{"id":35297,"date":"2023-03-03T20:48:07","date_gmt":"2023-03-04T03:48:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/update-bill-to-protect-dolores-river-is-reintroduced-in-u-s-senate\/"},"modified":"2026-03-31T02:24:01","modified_gmt":"2026-03-31T08:24:01","slug":"update-bill-to-protect-dolores-river-is-reintroduced-in-u-s-senate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dh.durangoherald.com\/tj\/update-bill-to-protect-dolores-river-is-reintroduced-in-u-s-senate\/","title":{"rendered":"Update: Bill to protect Dolores River is reintroduced in U.S. Senate"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"The
The Dolores River Canyon is included in a proposed National Conservation Area. (Courtesy photo)<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>\n

U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper of Colorado have reintroduced legislation that would add protections for the Lower Dolores River Canyon.<\/p>\n

The Dolores River National Conservation Act<\/a> would protect more than 68,000 acres of federal lands on the river canyon and tributaries below McPhee Dam in Montezuma, Dolores and San Miguel counties.<\/p>\n

The bipartisan bill was introduced in the previous 117th Congress in July by Bennet, a Colorado Democrat. In that Congress, a companion bill with the same language was introduced in the U.S. House by U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Colorado Republican, in August.<\/p>\n

However, because it was never voted on by the full Congress, by the end of the session the bill died, and now has been reintroduced in the 118th Congress by the Senate, according to Bennet\u2019s press office.<\/p>\n

The bill is basically the same with some minor technical changes and \u201cfine tuning\u201d based on agency testimony, Bennet\u2019s press secretary, Rachel Skaar, said Friday.<\/p>\n

On March 10, Boebert reintroduced the House companion bill for the Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act to protect water rights and conserve the Dolores River, according to a news release.<\/p>\n

Boebert stated the Dolores River legislation \u201cis the gold standard for public lands bills as it protects traditional uses and was written from the ground up by a bipartisan coalition of local stakeholders. So many other public lands bills in Congress trample on the rights and liberties of the American people, but this legislation is good for conservation, good for private property rights, and good for local communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

House co-sponsors of Boebert\u2019s Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area Act include U.S. Reps Ken Buck and Doug Lamborn, Colorado Republicans.<\/p>\n

Boebert\u2019s bipartisan bill is identical to the House bill introduced by Colorado U.S. Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper.<\/p>\n

\u201cOver millions of years, the Dolores River carved a canyon renowned \u2013 not just in our state, but across the country \u2013 for its majestic red rock walls that tower over the ponderosa pines,\u201d Bennet stated in a news release. \u201cFor the people of Southwest Colorado, the river is more than just a landmark, it\u2019s the lifeblood of their communities and way of life.<\/p>\n

He continued that the bill was written in Colorado, by Coloradans \u201cwho live, work, and depend on the Dolores River. It represents a balanced, sensible way forward to resolve many of the long-standing disagreements, protect the river for all parties, and provide long-term certainty for generations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hickenlooper added that \u201cSouthwest Colorado leaders have worked for years to protect and invest in the Dolores River. This bill turns their work into common sense, bipartisan legislation that will pass in a divided Congress.\u201d<\/p>\n

The bill calls for a National Conservation Area designation along a 75-mile stretch of the canyon from below the dam to Big Gypsum Valley on Bureau of Land Management land.<\/p>\n

An area of the canyon just downstream of the dam on San Juan National Forest land would be designated a special management area.<\/p>\n

In exchange for land protections, the bill would remove that section of the river\u2019s suitability status for potential designation as a national wild and scenic river.<\/p>\n

That possibility has always been a concern for water managers of McPhee Reservoir, because if Congress ever officially designated the river as wild a scenic it could come with a federally reserved water right.<\/p>\n

The Dolores River National Conservation Act does not include new water rights for the river or affect flows. Bill language emphasizes that the designation does not impact water rights on the river, or restrict traditional uses or public access.<\/p>\n

The Dolores River National Conservation Act bans new mining, new oil and gas leases, dams, new roads and commercial timber harvesting. Valid existing rights and leases for oil and gas and mining would be protected. Ranching allotments on federal lands within the protected area would not be impacted. Recreation access would remain as it is, including for boating.<\/p>\n

\"Desert
Desert bighorn sheep reside in the Dolores River Canyon, and their population has been gradually rising.<\/span>du1-i-syn<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Initial
Initial runoff predictions look favorable for a whitewater boating season on the lower Dolores River below McPhee Reservoir. (Journal file photo)<\/span>du1-i-syn<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Proposed
Proposed Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Area.<\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

The commissioners of Montezuma,<\/a> Dolores<\/a> and San Miguel<\/a> counties wrote letters of support for the bill, along with the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe proposal is the result of a long-standing collaborative effort to protect the Dolores River and the interests of the various stakeholders that it serves, including water users, agricultural entities, local governments, OHV users, conservation groups, and recreationalists,\u201d according to a statement from the Montezuma County Board of County Commissioners. \u201cln crafting the NCA proposal, Montezuma County, San Miguel County, Dolores County, and other partners sought to address a myriad concerns, including those arising from the finding that the Dolores River is \u2018suitable\u2019 for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is the position of Montezuma County that designating the Dolores River as Wild and Scenic would result in significant consequences for water users and other groups seeking to access natural resources along the river corridor.<\/p>\n

\u201cBy supporting the proposal for an NCA, it is Montezuma County\u2019s intent to ensure that portions of the lower Dolores River that run through Montezuma, Dolores, and San Miguel counties will not be designated as Wild and Scenic, and it is our position that the NCA proposal sets forth an acceptable compromise between the various stakeholders interested in utilizing water and land resources in and along the Dolores River,\u201d the commissioners stated.<\/p>\n

The bipartisan bill also has support from Boebert, who introduced a companion bill in the U.S. House in July.<\/p>\n

The reintroduced Senate bill now goes to the Energy and Natural Resource Committee for another hearing and review.<\/p>\n

Draft bills on the Dolores River NCA proposal have circulated for years, and the topic has been discussed, studied and debated for nearly two decades.<\/p>\n

In September 2021, Bennet invited Coloradans to share suggestions on a revived updated version of the bill during a 45-day comment period.<\/p>\n

Of the land proposed for additional protection, 53,187 acres would become the Dolores River National Conservation Area, which overlaps mostly Bureau of Land Management land and a portion of the San Juan National Forest. The area includes the popular Ponderosa Gorge whitewater boating stretch.<\/p>\n

Another 15,664 acres on the national forest portion of the canyon downstream of McPhee Dam would become a special management area.<\/p>\n

The bill has support from environmental groups, counties and recreationists along with ranchers who operate within the proposed boundaries.<\/p>\n

But the Dolores Water Conservancy District that manages McPhee Reservoir has been critical of the water language and has not fully endorsed the bill.<\/p>\n

A portion of the NCA bill\u2019s water language has drawn scrutiny from Montezuma County and the Dolores Water Conservancy District.<\/p>\n

The bill retains a Section 7 regulatory component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The section restricts large water development projects upstream of the NCA boundaries that \u201cunreasonably diminish\u201d values of the Dolores River.<\/p>\n

That could present a legal challenge against larger upstream water projects, such as the proposed Plateau Creek reservoir and pump-back storage hydroelectric project, county officials said. The preliminary concept for the project, estimated to cost more than $1 billion, has not been proposed officially.<\/p>\n

The Dolores Water Conservancy District concluded in a review that it did not support the Dolores River NCA legislation, specifically citing the restrictions on water development upstream.<\/p>\n

\u201cUnfortunately the draft bill does not, in our view, provide any relief from the current restrictions of Wild and Scenic suitability designation,\u201d stated DWCD President Godwin Oliver in an April 20 letter to Bennet.<\/p>\n

\u201cAlthough DWCD supports the important land use provisions of the draft bill, because the bill would not alter the substantive provisions of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and continues the application of Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Section 7 analysis above McPhee Dam upstream of the proposed conservation area, DWCD cannot fully endorse draft legislation at this time.\u201d<\/p>\n