Wolf Creek Ski Village near Pagosa Springs (Aspen, Crested Butte: leases, law)

[leafchime]

I was poking around on the forest service webpage the other day and found this: USDA Forest Service, Rio Grande National Forest - Projects&Plans

I have heard people talking about the development for a while, but this is the first definitive information I have found. It looks like the forest service is required to grant access by law for the development according to a deal that was made way back in 1987. So, it's no longer an issue of 'if' but of 'how and when'. Of course there are several other government agencies and regulations that Mr. McCombs will have to deal with to actually go ahead and create all the yucky development, but from these documents, it's looks like things are (unfortunately) moving ahead.

Pagosa is probably one of the most beautiful areas in Colorado, but it seems like it's going to be another Crested Butte or even Aspen within the next 10 years.

[jazzlover]

This is another case of private developers asserting their "right" to do whatever is most profitable for them, with no regard to the negative impacts their development will have on the neighboring landowners--those owners in this case being the people of the United States.

A fellow I know, an environmental activist of some import (with whom I frequently disagree, but not on this) came up with a radical suggestion to stop this kind of nonsense on property adjacent next to Forest Service and other public land. His solution: the Forest Service land surrounding the private land for, say, a radius of 5-10 miles in any direction should be immediately leased for intensive clear-cut logging and/or mineral production. If the private landowner is to be allowed to do anything he wishes with no regard to the negative effects on the lands owned by the Forest Service, then the Forest Service should be permitted the same prerogative. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. While this is admittedly somewhat of a "scorched earth" policy, I suspect it would only have to be used once or twice before the developers got the idea that developing next to public lands with no regard to the damage they directly or indirectly do to those public lands would not be a wise course of action.

[leafchime]

That's certainly an interesting idea, but unfortunately the forest service doesn't function the same way as a private landowner and it would take years to get the assessments done and approved for the logging and mining leases. There are two things in particular that bug me about the details of this report:

1. That the forest service is required by law to provide access even if it determines that there is no environmentally sound way to do it. They must choose the least destructive of all possible solutions, but that doesn't mean it won't be harmful.

2. That the access is supposed to provide the landowner with access for 'reasonable enjoyment and use' of their property. The proposed development is not what I would consider reasonable.

I suppose a way that the forest service can curtail development is to grant permission for a road so small or out of the way or something so as to create an upper limit on the amount of traffic possible and therefore discourage people from using the development much because it is so unpleasant to get there once it gets too crowded.