![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/230323204453-272c55000323ab94d247405cd0492837/v1/031bd3281e2dcf580150940a97640899.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
7 minute read
Snow way out
Wet winter buys Colorado River Basin time, but challenges persist
by Teal Lehto
Advertisement
Rafters, skiers and water managers rejoice! Our deep snowpack from this winter’s parade of storms has abated doomsday here in the Colorado River Basin (for now), and it’s also provided us with near certainty of high flows on many of the most beloved rivers in the region.
I, for one, am absolutely stoked that Mother Nature provided for us in our moment of need. But I am also wary that the public could become distracted from the long-term issue at hand: a century-long history of unsustainable consumption of water resources in the Colorado River Basin. If left unaddressed, this all but guarantees an eventual catastrophe in the system.
We have to acknowledge the reality that we need above-average flows just to fulfill the existing 16.5 million acre feet (MAF) of obligations in the Colorado River Compact. In the past 23 years, the river has had an average flow of only 12.4 MAF, so just to meet the demand in the system we would need 133% of average streamflows in the river. This structural deficit in allocation vs. average streamflow is exactly why the river system was pushed to the brink of collapse last year. Even though the incredibly deep snowpack in the Upper Colorado River Basin this year may seem bottomless (it’s at 133% of median for this time of year), the resulting runoff is likely to only surpass the extremely low bar of fulfilling the existing water rights within the system.
For comparison, longtime residents may remember the historic flood year of 1983, when Lake Powell became so full that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation installed plywood at the top of Glen Canyon Dam to prevent water from lapping over it. This overabundance cause emergency reservoir releases to protect the dam, but also created a monumental deluge in the Grand Canyon that river runners will recall from the harrowing narrative in Kevin Fedarko’s “The Emerald Mile.” The total streamflow in the Colorado that year was estimated to be a whopping 26 MAF, which is astonishing, but we would need two years of that epic runoff just to fulfill all of the allocations in the system and refill Lake Mead to capacity.
Even with all of that said, I know it is important to appreciate these short-term wins. I am happy to know that more people will get the opportunity to experience what the rivers of the Southwest have to offer. I am relieved that water managers and policymakers will have another year to come to legitimate compromise to stabilize the system long term. Everyone who lives here in the basin can breathe a little easier knowing that the much-feared nightmare of Lake Powell reaching minimum power pool is not likely to occur for at least another year.
However, we must not be lulled into complacency by an amazing boating season and modest reservoir gains. The time for action on this issue was years ago. The legally sanctioned overconsumption of water within the basin means that even if we did receive a leg- endary snowpack twice that of 1983, and Lake Mead was suddenly restored to capacity, it would only be a matter of time before we found ourselves in the same predicament.
This reality only becomes more unsettling when one considers how badly the water deficit will be exacerbated as a result of climate change. Climate science clearly indicates that while we may continue to experience the occasional extremely high precipitation year, the region is trending toward becoming drier and warmer overall. Warmer temps can mean that plants and soils consume more of our precious precipitation before it can be harnessed for human use. Take last year for example: we had 91% of average snowpack, but an unusually warm and dry spring resulted in only 58% of average streamflows in the river. Some studies indicate that this could be our new reality, and streamflows within the basin could diminish by up to 50% by the end of the century.
As a young person trying to plan a future in this region, I can only hope the urgent push to address the inherent deficit within the compact does not lose steam because of La Niña’s endless bounty this winter.
But most of all, I want people in this area to cherish this rare instance of water abundance in our arid home.
Hopefully, we can find a long-term appreciation for this vital resource that sustains all of our communities here in the Southwest.
Then, the BuRec and policymakers will know that our eyes are still on them, and public attention will remain focused until the states reach a viable compromise for reasonable reductions throughout the basin.
Teal Lehto is an FLC graduate and longtime Durango resident who is best known for her TikTok platform (@WesternWaterGirl) dedicated to raising awareness for water resource issues in the Southwest. ■
Who’s driving?
Sixteen former mayors of Durango are concerned about the proposed reorganization and restructuring of the city’s boards and commissions. How each board or commission is continued, changed or eliminated on behalf of residents is neither a simple matter nor a city staff decision.
Durango has a long and rich tradition of boards and commissions that contribute to self-governance, citizen engagement, policy creation and advisory input.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/230323204453-272c55000323ab94d247405cd0492837/v1/4c6f09037272ff3ace4efdf679759e02.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
While local government efficiency, budget impacts and utilization of city staff time are important, these considerations should be secondary to city residents’ engagement, contributions of volunteer expertise and leverage of local talent and ideas, all of which align with the goals of “Engaged & Collaborative Governance” stated in the 2022 City of Durango Strategic Plan.
