Colorado River Water Proposal, Or What The Definition Of Is Is...

I'm signed up to receive announcements from Grand County, and here's one I received yesterday that made me chuckle:

Take a look at the subject line of the email:

Let's be clear... these are enhancements; not mitigation. And the difference is huge--especially when you're considering moulding public opinion! I'll define enhancements vs. mitigation and then give you an example of what's going on so you too understand the path Grand County's water is on.

"The Colorado River Proposal is so complex, Mr. Newberry can't explain it." 

Since we're talking water and habitat, the best place to go for a definition of the above words is the EPA itself. First, we have the definition of enhancement as it relates to wetlands and other features:

"Gwin, et al. (1999) define enhancement as "the modification of specific structural features of an existing wetland to increase one or more functions based on management objectives, typically done by modifying site elevations or the proportion of open water. Although this term implies gain or improvement, a positive change in one wetland function may negatively affect other wetland functions".(EPA Web)


As for mitigation, this is what the EPA has to say:


"Mitigation, a term that frequently occurs in discussions of restoration, "refers to the restoration, creation, or enhancement of wetlands to compensate for permitted wetland losses" (Lewis, 1989). Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, wetlands may legally be destroyed, but their loss must be compensated for by the restoration, creation, or enhancement of other wetlands. In theory, this strategy should result in "no net loss" of wetlands."(EPA Web)


My quick and dirty analysis of 'enhancements' is that it translates into taking a dollar out of your left hand and putting it into your right hand. Put another way, you rob Peter (remove stream flows from one river) to pay Paul (add stream flows to another river). 


Mitigation is meant to allow for destruction of wetlands in one area while adding wetlands to another area. Of course, this is just, "In theory." In reality, you most likely end up with a net loss over time.

"Personally, I wouldn't allow him or any of our commissioners to sign on the dotted line until they can. [Explain it]" 

In relation to the Colorado River Water Proposal, Commissioner Newberry constantly points out that, "The enhancements are the enhancements and the mitigation is the mitigation..." Whatever that means!


I think a better way to understand this mess is to put it into financial terms. Recently, Governor Hickenlooper proposed $332 million dollars in cuts to education funding because of large state deficits. No matter how you put it, this is a large cut to funding. Think of this money as stream flows. With this kind of cut, the flow will slow to a trickle.


But wait, a few things have happened since the original announcement. There's more money (water) available than originally thought, so the legislature is going to add 'enhancements' to the original cuts that will put back nearly $90 million dollars. Now, instead of discussing the $250 million in cuts that are still in the bill, they want you to focus on the $22 million coming back from a 'savings account,' and the $67.5 million slated for at-risk schools.(Reference) Neat, huh?


No matter how you slice it, water flows on the Western Slope are going to continue to be threatened by Front Range interests. You can enhance and mitigate all you want, but until you address the problem of overconsumption of a finite resource, you haven't fixed anything.


The Colorado River Proposal is so complex, Mr. Newberry can't explain it. Personally, I wouldn't allow him or any of our commissioners to sign on the dotted line until they can.