The $9 million settlement that a water supply company agreed to pay Rocky Mountain National Park for a breach in one of the company’s in-park ditches was an equitable solution to a devastating accident.
We applaud the tenacity of the Justice Department and Colorado U.S. Attorney Troy Eid in reaching an agreement in this difficult case.
However, the settlement raises troubling questions about a bill pending in Congress that is supposed to further protect the park.
Designating Rocky Mountain National Park a wilderness area would put the park’s protected status into law, not just park service policy. But the bill includes a provision that would make it more difficult for the park service to seek compensation if the ditch operated by the Water Supply and Storage Company were to overflow again and ravage a mountainside and high-country ecosystems.
A bill that is set to be heard in a Senate committee today in Washington, D.C., would change the standard of proof from strict liability to negligence. That would be a mistake.
As it stands, the National Park Service has to show that damage occurred. If the change were to take place, the onus would be on the park service to show not only damage, but that the ditch company was negligent in causing it.
That may be beneficial to the water supply company, but we hardly see how it would benefit the public. Taxpayers would be on the hook to pay for damages if the park service couldn’t prove negligence.
Vaughn Baker, superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park, has serious concerns about the change in the liability standard. It would be, he said, an exception afforded to no other entity that has assets within a national park.
Furthermore, there is a misconception that the wilderness designation somehow would make it more difficult for the ditch company to carry on its operations as usual. Baker said that is not the case.
The change in liability standard was the product of negotiation among Colorado’s congressional delegation. The original wilderness designation didn’t include such a change. It was added to overcome objections, particularly from Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and Sen. Wayne Allard.
We think the liability standard change in the bill ought to be reconsidered, with an eye toward removing it.
The settlement reached this week is a prime example of how existing laws can protect the park and the foolhardiness of weakening such safeguards.
