< PREVIOUS ] [ 2002 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Fortunately, I was scheduled to speak for only 10
minutes at the 27th annual Western Water Workshop in
Gunnison last week. Although it is possible to talk for
hours about water, my topic was Water and Democracy,
and in this state, you've got to work to find even a
minute's worth of intersection between those two
topics.
If democracy
means a direct public vote on water
policy and projects, I can't remember ever voting in such
an election. If democracy
means having elected
officials make the decisions about water systems they
supposedly administer, then that doesn't fit, either.
The biggest water change in Salida was the installation of water meters about five years ago, and our city council said it was required to do so by state law. So if your elected municipal officials aren't in charge of the municipal water system, where's the democracy?
In general, Colorado water is administered by the judicial branch, which Thomas Jefferson rightly considered the least democratic branch of government. Our courts determine priority dates, changes of use, points of diversion and the like, and we don't elect judges (they're appointed by the governor, and we get to vote on retention every six years).
Further, judges almost always appoint the directors of water conservancy districts, who can levy taxes and litigate and build dams and ditches.
Another aspect of democracy might be the open discussion of issues, like the controversial Animas-La Plata project near Durango. Since construction has already started, the battle is likely over. George Sibley, the workshop organizer, thought it would be interesting to hear some post-struggle analysis from both supporters and opponents.
One of those opponents is Sage Douglas Remington, who's part of the small Southern Ute Grassroots Organization. Sam Maynes, the Durango attorney who's been promoting Animas-La Plata for years, refused to let anyone from his clientele (Southwestern Water Conservation District, Southern Ute Tribal Council, Animas-La Plate Water Conservancy District) sit on a workshop panel if Sage Remington was also going to be there.
To the credit of Western State College, the panel sat anyway, although two chairs were vacant. I don't know about you, but I know I've never had a chance to vote on whether Sam Maynes gets to control all public discussion about the Animas-La Plata project.
That's about all that can be said about democracy and water in Colorado. In general, people you didn't elect get to take your money and make the decisions.
Plus, I have some bad news for Bob Ewegen. In his July 27 column, he ran the numbers on the Big Straw project and demonstrated that it made no financial sense.
The rationale behind Big Straw is that Colorado isn't taking all the water that it is entitled to under the 1922 Colorado River Compact. By some reckonings, about 400,000 acre-feet a year leaves the state that could stay here if there were a way to store and use it.
The need is on the eastern slope, but a protracted
political war would commence if more diversions were built
along the Continental Divide. So, let the water flow west,
grab our 400,000 acre-feet from the Colorado River at the
Utah line, and pump it back through the Big Straw
to
Dillon Reservoir or the like, where it can go under the
Divide to the Front Range.
That way the strip from Pueblo to Fort Collins gets water for scores of new subdivisions, and the Western Slope gets flowing rivers. But as Bob pointed out, just the electricity for pumping would cost $168 million a year, never mind how many tons of pollution would be produced by the coal-burning power plants that generated the electricity. Also, the construction cost of $10 billion would have to be amortized. The Big Straw has fatal financial flaws.
This was a sensible analysis, but it's obvious that Bob
has never examined a Bureau of Reclamation benefit-cost
statement. This is important, because last Thursday night
in Gunnison, I heard John W. Keys III, United States
Commissioner of Reclamation, state that If Colorado
wants to build the Big Straw, the Bureau is ready to
help.
Figure a $10 billion construction cost and annual interest at 5 percent for 50 years, for an annual payment of about $550 million. Add $168 million for electricity, and $35 million for maintenance and operation, for a total yearly cost of $750 million. In theory anyway, it will deliver 400,000 acre-feet, or 130 billion gallons, at a cost of less than 0.6 cents per gallon -- and the cheapest bottled water I've seen costs 39 cents a gallon, or almost 70 times as much.
By Reclamation arithmetic, as opposed to Ewegen arithmetic, Big Straw is one of the better projects in the Bureau's 100-year history.
Of course, it doesn't matter what we know of these water matters, since in Colorado, we won't be voting about them.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2002 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >