Damn Dams: Poudre and Gila listed among country's most endangered rivers

By M. John Fayhee

Damn dams: Poudre and Gila listed among country’s most endangered rivers

It seemed like only yesterday that the notion of new large-scale water-diversion projects — a polite way of saying goddamned “dams” — springing up in the West had become as anachronistic as Injun attacks upon wagon trains. Following the defeat of Metro Denver’s infamous proposed Two Forks Reservoir in the early ’90s, many of us mistakenly thought we were entering an era dominated by dam decommissionings rather than dam building. Just goes to show that you can never let your guard down, because those inclined to build dams are like those insanely wild elephants you sometimes see on National Geographic documentaries, the ones that the khaki-clad scientists can shoot over and over again with tranquilizer darts and they just keep getting back up, like their cerebral cortex can’t register the undeniable point that they’re supposed to be down for the count.

Every year, the environmental organization American Rivers releases its Most Endangered Rivers list, and, in 2008, two Western rivers — Colorado’s Cache la Poudre and New Mexico’s Gila — made the ignoble cut. American Rivers lists the Poudre, which flows from Rocky Mountain National Park through Fort Collins, as the nation’s third-most-endangered river, while the Gila, which flows from its headwaters in the Mogollon Mountains into the dry desert sands of Arizona, where it perishes sans dignity, came in at Number-7.

The main threat listed by American Rivers for the Poudre is “Water diversion and reservoir project.” For the Gila, it’s: “Water development project.”

Damn. Dams.

The Poudre, Colorado’s only federally listed Wild & Scenic River, is threatened by construction of the 40,000-acre-foot Glade Reservoir, which, according to the dire wording of American Rivers, would result in draining the river dry.

The Gila, New Mexico’s last free-flowing river, is threatened by $300 million worth of diversion projects proposed by the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission that would, according to American Rivers, “deplete a desert oasis, and shove hundreds of millions of dollars of debt onto taxpayers’ shoulders.” The Gila diversions would siphon a half-million gallons per hour from the river, and it ain’t exactly like, on its best day, the Gila’s going to be confused with the Amazon, if you catch my drift. 

There are several irksome aspects to all of this. First, there is the reality that in the case of neither the Gila nor the Poudre are the words “conservation efforts” being aggressively integrated into the local dialogue in any real sense.

And, second, there is the equally irksome reality that these diversion projects are not being proposed as a reaction to population growth, but as a means of encouraging future “development” (read: ruination). As it stands, it’s not as though there are any Biafra-looking people standing in downtown Fort Collins or Silver City with swollen, parched tongues dangling out of their dust-covered heads. The “diverted” water in the case of both the Poudre and the Gila would be used primarily to exacerbate sprawl, to encourage population growth, to assuage developers, to give strangely dressed people a chance to shank drives into verdant roughs and to make certain that everyone who wants one can have a nice big bluegrass lawn to remind them of wherever it was they just relocated from.

“The Glade Reservoir is designed specifically to fuel growth,” says Gary Wockner, a Fort-Collins-based environmentalist and spokesperson for the Save the Poudre Coalition. “The vast majority of the project would be paid for by issuing 30-year bonds that would be repaid by tap fees that would be made available by the impounded water. If that growth did not occur, there would be no new tap fees and the bonds would go into default, so there has to be growth to pay for the reservoir.”

“Everything I’ve heard indicates that, if these diversions go through, most of the diverted Gila River water would be pumped back over the Continental Divide to Silver City,” says Allyson Siwik of the Gila Conservation Coalition. “It could be used to spur development, or it could be sold. There’s money in water.”

Then there’s that pesky little concept of practicing conservation in lieu of constructing massive, expensive, ecologically impactful water-diversion projects.

“An unequivocal ‘no’,” Wockner said when asked if conservation practices are part of the northern Colorado-metroplex’s water-management strategy. “We feel that reasonable conservation efforts could offset one-third to one-half of the water that would be impounded by Glade Reservoir.”

Siwik’s experience in the arid Southwest shows just how effective even minimal and disjointed water conservation efforts can have.

“Down in Luna County, they implemented drip-irrigation systems, and, in five years, that alone has resulted in a savings of 30,000 acre feet of water, which is just about exactly the amount that the Mimbres River has been over-allocated. In Silver City, developers get breaks on impact fees if they initiate water conservation plans. Conservation efforts are much less expensive than water-diversion projects. We feel that, by just implementing more aggressive conservation efforts here, we can extend the municipal water supply by 10 years. And by administratively procuring more water rights and drilling more wells, we can met our needs at a fraction of the estimated $300 million that the Gila diversion projects would cost taxpayers.”

Of course, though the proverbial writing may very well be on the wall, these diversion projects are not yet writ in stone. Interested and/or incensed folks, including, but not limited to, like-minded anti-dam people with a penchant for monkey-wrenching, fist-shaking, petition-signing or check-writing, are encouraged to contact Wockner at 970-218-8310 and/or Siwik at 575-538-8078. They will happily point you in an appropriate direction.

American Rivers has been releasing its annual Endangered Rivers list for the past 23 years. Each year, the 65,000-member group, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C., solicits nominations from river groups, environmental organizations, outdoor clubs, local governments and taxpayer watchdog groups. The report highlights the rivers facing the most uncertain futures rather than those suffering from the worst chronic problems. The report presents alternatives to the threats it outlines, identifies those who make the crucial decisions and points out opportunities for the public to take action of behalf of each listed river.

And one of the coolest aspects to the Most Endangered Rivers Report is its “success stories” section, which, as its name indicates, describes examples of rivers that were once listed that have recovered to one degree or another.

For more information on American Rivers, go to americanrivers.org.

 

2008 America’s Most Endangered Rivers

 

River	Threat
Catawba-Wateree. (Carolinas)	Outdated water supply management.
Rogue. (Oregon.)	Logging and road construction.
Cache La Poudre. (Colorado.)	Water-diversion and dam project.
St. Lawrence. (New York-Canada.)	Outdated dam management plan.
Minnesota. (S. Dakota-Minnesota.)	Proposed coal-fired power plant.
St. John’s. (Florida.)	Unsustainable water appropriations.
Gila. (New Mexico-Arizona.)	Water development project.
Allagash Wilderness Waterway. (Maine.)	Loss of Wild & Scenic River protections.
Pearl. (Mississippi.)	Irresponsible floodplain development.
Niobrara. (Wyoming-Nebraska.)	Unsustainable irrigation diversions.