|
||||
|
April 17, 2001
By Jim Mimiaga Ongoing talks on how to provide more water for inadequate fish habitat downstream of McPhee Dam were stalled indefinitely last week after Trout Unlimited and the Dolores Water Conservancy District failed to reach an agreement on parameters of a study. Without a temporary fix initiated by the district and the Bureau of Reclamation to provide at least some of the 3,300 acre-feet, the fishery was mistakenly shorted under Dolores Project agreements. Trout Unlimited could not commit to another feasibility study of options, said Colorado chapter president Dave Nickum. "We do not see spending money and time on a study unless there is an effort from the bureau and the district in providing fishery water upfront," Nickum said. "I am very wary of going forward only on the study track that doesn’t at the same time put water into the river. they both need to move forward at the same time." TU is proposing several interim solutions for immediately increasing flows pending the outcome of the two-year study. The options include having the district offer fishery interests the purchase of 800 acre-feet of water from sources the district sees fit (at a price of $1,750 per acre-foot); directing 100 acre-feet of water held by the Bureau of Reclamation for wetlands towards fishery interests; and seeking the possibility that the Ute tribe could release to the Dolores fishery part of its 800 acre-foot required reserve for fish and wildlife purposes. The decision and proposal were announced at a meeting of Dolores River Instream Flow Partnership (DRIP) members. The group consists of representatives from TU, DWCD, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, Division of Wildlife, the BLM, the Colorado River Outfitters Association and private boaters. DRIP was formed 10 years ago to come up with a way to augment water required by federal biologists for a healthy native-trout habitat in the lower Dolores River, but the target amount of 36,500 acre-feet has not been met. The agencies are working to avoid the massive cold-water-fish kills, brought on by shallow dam releases combined with hot summer months. But deciding on a solution has caused a political stalemate between fishery and rafting interests pushing for a non-structural alternative, and the water district, which favors another dam and reservoir as a way to capture and store additional water for increasing the fishery release. Each side has trotted out studies that favor its preference. The district points to its data showing there is no additional water to release or sell without infringing on stockholder interests, and says therefore more storage is needed. Officials favor a dam and a 20,000-acre-foot reservoir at Plateau Creek north of McPhee for fishery mitigation. However, TU, Environmental Defense, their attorneys, and representatives of the local rafting industry point to a recent hydrology study on the river basin that shows there is an ample supply in McPhee — Colorado’s second largest lake — to augment fishery needs. They oppose any new dams. Rafters and kayakers agree with that because they see more dams in the river basin result in less frequent spills. McPhee dam releases are essential for popular whitewater excursions down the lower Dolores river. Neither side can come to agreement on baseline data, therefore it was recommended at a March 20 DRIP meeting that representatives consider conducting still another feasibility study that would bring engineers from the District and the environmental community together in order to be fair. But progress on that idea is questionable. "I move we table the issue again," said DWCD general manager John Porter at a DWCD board meeting Thursday. "Because without TU on board, I can’t see another study of alternatives doing us any good." DWCD president Don Schwindt said that a joint study would be helpful, but not with the requirements stipulated by TU, because they presume availability of water. He referred to a mill-levy passed by voters that reserves for the future the municipal and industrial water requested for purchase by DRIP members; encouraged more direct communication between DRIP members and the district board on the complex matter; and dug his heels in on additional storage. "The taxpayer pays to prevent that M&I water from going downstream, and the best way to prevent stealing water is to create another bucket (meaning another reservoir)," he said. "Building Plateau Creek Reservoir has strong support within the state," Schwindt added. When asked if he could work with environmental water engineers with conclusions different than his own, DWCD engineer Steve Harris said he could, adding that the feasibility study "before was simpler because I just had to please this board, whereas this study would be trying to satisfy many different groups," making it more difficult. Another idea to increase the fishery release is known as implementing an interruptible supply, a complex concept that essentially "borrows" spill water which is then carried over from year to year. "It has some merit but it needs deeper discussion," Porter said, but unless major changes occur to Dolores Project management, Porter said the results of another study are essentially a foregone conclusion. "I can’t look TU in the eye and say there is not water in McPhee that a comprehensive study might address for the fishery, but history tells me, especially after last year’s drought that left minimal water in the reservoir, what the result will be of that kind of study." Such positions confirm suspicions that the feasibility study would be biased in favor of more dam-building. "Earlier studies had a correlation towards building Plateau Creek and that intent is not acceptable to us," said Tom Klema, a DRIP member representing the Colorado River Outfitters Association. "There are fears that it would be too politicized." |
||||
|
Copyright © 2001 the Cortez Journal.
All rights reserved. |
