Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Advertise | Subscribe to the paper | Today's Extras
Subscribe

Breaking News:

Hello, energy development. Goodbye, Rio Grande?

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Ross Tuckwiller

Published July 20, 2008 at noon

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

The Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Estes Park. Certain natural landmarks in this state have an iconic quality, their names emblematic of what it means to live in and experience Colorado.

Consider the Rio Grande. It’s the country’s second-longest river, flowing almost 2,000 miles from its Colorado headwaters to the Gulf of Mexico. It’s the subject of books, songs, dreams. It provides water for agricultural and municipal uses, habitat for wild and native cutthroat trout, a watery escape for anglers across the country.

How does oil and gas development fit with the Rio Grande? The Bureau of Land Management currently intends to lease almost 145,000 acres of the Rio Grande National Forest to the energy industry, potentially altering the traditional uses of the river and lifestyles of people who live nearby. The decision to lease these public lands was made with no input from citizens or the Colorado Division of Wildlife and was based on planning documents that are shockingly outdated. It’s a decision that could upend the region’s economy, eliminate ranching operations and severely affect the recreational angling industry. It could change forever the meaning of the words “Rio Grande.” A vital and growing part of Colorado’s economy, outdoor recreation contributes more than $10 billion annually and supports more than 100,000 jobs. CDOW has classified the Rio Grande between South Fork and Del Norte gold-medal water, a designation reserved for the highest-quality coldwater fish habitat. Energy development within this watershed could degrade prime trout fisheries and have tremendous downstream impacts.

The BLM is required to coordinate its land management with state agencies and administer public lands for a range of uses, including hunting, angling, agriculture and, yes, energy development. The agency’s lack of coordination with stakeholders in delineating Rio Grande National Forest acreage, however, speaks to a system weighted in favor of the energy industry and dismissive of ordinary Coloradans, outdoor enthusiasts and sportsmen.

The BLM’s lopsided management is a problem. Since 1996, more than 24 million acres of the Rocky Mountain West have been leased for energy development. In 2006, the BLM received more than 10,000 applications for permits to drill - a record high.

Earlier this month, the BLM’s New Mexico office planned to lease more than 60,000 acres of potentially suitable desert bighorn habitat adjacent to the Caballos Mountains. The agency neglected to coordinate with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and the department’s recovery plan for the desert bighorn, listed in 1980 as a New Mexico endangered species.

Along with a sportsmen’s group, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the NMDGF protested the Caballos Mountains leases, and the BLM consequently deferred them from development. While this action is encouraging for those of us who care about healthy habitat, it confirms a disturbing reality: The BLM is willing to lease our lands without consulting with state agencies about protecting fish and wildlife and safeguarding their economic benefits and sporting opportunities. Had sportsmen and the NMDGF not protested these leases, the public never would have known about the BLM’s mistake in offering them.

Here in Colorado, dissatisfaction with the BLM’s management is increasing.

Right now, a citizens’ group, Rio Grande Oil and Gas Accountability Alliance, is involving San Luis Valley residents in the Rio Grande energy leases. The participants view public-lands energy development pragmatically.

They understand these resources must be developed, for the good of America and our economic security. But they also realize that reckless development can dramatically alter our environment and natural resources.

If pursued responsibly, oil and gas development can coexist with fish and game populations. But that’s not happening in Colorado. For this reason, the public must work to correct the government’s missteps in managing our public lands - for the good of our country, our economy, our outdoor traditions, and those iconic places such as the Rio Grande where our national identity is forged.

Ross Tuckwiller lives in Durango and works for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

Comments

  • July 20, 2008

    4:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    Ross says..
    If pursued responsibly, oil and gas development can coexist with fish and game populations. But that’s not happening in Colorado.

    He provides no proof of this "not happening in Colorado". Just because he and his buddies are not included in the decision of leases..that does not mean it is not being done correctly.

    How about some facts to show us how the leases are ruining the Rio Grande forest.
    Then we might have something to look at and discuss. Until then, you have not provided much on the subject.

    Nuff Said!

  • July 20, 2008

    7:05 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mrfxx writes:

    If the various US industries involved in extracting resources from the land (such as big oil, gold mining companies, coal mining companies, etc) didn't have such an abysmal record for absolutely trashing the land they are working there wouldn't be any question about what will happen to endangered species and "gold-medal water". In point of fact, when governor of Florida, Jeb Bush requested his father (President HW Bush) BAN offshore drilling for fear of Florida waters being destroyed - Bush the 1st complied (the first time a president did that - and a GOP member of an oil family at that). You don't suppose they knew that greed would allow big oil to destroy the area for profit do you?