The City of Durango has been a home-rule city since 1912, and the city charter has stood the test of time. Accordingly, the City of Durango boards and commissions reflect our city’s com- mitment to citizen engagement, self–governance and problem-solving by residents and interested citizens. Boards and commissions are a critical part of our self-governance.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/230323204453-272c55000323ab94d247405cd0492837/v1/596115523fc801ce3fecb71f8cbd45de.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Who is driving the train in the reorganization and restructuring of boards and commissions? Did the City Council receive a petition from citizens or a recommendation from existing boards and commissions?
Perhaps the council should take a step back and rethink its position. If the council is to consolidate, eliminate or create new boards and commissions, what are the primary objectives beyond saving money, reducing staff time or reducing citizen participation?
What is the rush? Why are we in a hurry to make such major changes in how we are self-governed as a home-rule city? Are too many boards or commissions a problem or rather a virtue and example of active citizen engagement?
As former elected City of Durango officials who have served on boards and commissions, we urge City Council to take the necessary input from citizens of Durango and allow time for discussion and coordination with city staff to implement what is best for our city.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/230323204453-272c55000323ab94d247405cd0492837/v1/9f7f41176d748bc301952984850a9232.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Our boards and commissions are an important part of successful city government. The City Council should seek more input from businesses, nonprofits, interested citizens and community members. Simply put, decisions of this magnitude require citizen input and time for discussions after the new City Council is seated in April 2023.
Making sweeping changes of reorganization and restructuring should not occur without citizen input and feedback from the boards and commissions.
Changes that are driven primarily by administrative considerations, rather than local home rule governance policy and active citizen engagement are unacceptable.
This opinion is endorsed by: Dean Brookie, Joe Colgan, Amos Cordova, John Gamble, Dale Garland, Lee Goddard, Fred Klatt, Sweetie Marbury, Leigh Meigs, Christina Rinderle, Michael Rendon, Jim Sheppard, Leonel Silva, Jasper Welch, Dick White and Sidny Zink.
– Jasper Welch, Dick White, Leigh Meigs, Sweetie Marbury
Save the cemetery
I am a resident of 2611 N. College Dr. Our back yard is on the border of the his- toric Animas City Cemetery. It is located on the bench top area on the steep hillside that goes down toward Florida Road. It currently has an informal trail system that weaves through the sage, around the cemetery and connects with the Chapman trail system. It’s an area used by hikers, and there is a small mountain bike jumps area.
If you are not aware, the property behind our house that is adjacent to the cemetery is now under contract for sale to a Texas-based developer. On March 15, the prospective developer held a public meeting to unveil plans for the land surrounding the cemetery.
The plans show a desire to construct a paved road that comes up the hill from Florida Road and winds around the top of the bench next to the cemetery, with a 5-foot distance from pavement to historic gravestones. The plan indicates there is no buffer zone between the road and the cemetery. It also shows no pedestrian access/public trail to get to the cemetery from the Chapman Hill area or from Florida Road area, effectively isolating the cemetery from public access.
I am writing in hopes that we can work together in opposing this ill-conceived development plan. And also to create awareness of this local landmark treasure. If you are interested in talking more about this, please contact me at mattindurango@gmail.com or you can call any time, 970-764-7307.
If you haven’t already, please take a minute to check out the well-researched and surprisingly engaging website animascitycemetery.org. The website was curated by the local group “Friends of the Animas City Cemetery,” which also has a Facebook page.
I also have a screen shot of the proposed development drawing. Let me know if you're interested.
– Matthew Hladik, Durango
Vote Gilda/Harrison
Durango is going through a “gentrification event” – question is, who will survive? Which of our friends and family will be here in three years? “Stay in touch!” The renters we know probably won’t be. “It’s been good knowing you.” For the lucky among us – homeowners – the pressure to sell is great when prices increase ten-fold. “Happy trails friend.” Gentrification destroys relationships.
![](https://assets.isu.pub/document-structure/230323204453-272c55000323ab94d247405cd0492837/v1/6ef4c34781c44e387241b58da344b83c.jpeg?width=720&quality=85%2C50)
Realtors and businesses will be here, because the average new resident will have more spending money than we do. And business is well represented on the City Council already. What we need are two councilors who will focus on us – the workers, renters, singlehome owners and families struggling to just stay here. We understand that we merge with the growing homeless population: elders on Social Security who have nowhere else to go when their rent mushrooms; mobile home dwellers who can’t afford to move their home; students couch-surfing and hoping for a shared space.
This time, vote for the regular folks for City Council – Harrison Wendt and Gilda Yazzie. We have enough business types on there already. Let’s keep this funky little sweet town intact for those of us who like to hike and ski.
– Kirby MacLaurin, Durango Drink
up!
Mike Green’s letter to the editor from March 16, titled “Prohibition Redux,” ended with six words: “Make Durango dry! Mike Green, Cortez.” Mike, stay in your lane. If you want to make a city or town dry, start with your own town, or better yet, move 60 miles west. I heard Monticello is drier than a popcorn fart. Cheers!
– Steve Stahl, Durango