Crowdog
03-21-2002, 08:55 PM
McInnis, Udall feud over wilderness area
Dispute about creek water diversion stalls bill
By Mike Soraghan
Denver Post Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 21, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A dispute between two Colorado congressmen is threatening the creation of a new wilderness area on the Western Slope.
And as is typical for Colorado, the dispute is about water.
Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Grand Junction, has a bill to designate as wilderness 13 miles of the rugged canyon around Deep Creek near Glenwood Springs. Such a designation would ban most uses other than backpacking and rafting. McInnis wants to call it the Deep Creek-Yampatika Ute Wilderness Area, after the Indians who once lived in the area.
The striking canyon plunges 2,500 feet and is home to streams, caverns and more than 40 prehistoric caves. The free-flowing creek is fed by snowmelt and feeds the Colorado River. It's all owned by either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.
But McInnis has run into opposition. Environmental groups say that the wilderness area should include thousands of acres of public land along the rim of the canyon. Those same groups say that if the canyon is to be wilderness, a local National Guard unit should stop landing helicopters there for training.
Those objections could put environmental groups in the position of lobbying against creating more wilderness.
"We don't oppose wilderness lightly," said Suzanne Jones of the Denver office of the Wilderness Society. "But this is token wilderness."
The most deadly objection, though, is coming from Rep. Mark Udall, D-Boulder, who says McInnis isn't doing enough to ensure water will always flow through Deep Creek. Udall says the wording in McInnis' bill could let a local water district divert water upstream from the wilderness site.
"Solving the water problem means making sure that a Deep Creek wilderness won't be just another dry gulch," said Udall, who tried and failed to change the water language in McInnis' bill.
McInnis said there is no problem. The creek can't be dried up with his plan, and stronger language would allow the federal government to interfere in Colorado's zealously guarded water law, he said.
"There is absolutely no threat to the water in Deep Creek," McInnis said.
The feud played itself out in corridors of the House on Wednesday. Udall, McInnis and top staffers went toe to toe a few feet from the door to the Resources Committee hearing room, waving their arms and furrowing their eyebrows. But no resolution could be reached. They agreed to try to work out the differences in the bill before it comes up for a floor vote.
If they can't reach a compromise, McInnis will have a difficult time trying to pass it, even though his fellow Republicans run the House. With Democrats backing Udall, McInnis won't be able to get fast-track status for non-controversial bills. Without that, McInnis' very local bill will be competing with national policy for time on the floor.
Both Udall and McInnis said they expected that with more time, they'll be able to reach a compromise.
"It's an onerous task to move it without bipartisan support," said McInnis staffer Josh Penry. "But Congressman McInnis has proven industrious in the past and I suspect there's some maneuvering we can do."
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E476067,00.html
Dispute about creek water diversion stalls bill
By Mike Soraghan
Denver Post Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 21, 2002 - WASHINGTON - A dispute between two Colorado congressmen is threatening the creation of a new wilderness area on the Western Slope.
And as is typical for Colorado, the dispute is about water.
Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Grand Junction, has a bill to designate as wilderness 13 miles of the rugged canyon around Deep Creek near Glenwood Springs. Such a designation would ban most uses other than backpacking and rafting. McInnis wants to call it the Deep Creek-Yampatika Ute Wilderness Area, after the Indians who once lived in the area.
The striking canyon plunges 2,500 feet and is home to streams, caverns and more than 40 prehistoric caves. The free-flowing creek is fed by snowmelt and feeds the Colorado River. It's all owned by either the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.
But McInnis has run into opposition. Environmental groups say that the wilderness area should include thousands of acres of public land along the rim of the canyon. Those same groups say that if the canyon is to be wilderness, a local National Guard unit should stop landing helicopters there for training.
Those objections could put environmental groups in the position of lobbying against creating more wilderness.
"We don't oppose wilderness lightly," said Suzanne Jones of the Denver office of the Wilderness Society. "But this is token wilderness."
The most deadly objection, though, is coming from Rep. Mark Udall, D-Boulder, who says McInnis isn't doing enough to ensure water will always flow through Deep Creek. Udall says the wording in McInnis' bill could let a local water district divert water upstream from the wilderness site.
"Solving the water problem means making sure that a Deep Creek wilderness won't be just another dry gulch," said Udall, who tried and failed to change the water language in McInnis' bill.
McInnis said there is no problem. The creek can't be dried up with his plan, and stronger language would allow the federal government to interfere in Colorado's zealously guarded water law, he said.
"There is absolutely no threat to the water in Deep Creek," McInnis said.
The feud played itself out in corridors of the House on Wednesday. Udall, McInnis and top staffers went toe to toe a few feet from the door to the Resources Committee hearing room, waving their arms and furrowing their eyebrows. But no resolution could be reached. They agreed to try to work out the differences in the bill before it comes up for a floor vote.
If they can't reach a compromise, McInnis will have a difficult time trying to pass it, even though his fellow Republicans run the House. With Democrats backing Udall, McInnis won't be able to get fast-track status for non-controversial bills. Without that, McInnis' very local bill will be competing with national policy for time on the floor.
Both Udall and McInnis said they expected that with more time, they'll be able to reach a compromise.
"It's an onerous task to move it without bipartisan support," said McInnis staffer Josh Penry. "But Congressman McInnis has proven industrious in the past and I suspect there's some maneuvering we can do."
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,53%257E476067,00.html