Montezuma County commissioners voiced support Tuesday for a federal proposal to create a National Conservation Area along the Dolores River, calling it a compromise that protects local control while addressing potential restrictions tied to Wild and Scenic status.
The proposal would designate large portions of the Dolores River as an NCA.
Commissioners responded directly to criticism of the bill circulating online. Senate Bill 178 is backed by Colorado Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, both Democrats. It passed a Senate committee on Dec. 17 but still needs a U.S. House counterpart to advance.
The bill proposes conservation status for two river corridors along the Dolores River in Southwest Colorado. Proponents point to its protections for water rights, private property and current or future Dolores Project and McPhee Reservoir operations.
County commissioners, echoing this sentiment, also say it’s an alternative to a Wild and Scenic Rivers designation, which they argue allows for greater local input in future management decisions. Both Montezuma and La Plata county commissioners wrote an opinion column urging Republican Rep. Jeff Hurd of the 3rd Congressional District, to introduce a House version of the bill.
Commissioner Gerald Koppenhafer opened his remarks by addressing what he said has been a growing amount of online commentary about the proposal.
He said recent social media discussions about the NCA and Dolores River overlook a key fact: Restrictions have applied since the river was studied for Wild and Scenic designation in the 1970s.
Koppenhafer said federal agencies have been required to manage the river to maintain its “outstandingly remarkable values” for decades, even though it was never formally designated as Wild and Scenic.
Title III of the proposed bill targets technical changes to how portions of the Dolores River are treated under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Specifically, it releases those areas from further study or consideration for Wild and Scenic designation.
“So, all those restrictions have been on the river for all these years, and there is no way to get that designation off of that river other than to legislate it off,” he said.
The bill sets deadlines and planning requirements rather than listing every future conservation rule, but it does include some specific management directives, such as limits on motorized travel or restrictions on new road construction.
According to the bill, the Bureau of Land Management writes the management plan for the National Conservation Area, while the U.S. Forest Service writes the management plan for the Special Management Area. Both agencies are required to consult the state, local governments, the public, tribal interests, the shared advisory council and the Native Fish Monitoring and Recommendation Team.
Koppenhafer added the NCA was pursued as a compromise.
“Over the years, it has been decided to try to legislate it off there by putting an NCA on there as a compromise with the environmental groups to get this Wild and Scenic (designation) off this river,” he said.
Koppenhafer said county officials were also concerned about the potential for a national monument designation. The concern is that it could bring more stringent rules, meaning loss of local input, broader land impacts and water implications.
“What was more concerning to us, back in 2008, when we started this whole process was the fact that we were afraid they were going to put a monument right over the top of that,” Koppenhafer said.
He emphasized that the proposal does not include private land. The other two commissioners also voiced support.
Commissioner Kent Lindsay said past disputes over federal land designations in Montezuma County, particularly the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument, show the consequences of failing to reach compromise. Commissioner Jim Candelaria said he supports the proposal as a compromise because he believes it preserves local control.
