Recent legislation introduced by Sen. Conrad Burns to grant Bitterroot irrigators the right to drive and use motorized equipment in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness represents a discouraging abandonment of creative problem-solving, not to mention the notion of wilderness preservation. The good senator has opted to use the sledgehammer solution to a complicated issue that begs for deft and creative resolution - one that demonstrably doesn't need congressional micromanagement. It's also an approach that ignores some unpleasant economic realities.
At the tops of drainages along the western edge of the Selway-Bitterroot are nearly a score of small, old dams built to increase the size of natural lakes to store more water for irrigation in the valley below. All of the dams predate the Wilderness Act of 1964; at least one predates establishment of the national forests.
So, let's be clear: Sen. Burns' legislation seeks to grant a new right, not clarify an existing one.
More than that: His bill not only exempts irrigators from provisions of the Wilderness Act, but also relieves them of any obligation to abide by the National Environmental Policy Act, National Dam Safety Program Act, any other federal law establishing engineering and construction standards for dams and any provision of federal law protecting fish and wildlife and water quality. It also shields them from legal liability for damage they might cause. A press release sent out by his office disingenuously declares, “Burns Announces Bill to Ensure Compliance with Dam Safety Laws.”
Frankly, issues of access aside, it's hard to fathom why anyone would think it a good idea to exempt even small dams from accepted engineering standards and dam safety laws.
Do circumstances warrant such measures? Hardly. The U.S. Forest Service has been rather accommodating in allowing dam owners extraordinary permission to use helicopters and, in once case, a tractor to access dams, and also have allowed the use of chain saws, a small, motorized excavator, motorized compactor and other equipment for work on dams. Some of the work has been authorized on an expedited basis and the agency has been working to eliminate procedural requirements for routine work. Bitterroot irrigators have not been denied reasonable access to their dams.
There is for irrigators, perhaps inevitably, some angst and uncertainty associated with having to obtain special permission for the use of aircraft and equipment in wilderness. Lack of trail maintenance also creates a legitimate worry that future access will become more difficult.
But these are resolvable issues.
What defies belief is the idea that sites reached and dams constructed and maintained before the invention of motorized equipment cannot be reasonably maintained and repaired without them. We can imagine, however, that there are instances where the use of aircraft and motorized equipment may result in less actual disruption to the land and other wilderness resources than traditional methods. There ought to be room for pragmatism in dealing with the dams. What seems most reasonable is development of a useful dam-maintenance plan for each structure, tailored to the specific circumstances of the structure and its surroundings. Such plans could prescribe methods of access and work appropriate for routine maintenance and anticipated repairs as worked out by the Forest Service, irrigators and other interested parties.
A bigger problem involves economics, not access. Dams don't last forever, especially low-standard dams built going on a century ago and somewhat indifferently maintained over the decades. Some of these old structures have come close to failing in the past, and they're bound to require increasing maintenance as the years roll by. As useful and valued as the water stored behind these dams is to those owning the rights to that water, its real cost can only rise over time. Even now, the desire to use motorized equipment in wilderness reflects the desire to maximize efficiency as a means of minimizing cost. The move to exempt the dams from most applicable laws is tacit acknowledgement that their maintenance under established rules might cost more than they're worth. Ultimately, even machines may not make maintenance, repair and replacement of some of the dams economical.
Sen. Burns' approach would legally unfetter the dam owners but also eliminate all incentive for the Forest Service and various other public interests to share any of the growing burden of dam maintenance. Irrigators' special privileges also can be taken away as easily as Sen. Burns proposes to grant them. Then what?
A better approach is to let the Forest Service, irrigators and the public work out more elegant solutions protecting the legitimate need to maintain those old dams. Irrigators may discover that the Forest Service and others interested in maintaining the integrity of wilderness are better allies than adversaries. Instinct may say the best approach is to bulldoze your way in, but many hands might well make the work lighter - and, at least for a time, maybe the economics more attractive.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)