HB7425, titled the Colorado Wilderness Act of 2026, would designate a large set of federal lands in Colorado as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation System. The bill adds numerous Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service parcels to existing wilderness protections, creating new wilderness areas such as Bull Gulch, Castle Peak, Redcloud Peak, Handies Peak, McIntyre Hills, Grand Hogback, Demaree Canyon, Little Book Cliffs, Cross Canyon, Bug Canyon, McKenna Peak, Dolores River Canyon, Sewemup Mesa, Assignation Ridge, Badger Creek, Beaver Creek, Grape Creek, North and South Bangs Canyon, Palisade, Unaweep, Roubideau, Norwood Canyon, Weber-Menefee Mountain, North and South Ponderosa Gorge, Browns Canyon, San Luis Hills, Table Mountain, and others. It also expands several existing wilderness areas, including Maroon Bells-Snowmass, Flat Tops, Platte River, West Elk, and others, and creates a process for certain lands to become wilderness later once nonconforming uses cease.
The bill is not limited to land designation; it also sets management rules for the newly designated wilderness areas. It directs the Secretary of the Interior or Agriculture, as applicable, to manage the lands under the Wilderness Act, preserves existing grazing rights, protects state jurisdiction over wildlife and fish, and states that no buffer zones are created around wilderness boundaries. It also explicitly allows certain military helicopter overflights and training exercises, continues some competitive running events in specified areas, and addresses how maps and boundary descriptions will be filed and corrected.
A major portion of the bill deals with water. It states that existing water rights, interstate compacts, and vested rights are not altered, but it also authorizes the Secretary to secure water rights needed to maintain stream flows and wilderness purposes, using Colorado state law procedures where applicable. The bill restricts new water development infrastructure inside the designated wilderness areas, while allowing continued access, maintenance, repair, and replacement of existing water facilities and access routes so long as impacts are not increased. It also includes a special provision allowing the West Elk Wilderness boundary to be revised if the Bureau of Reclamation needs land for future expansion of Blue Mesa Reservoir.
Because the bill was only referred to committee and has no recorded votes or committee transcript in the provided material, there is no formal legislative debate record to measure support or opposition. Based on the text, the bill appears to reflect a conservation-oriented approach with built-in accommodations for grazing, water infrastructure, military uses, and existing recreational activities, suggesting an effort to balance wilderness protection with local and federal operational interests. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony means the general sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from direct legislative statements.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scale of the wilderness designations, the effect on land use and access, and the water-rights provisions. Land managers, recreation users, grazing interests, local governments, and water users may scrutinize restrictions on new development and the federal role in securing instream flow rights. At the same time, conservation advocates are likely to support the permanent protection of large tracts of public land and the expansion of existing wilderness areas. The bill’s explicit carveouts for grazing, military activity, and existing facilities suggest an attempt to reduce opposition from affected users.
The bill would amend the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993 and related federal land management law to add and expand wilderness designations across multiple Colorado counties and federal land units. It would place the designated lands under the Wilderness Act’s strict protections, limit new development and motorized use, and require federal agencies to manage the areas accordingly, while preserving certain existing uses and rights. It also creates a framework for future designation of potential wilderness areas and establishes detailed water-rights and access provisions that would affect the Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and water-right holders.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s text suggests a generally pro-conservation sentiment, but with deliberate accommodations for grazing, water infrastructure, military overflights, and existing recreational uses, indicating an effort to build a broad coalition and limit operational disruption.
Likely areas of contention include the conversion of large areas of BLM and Forest Service land into wilderness, which can restrict development, mechanized access, and certain land uses; the bill’s water provisions, including potential federal instream-flow rights and limits on new water infrastructure; and the treatment of existing activities such as grazing, military training, reservoir expansion, and competitive running events. Conservation groups would likely favor the designations, while water users, some local stakeholders, and land-use interests may object to the added restrictions or federal oversight.