saving the poudre
two sides, one river - what's at stake
By heather goodrich
Lining the banks of the Cache la Poudre River, willows
and cottonwood trees wait for the last bit of autumn
to tickle their leaves. Perching in the limbs, a belted
kingfisher bird waits to gobble trout traveling among the
river’s sediment. During their preparation for winter,
this habitat and its creatures seem peaceful, but how long will the
peace last?
For over four years, the Northern Integrated Supply Project has
been at the crux of debate among local activists, residents, farmers,
and legislators. If approved, NISP would dam and divert water from
the Poudre during high flows into two newly constructed reservoirs,Glade and Galeton. The debate question seems to be: If NISP is approved will it kill the Poudre?
Brian Werner, the public information officer of the Northern
Water Conservancy District believes NISP will not kill the river, but
instead lessen the impacts of water dry-up in Northern Colorado.
“The Poudre River has gone dry at times over the last 150 years
because farmers use the water, and it’ll dry up at certain times whether
or not NISP goes through.” Mr. Werner said. “We can help the
river, overall, by running between the river and the reservoirs. We’re
committed to lessening the impact [of dry-up] because taking showers
and farmers have rights to the water.”
Since 2000, Northern Colorado has experienced drought conditions.
According to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs Web
site, drought is common in Colorado, although it doesn’t last for long
periods of time (six months or more). Despite patterns of drought,
anticipated population growth is a concern with the drought situations.
Creating solutions to water shortage in Northern Colorado is
an obligation for the future.
Mark Easter, an activist for the Save the Poudre Coalition and
conservation chair for the Sierra Club Poudre Canyon Crew believes
NISP will kill the Poudre, but he’s aware that water in this climate is a
precious resource.
“Whether it flows from a tap or a river, water is a critical resource,
but because it is so important we need to use it as wisely as possible,”
Mr. Easter said. “Old school, unwise policies are driven by NISP and
the status quo for its [water] uses has to change.”
Mr. Easter’s involvement with STP started four years ago, but for
the past two and a half years he’s been more active with fighting NISP.
He said that at first he thought Glade Reservoir was a bad idea, but
after researching and learning with other STP activists, he realized
this was a “colossal bad idea.”
“NISP is a twentieth century solution to a twenty-first century
problem. It wouldn’t improve water security, but only be an illusion
of it.” Mr. Easter said.
Whether NISP is an illusion or not, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has been busy for the last four years analyzing and evaluating
every facet of NISP.
According to Mr. Werner, it has cost NISP communities $5-6
million for the USACE to analyze all critical aspects, namely environmental
impacts and possible alternative solutions.
“Our decision is not a vote,” said Chandler J. Peter, the USACE
project manager of the Environmental Impact Statement for NISP.
“We don’t draw conclusions about the best way. We’re required to
follow certain processes that involve the public. At this point, we haven’t made that determination yet.”
The decisions made by the USACE are regulated by the National
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, and successful lawsuits
to guide the laws and regulations. In addition
to that, Mr. Peter said they try to find the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative, which they’re still researching.
On Sept. 13, STP activists sent their comments,
scientific analyses of NISP effects, and
two alternative options to NISP called Healthy
Rivers Alternative to the USACE. In a citizen’s
meeting, spokesperson Gary Wockner said that
the Healthy Rivers Alternative was conducted
by a team of 46 people with decades of natural
resource experience, 15 doctorates, and 14 masters
and juris doctors. Among the participants
was John Bartholow, a retired geologist of the
U.S. Geological Survey who was contracted to
research the Healthy Rivers Alternatives.
“What they’re doing here is scientifically
sound,” Mr. Bartholow said. “I’m pleased and
hopeful for a positive outcome.”
Some of the alternatives STP poses are for
water conservation, gravel pit storage, and rotational
fallowing. Conservation is a big part of their solution, and Mr. Easter believes that conservation
is about using water effi ciently, carefully,
and by not wasting. Gravel pit storage is not a
new idea because they’re all over the Front Range,
and STP believes expanding existing and making
new gravel pits would be a healthier alternative to
NISP. Rotational fallowing creates lease systems
with farmers, so they would only farm their land
during a specifi c time. STP’s Healthy Rivers
Alternative proposal cites this as a “win-win-win
solution,” but the USACE and NCWCD said
this has already been looked at.
“Nothing new there, all of this was studied
way back during alternative analysis before
the EIS. We started out with 215 alternatives,
including fallowing and gravel pit storage, and
it was determined it didn’t meet the needs.” Mr.
Werner said. “Gravel pit storage is something
Colorado is already doing … and it won’t come
up with 40,000 acre-feet.”
In the USACE’s draft EIS, they report that it’s highly unlikely
rotational fallowing would replace NISP because this concept is
relatively new to Colorado. Mr. Peter said the USACE has to take a
hard look at all the comments, and especially at areas of weak analysis
to readjust the analysis they’ve already conducted.
Mr. Easter said the USACE will probably go back after reading
the Healthy Rivers Alternative to conduct a second EIS.
“Based on analyses that we and hundreds of others have done,
we can’t conclude that NISP is the right solution. If NISP would go
forward it would be a huge disappointment.” Mr. Easter said. But in his heart, he added, he truly believes the Poudre River can be saved.
If NISP is approved or a second EIS will start is unknown, but
as of right now, the USACE continues to review all information and
public comments. Mr. Werner said it’s highly unlikely that STP’s
solutions will replace NISP, but understands that this is a process and
an emotional issue for everyone – on either side of the issue. With
communities thirsty for NISP water and 5,000 signatures petitioning
against it, the solution is going to hurt on either side. As the plants
and animals of the Poudre tuck in for winter, they will awaken in
spring – if not several more.