The recent coverage about “saving the Poudre” and a new “endangered river” designation shows only one side and distorts the picture. The coverage of the proposed Glade Reservoir near Fort Collins should provide a more balanced picture of our choices about this project.
I think American Rivers is doing a good job to call our attention to important water issues, but I also work closely with the water managers who are looking for balanced solutions across the country. These water managers take a lot of flak while trying to meet public needs for water services and provide environmental water. Their story needs to be told as well.
It is no coincidence that American Rivers has designated the Poudre as third on its endangered list at just the time when a decision is near on the environmental impact statement. The river in first position on their list (the Catawba-Wateree River of North and South Carolina) also faces decisions, both about an interstate dispute and for a new hydropower license. I recently facilitated an interstate forum about it and in a local forum about the proposed Glade Reservoir here on the Poudre. Neither river seems at a crisis point, but both need balanced management attention.
Use of language like “save the Poudre” or “endangered river” stirs people’s emotions, but it hides the tough questions that must be answered to find balanced uses among complex issues. At best, the polarized news coverage will simply entertain us. At its worst, it can block our search for balanced solutions that work for everyone.
We need more informed dialogue about how to manage these rivers to meet all objectives-human and environmental. Emotional slogans send the message that David can slay the Goliath trying to “kill” these rivers and all will be OK. But it won’t be OK, because hard work is required to identify and implement balanced water management strategies. If reasoned approaches to river management are blocked, the results are apt to be worse in the future, not better.
On the Poudre, the proposed reservoir would skim off flood flows, store them, and make them available for use within the Northern Integrated Supply Project. It won’t affect the wild upper reaches of the river. You also won’t see different flows through Fort Collins most of the time, but you would see reduced flows through the city during the annual flood periods. This is the main environmental change that will result from the project.
Flood flows on the Poudre do benefit the ecology of the riparian area from the canyon mouth near Highway 287 to the river’s mouth in Greeley. That’s the part of the Poudre River we’re talking about. That part of the river needs restoration anyway, and stopping Glade Reservoir would do little to help.
What the Lower Poudre needs is not to be “saved” but to be “restored” and made healthier. This is going to take cooperative work, not polarization. The public debate ought to be about how we can make the river better, not how to kill a project.
The media can help on this by publishing maps and photos and informing the public in a clear way about the tradeoffs. This would be a great service to move us away from the usual conflicts and toward win-win solutions.
Neil S. Grigg is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Colorado State University. Guest commentary submissions of up to 650 words may be sent to openforum@denverpost.com. This online-only guest commentary was not edited.
