FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Park Killers

by PHILLIP DOE

The other night I went to a killing.  It was all very matter of fact.  Five judges sat at the front of the room listening to people testify for or against the killing of public recreation and wildlife at Chatfield Reservoir.  An urban recreation and wildlife center, Chatfield receives over 1.5 million visitor days a year.  It is Colorado’s premiere state park, helping to underwrite more remote and less visited parks.  Too, it is a bird sanctuary, home to at least one endangered species, and a place without equal in the state because of its proximity to Denver.  You can get there by simply pedaling your bike, many do.

But all this hasn’t stopped backroom, Water Buffalo plans for converting it from a stable flood protection reservoir into a greatly fluctuating reservoir to satisfy future water demand from suburban sprawl, or at least try to.  They’ve been at it for over a decade, with the public unsuspectingly paying for the prospective kill.  Several so-called environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the Greenway Foundation have joined the Water Buffaloes in the slaughter.  Still, there are problems.

Most of them are even admitted to if you read carefully a five hundred-page behemoth called the Chatfield Reservoir Storage Reallocation Integrated Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.

Chief among the many problems is that there is no dependable water available, a niggling matter, apparently, to the climate-change deniers and other optimists.  You see, the Platte River on which the reservoir sits is over-appropriated, like all rivers on the east side of the continental divide in Colorado.  We’ve used them up, over 80 percent of it to agriculture, a lot of it to raise corn, which can then be converted into ethanol and sugar to be shipped off to mix with gasoline and Coca Cola.  Over 40 percent of the corn raised in the U.S. is converted to ethanol.  It might be even higher in Colorado.

But wait, these back room planners, called stakeholders to distinguish them from ordinary people, have looked into our past, and provided that past can be repeated, flood flows might be captured and delivered to sprawl.  The planners do admit that the slice of the past they studied was one of the wettest in tree-ring history, but wishful thinking is a strong opiate.  The conjunction of a predicted dryer and hotter southern Rockies future from climate change with a narrow slice of planning data from a wet past would make rational folk demand some sensitivity analysis.  How much increase in surface temperature, how much decrease in snow pack and runoff cause this whole scheme to collapse in a heap?  This should be the first item of business, but it hasn’t been.

The real question is whether our political delegation, all of which have supported the Chatfield destruction to varying degrees, will demand that the Corp of Engineers do a sensitivity analysis.  One would hope for such an outcome since a Bureau of Reclamation climate change study on the Colorado River commissioned several years ago, indicated that with only a 2 degree increase in temperature in the river basin, runoff might be reduced by as much as 12 percent.  Reduced snow pack was not part of that study.  Its contribution has yet to be measured.  Snow pack in Platte River drainage was about 26 percent of normal this past year.  Whose to say this drop couldn’t be the harbinger of a new, dryer norm?

But let us remain boldly optimistic and blind to climate change.  So, if the historic floods come, then massive relocations at the reservoir will be undertaken, even wetlands will be moved and hundreds of acres of mature cottonwood forest will be cut down or simply die from standing water.  Wildlife will be forced to find new places, but to the stakeholders new places are always available.  The displaced fox will always be welcomed into cousin coyote’s den for a tidy meal of displaced rabbit.

In fact, this very dicey water supply might lap busy Wadsworth Blvd when the reservoir was in maximum storage mode.  When the water had been spent, sand and mud flats would dominate the horizon, rivaling the view of the Bay of Fundy at tide out, except the Chatfield mud flats could remain for months if not years.  Picnickers and bathers would be hundreds of feet from water across smelly, fly-infested mud flats.  But as the stakeholders reason, use would stay high, for there’s no place else to go this close to town.  Only the aesthetics of the experience would change.

Alternatives to Chatfield destruction are treated in the EIS, and they abound, but killing Chatfield is the preferred stakeholder alternative.  The reasons are many.  Not least among them is the fact that as the costs of a project to capture a water supply that might not even exist in a hotter and drier future increased, concessions were made.  That’s right, even though the stakeholders have agreed to pay all of the costs they really aren’t going to.  Already the Secretary of the Army has used his authority to forgive the lion’s share of the costs of reservoir storage, about $22 million.  This is public revenue that won’t be going to the Treasury so that water users in Castle Pines, one of the wealthiest places in America, don’t have to pay the full freight.

The Secretary reasoned that the costs were too high given the diceyness of the endeavor, and especially when taken in conjunction with the mitigation costs for recreating the recreation and wildlife destruction someplace else.  Those costs come to over $150 million.  But anyone even remotely familiar with the history of mitigation on large federal water projects knows the awful truth—mitigation measures almost never happen. In the Chatfield case, even Nathan Detroit would shy away from betting on mitigation being performed.  For rest assured if the water doesn’t come, the mitigation sure as hell wont.  Turmoil will be the only product of this interminable study that has already cost the public millions, the stakeholders nothing.

