EAGLE, Colo. - "Just add water." Simple instructions on the back of your muffin mix, but coming up with the Colorado Water Plan dictated by the Governor last year is proving to be much more complicated. Currently, regional meetings are taking place to put together a plan that will work for the entire state, but Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry said she is concerned about the competing needs of the Front Range and the mountain communities.

"The concern is that the water is on the western slope and the people are on the eastern slope," she pointed out. "While it's always a great idea to collaborate and work together, we always are a little protective of the water that we need to keep on the western slope."

According to the Northwest Council of Governments, people incorrectly make several assumptions about water: that population growth can't be contained, that there's plenty of water on the west slope for the Front Range, and that new water projects are needed to save agricultural interests.

The Colorado Water Plan now in the works is the first of its kind and is to be complete by 2015. It will then influence water decisions for the foreseeable future.

Chandler-Henry and others also question predictions that Colorado's population is going to double by 2050.

"We don't think that's necessarily true," she said. "We've has some big changes with the recession recently that have slowed down population growth, and would like to see more land planning, community planning be a part of this whole water discussion."

Colorado water allocation has historically been guided by local governments. Supporters of Colorado's Water Plan say its goal is to get those communities to work more cohesively and streamline efforts to provide adequate water while not compromising the environment.

Link to more information on the Colorado Water Plan at NWCCOG.org and the relevant executive order at 1.usa.gov/NCQbWD.




get more stories like this via email

New research shows the demand for native seed supply across the Western United States, including Nevada, has increased, but the supply simply is not there.

Researchers with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine say in the West, extreme weather events driven by climate change are a big threat to native plant communities.

Kayri Havens, senior director of ecology and conservation at the Chicago Botanic Garden and one of the report's authors, called native seed supply critical for restoration efforts. Havens explained with the current insufficient supply, restoration efforts could be faced with the tough decisions to substitute with nonnative species, utilize native species from climatically different environments, or not doing anything at all.

"You really need locally adapted seed to have it succeed over the long term in restoration," Havens pointed out. "I think many of the restoration failures that we have seen over the last 20, 30 years are in part due to not having the correct seed to use."

Havens called native seed "one of the most undervalued natural resources." She noted plant communities provide what she calls "ecosystem services" such as helping prevent floods and helping purify the air; aspects she said are essential for the success of everyone.

The scientists behind the report spent two years studying the nation's supply of native seed, and found significant deficiencies when it came to the nation's pipeline of viable seed. The report called for coordinated leadership between the U.S. Department of the Interior, Agriculture and Defense, while also supporting regional partnerships.

Vera Smith, senior federal lands policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife, said it will lead to better insight to know what seed is needed, when it is needed and where.

"Our insufficient supply is a major barrier to ecological restoration and other revegetation projects that we need to do across the nation, in order to keep our lands healthy, natural and resilient to climate change," Smith asserted.

In 2002, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Agriculture developed a plan for native seed supply, but the report demonstrated the last two decades have shown the plan needs to be accelerated to meet current needs.

President Joe Biden has designated Avi Kwa Ame, known by some as Spirit Mountain, a national monument. The designation preserves about half a million acres in Southern Nevada that is considered to be sacred by a dozen native tribes.

Will Pregman, Communications Director for the group Battle Born Progress, was in Washington D.C. on Tuesday for the announcement - and he said groups have been working towards the federal protections for years.

Pregman said those who have been advocating for the protection of Avi Kwa Ame are overjoyed that President Biden made the monument a priority.

"This is a huge gesture in a symbolic sense," said Pregman, "but it is also materially very important for the president's goal. Obviously he set forth his 30 by 30 plan - protect 30% of U.S. lands and waters by 2030."

Pregman said much of the credit for the designation is thanks to the hard work of various native tribes as well as groups and multiple Nevada lawmakers who helped push the issue forward.

Pregman said in addition to helping the president reach his 30 by 30 campaign goal, he added that the designation which protects a vast desert landscape, including habitat and migration corridors for many animal species as well as cultural and historical sites, will truly send a strong message.

Pregman added that he believes the monument will also come with a significant promise of new outdoor recreation jobs and opportunities, bolstering local economies, and attracting outdoor tourism to Nevada from locals and tourists.

"All that kind of stuff is incredibly significant," said Pregman. "And it's going to, I think, further the president's goal and I think hopefully serve as sort of a template for him continuing to do these types of things in other states as well."

Biden used his authority under the Antiquities Act to grant the permanent protection for Avi Kwa Ame. Pregman said that means no construction or development projects can take place on the protected land.

Like Nevada, New Mexico has rejected a proposed interim storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.

Responding to the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission's plan to issue a license for a Holtec International facility in southeast New Mexico, the legislature passed Senate Bill 53 mostly along party lines, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed.

The bill said no nuclear storage permits will be issued without support from state officials and not before the federal government has identified a permanent disposal site.

John Buchser, nuclear waste issues chair for the Rio Grande chapter of the Sierra Club, said a plan to safely transport nuclear waste via railroad from the east to a Western state has not been adequately studied.

"It's probably 10 years of research and then further decisions on, 'is that actually going to proceed?' And then dealing with the resistance of 'nobody really wants it,' " Buchser explained.

Nevada's Yucca Mountain was originally designated for the temporary nuclear waste repository, but strong state and regional opposition eventually killed the proposal. In New Mexico, city and county leaders from Carlsbad and Hobbs recruited Holtec to propose the nuclear-waste storage facility, and believe in its safety and promise to provide local jobs. The bill was signed by the governor hours after it passed.

Buchser hopes New Mexico's decision will put more pressure on Congress to create a permanent disposal site. He pointed out the problem of storing spent nuclear fuel is not unique to the United States, but some countries approach the problem differently.

"Finland is probably the best case, where they actually started with the premise, 'Let's talk to the people and ask them what they want to do with this?' " Buchser observed. "Instead of starting from the premise of the United States which seems to be, 'Let's define a site, and then we'll see what the public thinks about it.' "

A recent poll found 60% of New Mexico voters opposed the Holtec site, including 56% of those in southeast New Mexico. Those opposed to the "interim" storage site could become a substitute for permanent storage, with the radioactive waste possibly abandoned in New Mexico for a million years.