I think Parker Library made the right call about not banning books, what do you think? And two things can be true at the same time in the Closed Basin Project.
What do you think?
An attempt to ban some books related to LGBTQ subject matter was shot down in DougCo (Parker, CO) last week.
I personally don't know anything about the books, and I personally don't care all that much. I think the decision to not ban them was the right one.
I'm okay with having a process so we could have a discussion about not allowing books or other materials in our libraries.
I'm okay with having a rule that would prevent someone below a certain age from not getting a book without parental permission.
I'm not okay with anyone (and I mean anyone, even those I agree with on a lot of other things politically) telling me or someone else what they can and cannot read.
If you don't want to read something you find offensive, don't read it. Don't want your kids reading it? Don't let them check it out or read it. But, your taking offense doesn't limit me or mine.
That strikes me as the only consistent position one could hold if one wants other people to stay out of one's business.
You might see something exceptional about library materials or the topic, however.
What do you think? Civil comment is welcome below.
https://kdvr.com/news/local/lgbtq-book-ban-rejected-in-douglas-county/
Two things can be true at the same time.
The Closed Basin Project can have negative impacts on some people (but not others), but it can also be a minor driver in the loss of water in the Northern San Luis Valley.
I think it's also worth noting that, regardless of what you think about it, the Closed Basin Project's conception in the first place reflects the fact that something would have had to happen for Colorado to meet its compact obligations. Someone in the watershed, or someones, would have had a negative impact on their life or livelihood.
I've arrived at the part of the story of the Closed Basin Project that touches a nerve.
As such, let me be particularly careful here. I did speak to more than one person about this issue, and I consciously tried to get perspectives from the two, sort-of differing takes on the Closed Basin Project.
Still, what you will read below is by an outsider and it is based on my outsider's understanding. There are other views and other details that may matter more to those that are passionate on either side of the issue. For a fuller understanding, I would point you to the internet to find better histories than I have time for. I also want anyone reading to be aware that you're welcome to chime in on the comments if you'd like.
Take a look at screenshot 1 attached. It's from p 22 of the engineering report (linked below) I've referenced before. In plainer language than the report's authors, the thought expressed here is indicative of the problem that many in the Northern part of the San Luis Valley see.
Due to changes in agricultural practices, the closed basin was not getting recharged as much by runoff. This leads many in the region to say the Closed Basin Project became, as the report's authors predicted it would, a "mining operation". That is, the Closed Basin Project was someone coming in and taking scarce water away from the people living in the North end of the valley, not leftover or salvage water, and sending it along somewhere else leaving the residents with, well, not much but dried out earth and withered wetlands.
And the value of the lost water is startling: the Closed Basin Project at its height pumped out 27000 acre-feet of water per year, which at a market rate (that some are willing to pay of $25,000 per acre foot these days) would equate to $675 million a year. A lot of lost value.
Even at the relatively more modest rate charged to some farmers in the Northern part of the valley (one of the Rio Grande Water Conservation Sub-Districts recently voted to charge farmers $500 per acre-foot to irrigate their land), you still end up at $13.5 million taken out.
This can be true all day long. I would be upset as well and I think the folks that live in this area are justified in their anger at it.
But, it can also be true that not every single negative impact on the watershed is due to the Feds coming in with a heavy hand and a thirsty straw.
Let me help explain what I mean with some more numbers.
When the Closed Basin Project started, the enabling legislation allowed up to 60,000 acre-feet per year, but that number was tapered down to 27,000 with an amended plan. Further, the enabling legislation required that the pumping be reduced if the water table fell more than 2 feet in surrounding wells that existed prior to starting the Project.
A check in my earlier post shows that this criteria was reached. The water table is dropping and, as was legally required, the Feds started shutting down wells. Currently, they are pumping out 12,000 acre-feet per year. This 12,000 comes out of an area of 200,000 acres. That is 0.06 acre-feet of water coming out per acre of surface land.
Additionally, again as required in the Federal enabling legislation, they are putting water back in to try and remediate some of the damage that was done to local wetlands. Specifically, 4,000 acre-feet of that 12,000 per year is put back into wetlands in the area.
I want you to now contrast that with what is coming out for use by farms. According to one person I spoke with, 300,000 acre-feet of water come out of the ground per year to irrigate 170,000 acres of farmland. This 1.76 acre-feet of water per acre absolutely dwarfs the 0.06 acre-feet the feds take out to send downriver. It's about 29 times bigger.
So when I say that not every negative outcome in the Northern end of the valley is due to the Closed Basin Project, this is what I mean. Farmers are using a lot of water, much more than is taken out of the closed basin, by a long chalk.
And the current drought we're in (I was told by one person that, at least as of when we spoke three or so weeks ago, that the last rain the San Luis Valley had was March or May) is compounding the problem. Water is getting pulled up from the ground for crops at a faster rate, and the aquifers are not being recharged as quickly as they might in wet years. This draws down the water table everywhere and for everyone.
The world is complicated, and as I said at the beginning, more than one thing can be true at once.
One thing that I felt came through loud and clear in talking to people was that those living in the North end of the San Luis Valley feel as though they've gotten the shaft. I can see why they feel that way. I summarized what the Closed Basin Project did in a variety of ways (value lost, water lost) and attached it as picture 2. The source of the family farm size is from the second link below.
In order to help meet the compact, people came in and took water. They took water that could have benefited people in the area and water that would have kept the area as beautiful as the older residents found it, with wetlands that were wet. Adding insult to injury, they put the wells in the lowest spots of the valley, driving the groundwater toward where they were pulling out.
To top that off, you have nonsense like the fact that the project was originally slated simply to sweeten (make less salty--see my previous post for details on the salinity standards) the water in the drainage ditches for the farms to meet the terms of the compact. No one thought to ask if there was still water in the drainage ditches anymore (there wasn't -- with center pivot irrigation there's no need for drainage ditches).
At the same time, the water levels in the aquifer are dropping precipitously due to the farmers needing it for their fields and a lack of input due to a horrible and prolonged drought.
Additionally, the compact WILL be met. The mandates by the local water boards WILL be met. That is not an option. If the water didn't come from the closed basin, it would come from somewhere. At the time the idea was conceived, it was thought this would be a low-impact way to do it: let's get some water out and not harm people. It wasn't a slick solution and wasn't for a number of reasons, but I don't get the impression that it was designed to harm.
To top THAT off, you have the fact that those people who live downstream of the closed basin and those living South of the Rio Grande get to defray some of their local water use by the water coming out of the closed basin, further leaving the people in the North end of the valley feeling like they got the shaft.
And we go on and on.
Next installment, let's talk other groups who are licking their chops wanting to get at that closed basin. If you've read about DougCo wanting it, I'll have some details there.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nz-tMUYB6FBU5rH7FeXvmgbWUqhY1VwN/view
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Colorado/cp99008.pdf
You know what I'm reminded of here?
When the state shuts down coal plants in the name of climate change, that shuttering has a ripple effect. The mines that fed those plants are now, for all intents and purposes, redundant. So shuttering the plant harms the mines and harms the towns. What will feed into the local economy if not the jobs at the power plants and mines?
When the Front Range decided to vote in wolf reintroduction, they did so knowing the wolves would have no negative impact on them. They also knew that it would harm the economies of the communities the wolves were put in.
Without discussing the wisdom of either move per se, the theme is this: how do we handle the problems where one group is forced to bear a cost for something that others might think is a good idea?
How do we do that fairly?
Wish I knew a better answer than the things I've seen in this state so far.