National monument status for Canyons of the Ancients is inevitable, the Western Slope’s representative to Congress said Wednesday.

"I think we need to face reality," U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis told the Cortez Journal editorial board on a whirlwind visit Wednesday to Cortez. "It’s safe to assume the president will do it.

"We don’t like it, but the fact is it’s there. Now let’s run it like it needs to be run."

He said that the Colorado congressional delegation must now take up the responsibility of ensuring that adequate funds are available to manage the new monument.

"It’s incumbent on us to get further appropriations to manage it in the right way," McInnis said. "You don’t short local communities by putting something in here that can’t be funded and that will be a further drain on your resources, which are already strained.

"We won’t shortchange our own people. It’s our responsibility, to get our people funded."

He cautioned local residents not to hold "false optimism" that the courts or Congress would overturn the designation, or that Congress would refuse to fund it.

McInnis said that Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt had negotiated in good faith with local communities and their elected representatives.

"He didn’t have to come to us. He told us he wanted to do it, and he gave us a chance to do it by legislation rather than proclamation," he said.

Such legislation — companion bills sponsored by McInnis in the House and Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell in the Senate — was indeed drafted, but faltered when Campbell withdrew his support.

McInnis, while still hopeful that Babbitt had the best interests of the West at heart, was not so charitable toward the president.

"I think it should all go through Congress," he said, when asked whether the proposed proclamation was an appropriate use of the Antiquities Act of 1906. "Clinton wants to leave a legacy. Family is the best legacy, and that’s not a legacy he can leave, so the outdoors is the next best thing. Every American loves the outdoors."

He added that Clinton was motivated by political gain, and that the timing of the proclamation would depend on when the president thought he and Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic presidential candidate, could benefit most from such an announcement.

"It might not be until September," he said. "I think political strategy drives Clinton far more than it does Babbitt. At the White House, this is purely politics. He’s not doing this because it’s in the best interests of the community or the best interests of the land."

Instead, he said, land-preservation issues have "great sex appeal on the eastern coast."

He also warned that a national monument proclamation issued by the president might guarantee far less local control than would have been provided by national conservation area legislation he and Campbell had proposed.

"Remember any so-called local input is strictly advisory in nature," he said. "Don’t be fooled. Your local input will be limited."

McInnis said he was concerned that while Babbitt promised to protect the multiple land uses within the monument, such protections could be forgotten in the future.

"The bill Campbell and I had, we had all that stuff down. ‘Let’s get it in writing,’ we said."

But McInnis said that Babbitt had promised that the proclamation would hold no surprises.