Colorado company to pay $9M for damage to Rockies PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
Written by ERIC BONTRAGER, Greenwire   
Tuesday, 06 May 2008
A Colorado company will pay $9 million to repair damage done to Rocky Mountain National Park by a 2003 ditch failure, under a settlement that the National Park Service and Justice Department announced yesterday.

At issue is a break in the Grand River Ditch, which is owned and operated by the Water Supply and Storage Co. A buildup of snow, ice and debris in the ditch sent water rushing down a mountain slope into Lulu Creek, destroying old-growth lodgepole and spruce stands and dumping debris into nearby wetlands.

Incorporated in 1891 to provide farm irrigation, the company has a network of ditches, laterals, reservoirs and tunnels that span more than 100 miles and supply water to 40,000 acres. Grand River Ditch carries 20,000 acre-feet of water through the park to Weld and Larimer counties.

The government accused the irrigation company of violating the Park System Resource Protection Act and a 100-year-old stipulation requiring the ditch operator to pay damages caused by the Grand River Ditch. The settlement is the largest ever under the 1907 law.

The settlement comes as Colorado lawmakers are attempting to push legislation, H.R. 2334, that would declare most of the park as wilderness but would exempt the company from future damages except in cases of negligence.

Reps. Mark Udall (D) and Marilyn Musgrave (R) are sponsoring the House bill, which is supported by Sens. Wayne Allard (R) and Ken Salazar (D). The measure seeks to end the impasse over wilderness by ensuring that water rights connected to the Grand River Ditch and Thompson Project are not affected by the designation.

President Richard Nixon recommended the wilderness designation for the park's backcountry in 1974. Various proposals have been floated ever since, including efforts from Udall in every Congress since 1999.

The Bush administration opposes the liability exemption, saying it goes beyond those in other agreements and puts the onus on the government to prove negligence.

Udall said the settlement does not change his intention to pass the bill. "Our legislation deals only with possible future situations, not the events that were the basis for this suit, and so I do not think this settlement will affect the legislation's prospects," he said.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 06 May 2008 )
 

Syndicate