Colorado is a state blessed with legendary natural beauty. This natural beauty is the inspiration that drives the vitality of our state.
Coursing through the magnificent Colorado landscape are the rivers and streams that nurture us. The recent debate over HB 1188, pitting floaters rights against landowner’s rights, misses the real issue that should concern Coloradans; the degradation of our river and stream habitats. An uncontrolled right to float rivers in Colorado should not be confused with sustainable use. Allowing Colorado rivers and streams to be degraded is unacceptable and should be the focus of the debate over where, when and how floating should be permitted.
The sustainability of one of Colorado’s most sensitive natural resources, our waterways, is being pitted against the demand for recreation and commerce. Floating, while it may seem to be non-consumptive, has impacts on the habitats where it occurs.
There is bank damage at put in/take outs, toilets next to rivers, bank side parking lots, trails along rivers, overfishing, wildlife disturbance and trash to name just a few. These impacts add up, resulting in real biological consequences.
Every angler understands the effect of constant disturbances to fish but who has thought about the fish-eating bald eagles, water dependent river otters, migratory waterfowl and other riparian dependent species that will also be affected if constant boat traffic is present.
The floating proposals to date have focused on what boats to allow, how to avoid hazards and who gets to float, but no one has spoken out about what is sustainable for our rivers. Biologists know Nature as a notoriously hardened teacher, teaching most lessons on the pass/fail system.
The unregulated floating of our rivers is proposed for one of the most precious wildlife habitats in our state; the thin vegetated line along waterways known as riparian habitat. Our riparian habitat represents just 3 percent of the land area but it is essential to sustain 75 percent of our wildlife species. If we were to consider such a major change within one of our National Forests or other federal lands we would be required by law to evaluate the environmental consequences through professional assessments and impact statements. Why would we want less for Colorado’s rivers?
Floating interests describe their effort as merely trying to “turn our rivers into highways.” First of all, we know that as “highways” get busier they require more and more enforcement to maintain public health and safety. No one has planned for the enforcement needed.
The fact is our rivers aren’t highways; they are rivers. They are essential environments in an arid landscape that require protection – protection from the disturbance that threaten so many wildlife species, protection from dangerous invasive species that travel on watercraft, but most of all, protection from over exploitation of fisheries during critical periods such as low flows, high temperatures, spawning, egg incubation and fry rearing.
It doesn’t take a Las Vegas odds maker to wager the effects on fish and wildlife habitat if an unfettered right to float is established. It would be like guessing the condition of your flower bed once the entire neighborhood used it as a public sidewalk. We must consider sustainability and integrate all types of historic uses, like wildlife for instance, when considering how we share the river. If we don’t, we risk sacrificing what we hold most dear.
Mike Mitchell is a fisheries biologist with 30 years of experience in Colorado fisheries management. He is a member of the American Fisheries Society, and well-published fisheries professional. Mike has managed and improved river fisheries throughout the west. EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