  • July 21, 2008

    4:49 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Ike writes:

    State your facts and sources, Ross. If there are energy companies who are operating irresponsibly in your area, name them. Nebulous accusations work when you are sitting in the Steamworks Brewery, but here you've gone live. Just facts and not speculation please.

  • July 21, 2008

    9:06 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    dukeco1 writes:

    gary,

    It most certainly not "Nuff said". If you want to see the results of oil and gas development in sensitive habitat, look no further than Garfield County. Leaking reserve pits have polluted springs that feed drinking water systems, sending one resident to the hospital with burns in his mouth and throat. Poor maintenance on production facilities have sickened residents with noxious fumes. Creeks have been polluted with millions of gallons of produced water ( Nasty stuff, if you have ever experienced it. ), deer herds are declining, air quality is deteriorating rapidly. The "Divide Creek Seep" is probably the best example of the damage the industry can do when things are not properly done.

    Any industry apologists out there who doubt what I am saying can contact the Western Colorado Congress, the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance, The Colorado Environmental Coalition, or any number of groups who will be glad to arrange to take you on a tour so that you may see it for yourself.

  • July 21, 2008

    11:59 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Hank writes:

    gary and Ike - You two really don't have a clue do you? Here's one recent example for you - look up the Garden Gulch spills on the Roan Plateau. Here's Sid Lindauer's complaint filed with COGCC:

    http://wccongress.org/pdfs/08_MAR_com...

    Lindauer's complaint says that because of HB 1341 and HB 1298 passed last year the Colorado Department of Health and Environment and the Colorado Division of Wildlife should have been involved.

  • July 21, 2008

    7:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    Hank..

    That is the point, what is Ross's "clue" about the Rio Grande?

    He has none..just a complaint that he and his buddies were not involved.
    Yep, that proves the Rio Grande will be ruined...no involvement by him!

    Nuff Said!

  • July 21, 2008

    7:51 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dukeco1 writes:

    gary,

    I am going to guess that you have never visited the gas patch in Garfield County or taken a trip to Rangely, Colorado. Am I right?

    The "clue" Ross has is the huge and growing litany of polluted creeks, poisoned water wells, destroyed wildlife habitat, sickened residents, broken up roads, and dirty air, that have followed gas and oil drilling in La Plata County, Garfield County, Sublette County( Wyoming), San Juan County ( New Mexico )and on and on. Or maybe some OTHER gas and oil industry is planning on drilling the Rio Grande watershed. Oh, yeah. That must be it.

  • July 21, 2008

    8:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    dukeco1 writes:

    gary,

    I will go one step further. If you would like, I will get a phone number for you for Linn and Tweetie Blancett, who live in San Juan County, New Mexico. Linn is a fifth generation rancher.

    The Blancetts' have shut down cattle operations on their ranch and sold their herd because every one of the nine fresh water sources on their spread has been polluted by the oil and gas industry to the point that they no longer have anywhere to water their cattle. I encourage you to call Tweetie and defend the oil and gas industry to her.

  • July 22, 2008

    9:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Hank writes:

    gary -

    You really do need to get a clue

    Ross' letter concerns BLM's intent to lease 145,000 acres in the Rio Grande NF and the potential impact there and the lack of input from citizens and the CDOW.

    So you see, since the leases haven't yet been issued, oil and gas development hasn't taken place. That shows your wanting "some facts to show us how the leases are ruining the Rio Grande forest" is nothing more than a farce since development hasn't started yet.

    But you also wrote:
    "Ross says..
    If pursued responsibly, oil and gas development can coexist with fish and game populations. But that’s not happening in Colorado.

    He provides no proof of this "not happening in Colorado"."

    To which I cited the Garden Gulch spills on the Roan Plateau and Sid Lindauer's complaint to COGCC as evidence that in fact it "is not happening in Colorado". But I see you totally ignored that point.

    I'll put it another way that might be simple enough for you to understand -

    With the Garden Gulch spills, legislation currently on the books - specifically HB 1341 and HB 1298 - require that COGCC work with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Department of Wildlife but the COGCC has NOT done so.

    Since COGCC isn't following the statutes for existing problems, what reason is there to think they will for the new leases in the Rio Grande?? Care to answer THAT question gary??

  • July 24, 2008

    9:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    Ok guys, you act like I wrote this post... I did not .. a Ross Tuckwiller did it.

    He did not write any facts supporting his postition. So if you guys want to cover his butt for him...that is your trying effort.
    Care to discuss his non-fact provided post?

    Why did he not provide all of "your negative information about drilling?" Can you answer that?

    Since he did not do it.. it appears that all his is doing is complaining that he was not involved in any of the decisions.
    Maybe his input was not needed.

    Nuff Said!

Post your comment

Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.

Sponsored links



Reprints