Response to American Rivers, re: Gross Dam Expansion
On April 17, 2018, American Rivers published a blog on Medium titled, Do You Know Your Water, Colorado?[1] This overview of water development and use in Colorado covers a number of topics and has some nice graphics that provide a simplified view of this incredibly complicated situation. The blog post accurately identifies the cost of transbasin diversions — that shipping water across the mountains from the West Slope to the Front Range permanently removes that water from the its native basin, “depriving downstream ecosystems and communities of water that would have naturally flowed through them.” The post also notes that the long history of unrestrained dams and diversions have had significant impacts on Colorado’s rivers, stating concisely, “Colorado’s rivers are at risk like never before.”
Buried in this presumably factual ‘cheat sheet,’ however, is a wild and unsubstantiated claim that appears intended to lend political support to one of the most damaging river diversion projects currently being proposed in Colorado — Denver Water’s Gross Reservoir expansion. In the section “How Rivers Get Moved”, between definitions of “important water lingo” and a statement that “New large trans-mountain diversions no longer make sense for Colorado,” the blog post links the Gross Reservoir expansion together with the successful effort to stop the Two Forks dam on the South Platte River thirty years ago.
When first published, the post read “The proposed Gross Reservoir expansion was the result of a multi-party agreement reached to halt the massive Two Forks Dam…” This claim, that Two Forks was stopped in a negotiated settlement between parties, and that Gross Reservoir expansion was the necessary outcome of that process, had never surfaced in the public review of the Gross project. In addition to flying in the face of the fact that what stopped Two Forks was a veto of its Clean Water Act permit by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it seemed to us ‘unusual’ that Denver Water had not made such an agreement its primary exhibit when arguing in favor of the river-killing project.
Alarmed by this statement, I am my colleagues dug back through the historic record and confirmed our belief that no such written agreement exists. We then reached out to the American Rivers to see if they could provide the documentation for their claim. Rather than forwarding a supporting document, the blog post was edited to strike the explicit reference to a specific agreement, validating our belief that no such agreement exists.
However, American Rivers’ edits to the blog post are still not accurate, and reflect subjective editorializing, not fact, and again use the word “agreed”.
The Gross Reservoir expansion is now referred to in the edited post as an element in a “package of acceptable alternatives” to Two Forks presented by conservation groups in 1983. Presumably, the suggestion is that the endorsement of the concept of a Gross Reservoir expansion by some conservation groups thirty-five years ago lends some credence to the project now. In an odd footnote, the post refers to unnamed “multiple sources” that allege that the “enlargement was part of the alternative to Two Forks.” Most disturbingly, after irrelevantly asserting that Denver Water had a water right for the expansion, the post continues to state that “When Denver did not get a permit to build Two Forks, it was agreed to build the Moffat expansion…”
This edit without comment[2] and continued insistence that somehow the dangerous Gross Reservoir expansion is justified by the successful halting of Two Forks, is concerning, especially coming from a large, national conservation group with self-proclaimed interests in preserving and restoring rivers. Groups that I represent have been intimately involved in the public process surrounding the expansion project, doggedly pressing the federal agencies to provide meaningful review of this new transbasin diversion. We find this last-minute, unsubstantiated claim of legitimacy for the highly controversial project very disturbing and request that the authors clarify their statements.
Specifically, we would like to know:
1) What exactly was stipulated in the alleged Two Forks/Gross ‘agreement’? Again, the edited blog says, “…it was ‘agreed’ to build Moffat…”. Where is this agreement? Is American Rivers alleging that there was a back room deal that spelled the end of the Two Forks project and that this ‘agreement’, rather than the EPA veto, was what stopped dam construction?
2) Are the authors asserting that the identification of Gross Reservoir expansion by some conservationists as an “acceptable alternative” thirty-five years ago is sufficient endorsement to move ahead with the project despite the innumerable concerns raised during the public review by conservationists, landowners, and other members of the public who will be directly affected by the project?
3) Are the authors suggesting that a non-written “agreement” thirty-five years ago should supercede federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered Species Act?
4) Are the authors asserting that Denver Water’s ‘state water right’ somehow guarantees that the water, if it is found to be physically available, can be diverted despite federal environmental laws and regulations that could find the project unacceptable? Further, everyone agrees that the federal government has allowed the Colorado River to be “over-allotted” — in that more water rights have been given away to the states than exist — and so why, just because Denver Water filed for a state water right, should they get to divert it? Further yet, climate change scientists continue to sound a loud alarm that less and less water will flow in the Colorado River, and more water rights will not be able to be delivered.
Interestingly, Patty Limerick, in her history of Denver Water, A Ditch in Time, does comment on the effort to derail the Two Forks dam[3]. There is, however, nothing in her book that suggests a quid pro quo agreement between Denver Water and conservationists that ended Two Forks like is alleged in the blog post. Importantly, she does make it clear that the conservationists took the political position that the best way to stop Two Forks was to accept that the water was needed and to offer up less damaging alternatives (although in 1988, not 1983) for Denver Water[4].
I and groups I represent do not accept the allegation that Denver Water needs the water that the Gross Reservoir expansion is intended to provide. In fact, this has been a central tenant of our opposition to the project — the Gross Reservoir expansion is an incredibly expensive boondoggle that serves no real need. And, our analysis proved it — Denver Water’s water use continues to plummet decades after the Two Forks veto[5]. Consequently, even if representatives for the conservation community made some sort of back room deal thirty years ago, I see such an agreement as entirely irrelevant to the current review of the project. Much has changed in Colorado and the water world in the last three decades — to willingly destroy some of our most precious natural resources based on someone’s wrongheaded actions in the distant past is not a fate we will accept.
I urge everyone with an interest in the Upper Colorado River and its tributaries, including South Boulder Creek, the lands surrounding these streams, and our rivers in general to look beyond the unsupported assertions made in American Rivers’ blog post. We respect and appreciate the efforts of those who fought to stop Two Forks, but over the decades our understanding of the costs of transbasin diversions has matured and the relationship between urban growth and water consumption has been decoupled.
David Brower negotiated away Glen Canyon in the effort to save Dinosaur National Monument. Decades later he didn’t say ‘oh well, that’s the deal we made;’ rather, he said it was the biggest mistake of his life. If those who were involved won’t say it, I will — the Upper Colorado River basin will not be sacrificed for the ghost of Two Forks.
*******
[1] https://medium.com/@americanrivers/do-you-know-your-water-colorado-28d673358d34
[2] American Rivers reply to Gary Wockner (Director of Save The Colorado), indicating that an edit had been made, was a tweet stating, “We have updated the story to further clarify your concerns — have a great weekend.” (4/20/2018) There is no statement in the blog post itself concerning the edit.
[3] A Ditch in Time at page 203.
[4] A Ditch in Time at 203. (“the authors fully acknowledged the need to supply water to the metropolitan region”).
[5] http://savethecolorado.org/press-release-denver-water-ignores-is-own-data-in-bid-for-massive-dam-expansion/