Among the rejected alternatives to the killing of Chatfield was the option of using existing and planned sand pits downstream, from Denver to Brighton, for storage.  They number about 41 and have an estimated storage capacity of at least 100,000 acre feet, about 5 times the proposed storage at Chatfield.  This alternative was only slightly more costly than the Chatfield reallocation, but less costly to the general public because the $ 22 million in storage costs at Chatfield would not have to be forgiven.  Besides preserving Chatfield as a wildlife and recreation area, it has the advantage of being incremental—fast conversion if growth is fast, slow conversion if it is not.  And of course these ponds too may not fill with a warmer and drier climate, and while that risk appears acceptable to these stakeholders, it should not include interfering with our premier state park.   Let these water speculators practice their alchemy on private lands and leave the park’s visitors and wildlife alone.

Oh, did I mention that we use about 5 million acre feet of water in the Platte and Republican River basins each year?  That we use another 2.5 million acre feet in the Arkansas River basin? That we have built around 1200 storage reservoirs in these basins?  What they want at Chatfield, as disgustingly destructive as it is, is only one thousandth of one percent of what is used in these drainages every year.  Surely, a solution involving conservation from existing users would make Chatfield unnecessary, and when the potential for conservation is added to the off stream storage potential in the numerous gravel pits downstream from Chatfield, they make the whole scheme another terrible joke on the public and its belief in government.

Really, the question is will stupidity and greed trump good social and environmental planning?  The smart money’s on stupidity and greed, because so is history.

PHILLIP DOE lives in Colorado. He can be reached at: ptdoe@comcast.net

PHILLIP DOE lives in Colorado. Doe is a co-sponsor of a public trust initiative that would turn the tables on the permitting process by making those seeking to use public resources, air, land, and water, to first demonstrate that the proposed use would not irreparably harm those resources–the reverse of the present permitting process. He can be reached at:ptdoe@comcast.net

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

Weekend Edition
January 20, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Divide and Rule: Class, Hate, and the 2016 Election
Andrew Levine
When Was America Great?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: This Ain’t a Dream No More, It’s the Real Thing
Yoav Litvin
Making Israel Greater Again: Justice for Palestinians in the Age of Trump
Linda Pentz Gunter
Nuclear Fiddling While the Planet Burns
Ruth Fowler
Standing With Standing Rock: Of Pipelines and Protests
David Green
Why Trump Won: the 50 Percenters Have Spoken
Dave Lindorff
Imagining a Sanders Presidency Beginning on Jan. 20
Pete Dolack
Eight People Own as Much as Half the World
Roger Harris
Too Many People in the World: Names Named
Steve Horn
Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record
John Berger
The Nature of Mass Demonstrations
Stephen Zielinski
It’s the End of the World as We Know It
David Swanson
Six Things We Should Do Better As Everything Gets Worse
Alci Rengifo
Trump Rex: Ancient Rome’s Shadow Over the Oval Office
Brian Cloughley
What Money Can Buy: the Quiet British-Israeli Scandal
Mel Gurtov
Donald Trump’s Lies And Team Trump’s Headaches
Kent Paterson
Mexico’s Great Winter of Discontent
Norman Solomon
Trump, the Democrats and the Logan Act
David Macaray
Attention, Feminists
Yves Engler
Demanding More From Our Media
James A Haught
Religious Madness in Ulster
Dean Baker
The Economics of the Affordable Care Act
Patrick Bond
Tripping Up Trumpism Through Global Boycott Divestment Sanctions
Robert Fisk
How a Trump Presidency Could Have Been Avoided
Robert Fantina
Trump: What Changes and What Remains the Same
David Rosen
Globalization vs. Empire: Can Trump Contain the Growing Split?
Elliot Sperber
Dystopia
Dan Bacher
New CA Carbon Trading Legislation Answers Big Oil’s Call to Continue Business As Usual
Wayne Clark
A Reset Button for Political America
Chris Welzenbach
“The Death Ship:” An Allegory for Today’s World
Uri Avnery
Being There
Peter Lee
The Deep State and the Sex Tape: Martin Luther King, J. Edgar Hoover, and Thurgood Marshall
Patrick Hiller
Guns Against Grizzlies at Schools or Peace Education as Resistance?
Randy Shields
The Devil’s Real Estate Dictionary
Ron Jacobs
Singing the Body Electric Across Time
Ann Garrison
Fifty-five Years After Lumumba’s Assassination, Congolese See No Relief
Christopher Brauchli
Swing Low Alabama
Dr. Juan Gómez-Quiñones
La Realidad: the Realities of Anti-Mexicanism
Jon Hochschartner
The Five Least Animal-Friendly Senate Democrats
Pauline Murphy
Fighting Fascism: the Irish at the Battle of Cordoba
Susan Block
#GoBonobos in 2017: Happy Year of the Cock!
Louis Proyect
Is Our Future That of “Sense8” or “Mr. Robot”?
Charles R. Larson
Review: Robert Coover’s “Huck out West”
David Yearsley
Manchester-by-the-Sea and the Present Catastrophe
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail