utilities are on edge, though, because the reviews
are under way in critical Western Slope hot spots such as the Blue and
Colorado rivers, as well as segments of the Eagle and Yampa rivers.

All have potential water projects that will require federal permits
if they move forward.

"We share a concern that a lot of water users share about what a
designation means for the future management of that stream,'' said
Eric Wilkinson, manager of the water conservancy district, which
serves Greeley, Fort Collins and Boulder, among other cities.

"What we need for the future is as much flexibility as we can get.
Our chief concern on the Yampa is the development of water supplies
that are available right now. This really could bind our hands.''

In the meantime, river advocates say they're willing to consider
alternatives to wild-and- scenic designations if strong protections
for stream flows and shorelines can be negotiated with the water
utilities.

"I think the notion of trying to get people to sit down and come
to an agreement about a vision for the future of a river is a good
thing to do,'' said David Nickum, executive director of Colorado Trout
Unlimited. "It gets people out of the mode of drawing battle lines.

"When Congress passed the act,'' Nickum said, "it said it was to
establish a national protection policy for rivers to balance the
policy of dam building. The idea was to not look at these rivers as
workhorses only.''

^ Back to Top ^