Editorial: The right to enjoy the land vs. ski resorts' water rights

The intensifying battle between the ski industry and the U.S. Forest Service over water rights is far more complicated and nuanced than it might seem at first glance. It's not necessarily a bad thing that the matter has landed in federal court so a judge can parse through the issues and apply the law fairly. At the end of the day, we hope the rights of citizens to enjoy recreational opportunities on federal land are appropriately balanced against the financial interests of ski resorts. We've heard a lot about ski industry contentions that new rules by the government amount to a "taking" of water rights they spent millions to acquire. The industry makes a compelling case. Yet it's important to keep in mind the government's argument. The Forest Service says it is proposing regulations that clarify a 2004 change to ski permit conditions made during the Bush administration. The government's position is that water rights associated with ski areas should remain with the government even if the ownership of a resort or its business plans change..more

So just how does the "rights of citizens to enjoy recreational opportunities" stack up against a property right to water?  The Denver Post doesn't explain where these citizens "rights" originate, whereas a property right in water is a long established legal tradition.  Here the Forest Service is seeking to treat the ski areas the same way they do ranchers:  You develop the water, you put the water to beneficial use, but we own it.  Plus, in this instance, they are making the confiscation of private property a condition of the permit.  There is nothing "complicated" or "nuanced" about that.  Let's hope the ski areas will kick ass.