The Water Rights Protection Act — which would prohibit the federal government from seizing privately-acquired water rights used on federal lands — arrives for debate on the U.S. House of Representatives floor Thursday.
HR 3189 — sponsored by Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Cortez, and co-sponsored by 15 Western members of Congress — stems from the ski industry’s now 3-year-old fight with the agency, which sought in 2011 to revise permit regulations to require ski areas to transfer water rights used on public lands over to the Forest Service.
The ski industry — which sued to stop implementation of the new water-rights clause — argues the permit change amounts to illegal takings of private property. The Forest Service says the water regulation is a return to original policy outlined by the 1986 National Forest Service Ski Area Permit Act and keeps water resources connected to public land.
A U.S. District Court judge in December 2012 overturned the water clause and required the Forest Service to gather public input on the change to federal permitting.
Tipton’s bill would prevent the Forest Service — along with any federal agency in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture — from making the transfer of water rights a condition of any federal land permit.
Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder, was an early supporter of the bill but said changes during its revision in committee “have caused the bill to snowball into an effort to hurt our nation’s river health and destroy recreational opportunities.”
Polis said “fundamental changes” to the bill threaten agreements that leave water in streams to protect fisheries, aquatic health and recreational opportunities.
Polis said he was introducing an amendment to the bill that would ensure that any new directive from the Forest Service does not condition ski area permits on the transfer of water rights or require ski areas to acquire water rights in the name of the United States.
“It’s important to note that I still strongly believe in the original intent of this bill. The U.S. Forest Service clearly overstepped its authority with the 2011 ski areas water directive,” Polis said in a statement. “This amendment will ensure the long-term viability of ski areas, who are the drivers of Colorado’s and many state’s recreation and tourism economies.”
The ski industry also is lobbying the bill’s sponsors to narrow the focus with amendments that would clearly protect stream health. The industry’s proposed changes — offered by the National Ski Areas Association — include limiting the application to just the Forest Service and clarifying the intent of prohibiting forced transfer of water rights by inserting the word “title” into the bill.
“We offer these changes to demonstrate emphatically our unwavering commitment to maintain stream health and aquatic species, and our narrow focus of simply protecting our valuable water rights assets. These changes are directed at solving the concrete problem at hand, which is overreaching policy by the Forest Service that requires a forced transfer of ownership of water rights from permittees to the United States,” wrote NSAA president Michael Berry in a late February letter to Reps. Tipton and Polis, as well as Republican Wyoming Sen. John Barasso and Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat.
This week the House approved amendments that would prevent the bill from impacting the Endangered Species Act, the Bureau of Reclamation and Native American water rights.
Jason Blevins: 303-954-1374, jblevins@denverpost.com or twitter.com/jasontblevins
