Monument's energy issues spark debate

Monument's energy issues spark debate

Mar. 29, 2001

By Jim Mimiaga
Journal Staff Report

Potential oil, coal and gas reserves underneath the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and other national monuments have caught the eye of Republican lawmakers seeking to tap new energy resources.

But supporters of the local monument say the idea lacks merit, viewing the tactic as political nose-thumbing towards President Clinton’s controversial and sweeping preservation legacy that tried to protect millions of acres of public lands from further development.

Interest in modifying the monument designations made by Clinton, which all restrict mining to some degree, has been gaining momentum under the Bush Administration. So far no bills have been introduced specifically addressing the issue, a daunting chore in a politically divided 107th Congress.

To further the anti-monument cause, Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colorado Springs) recently commissioned the U.S. Geological Survey to release an assessment, based on already published data, that shows energy reserves in several of the 21 national monuments proclaimed by Clinton in the last year of his term.

The amount of natural energy resources listed under the Canyons of the Ancients is considered "medium" for oil and "low" for gas and coal, according to the report cited in the Denver Post.

Tapping into those resources is essential to shore up the domestic energy supply, according to a spokesperson for Senator Ben Campbell (R-Colo.).

"The increasing dependence on foreign oil sources limits the country’s control," said Chris Changery, Campbell’s press secretary. "The previous administration was locking up public lands, many of which are the sources of possible production."

The 1 million-acre Escalante-Grand Staircase National Monument in south-central Utah is being targeted by Rep. Jim Hansen (R-Utah) for modification because of its now-inaccessible coal reserves.

Campbell believes that the Canyons of the Ancients also goes too far in limiting production, Changery said, but has yet to commit to legislation that would ease up on restrictions.

Josh Penry, a spokesman for Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Grand Junction), said that "the political reality of substantially overhauling the monument would be difficult."

However, modifying boundaries may be more feasible, he said, adding that accommodations made by former Interior Sec. Bruce Babbitt for assuring access to energy resources within the monument "were not what we would have preferred."

But supporters wonder what is motivating the effort to change or overturn the local monuments, especially since existing oil and gas leases held in Canyons of the Ancients are grandfathered in, and cover 85 percent or more of the 164,000-acre designation.

"The only thing western Republicans hate more than monuments is the president that created them, so I wonder if this is more of a belated thumb-in-the-eye of Bill Clinton," said Jeff Widen of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. "It’s a political move that is not an honest attempt to try and solve energy needs. The cries that environmentalists are locking up lands with fossil fuels are not true since it is still allowed in this monument."

"I think it is a lot of hoopla without much meat behind it," said Mark Pearson, director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance, which supports the monument to protect archaeological resources there.

"We were leery of the amount of energy development already permitted in the monument, plus the limitations for additional drilling are right now very modest," Pearson said. "Opening it up even more in an area with the most magnificent cultural resources in America does not make sense."

But neither does a monument, which restricts the multiple uses favored by much of the community and relied upon by the local tax base, argued Phil Weiser, a researcher with the Southwest Colorado Landowners Association. The group is lobbying to overturn the monument and has garnered nine resolutions from boards and agencies along with 4,000 signatures supporting their effort.

"That area is critical for this economy, and the oil and gas mining there contribute 30 percent of our county tax base," Weiser said. "We do not trust that the monument status can protect our domestic energy resources that this country needs to rely on for the future."

But faith that the forthcoming management plan and local advisory committee will deal with multiple interests is a reasonable assumption, said LouAnn Jacobson, Canyons of the Ancients Monument manager. If legislation was introduced to somehow modify the monument, care would need to be taken to protect ancient cultural sites and the interests of their modern descendants.

"A primary concern is what the Native American reaction would be to more development, because these are ancestral homelands," Jacobson said. "Building new roads into previously inaccessible areas is another concern because improved access might create more vandalism."

Jacobson added that in the past Shell (now Kinder Morgan), the company conducting carbon-dioxide extraction on the monument, has worked well with land managers in minimizing mining impacts on sensitive cultural sites.

The Montezuma County Commission has yet to definitively enter the debate on whether to support changes to the monument. When approached by the Southwest Colorado Landowners Associations to join them in their fight, the commission responded that they wanted to work on the issue with congressional representatives to determine political feasibility.