We’re ecstatic that efforts to protect Rocky Mountain National Park are getting important new attention in Congress. It’s a boost for the crown jewel of Colorado wild lands – and long overdue.
But the politics involved makes you want to wash your hands, and it could have an unfortunate consequence.
Thursday’s oafish maneuver by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Sen. Wayne Allard might be laughable if it hadn’t damaged bipartisan cooperation among members of the state’s congressional delegation.
At issue is protection for almost a quarter of a million acres of park backcountry near Estes Park. The idea is to protect about 94 percent of the park from such activities as logging, use of motorized vehicles or construction of permanent structures.
For eight straight years, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall has sponsored such a measure in the U.S. House. In 2005, newly elected Democrat Ken Salazar introduced similar legislation in the Senate and came to an agreement, he says, to work with Allard and other members of the Colorado delegation to advance the measure.
The bill has been vetted in hearings and has been progressing toward a vote. Then on Thursday, out of the blue, Republicans Musgrave and Allard introduced their own measure – an apparent attempt to attract the votes of conservationists and appease farmers in a tough election year for Musgrave. Their bill also provides protection for a water company that runs a ditch through the park. The ditch, which supplies water to farmers, overflowed and caused environmental damage. The U.S. Attorney has filed a lawsuit about this matter.
We’re also concerned that maneuvering may backfire since the GOP bill has yet to go through the hearing process. Given that little time is left in this Congress, it’s possible neither bill will come up for a vote.
In a peevish note to Allard, Salazar said he thought the state’s senior senator had betrayed their understanding.”Today it is obvious that Rocky Mountain National Park is being used as a political pawn,” Salazar wrote. “In so doing, political agendas are being placed over the interests of the 4.6 million people of Colorado.”
Allard said that Salazar’s criticisms were untrue and that he was doing what was necessary to get the measure passed.
Putting the feud aside for the moment, what makes the Musgrave-Allard move so odd is that in July, they co-authored an opinion piece in the Fort Collins Cororadoan in which they voiced objections to the wilderness designation. They raised concerns about beetle infestations and forest fires and urged further study of the economic impact of such a designation. With their input, those matters were addressed in the consensus bill.
There is no reason not to take advantage of bipartisan cooperation. Musgrave and Allard should have worked to pass the original bill, then make a celebratory appearance with Udall and Salazar to hail the future of the park. Instead they jeopardized the working relationships that should bind our congressional delegations. If their pure-politics approach puts the wilderness designation in jeopardy, they will have lost the chance to pass this key legislation.
Also pending in Congress is protection for Browns Canyon, sponsored by Allard and outgoing U.S. Rep. Joel Hefley to safeguard 20,000 acres in an area near Salida. We hope this laudable measure won’t lose traction because of party politics, because in the end, the losers will be our vulnerable natural resources and outdoor recreation in Colorado.
