The Bureau of Reclamation Butts In

Category: Editorials Editorials
Published: 28 September 2015 28 September 2015

By Peter Burrows 9/26/15 elburropete@gmail.com - Blog: silvercityburrro.com

There have been two excellent articles in the Silver City Daily Press by Ben Fisher that make it quite clear that the Department of the Interior, as represented by the Bureau of Reclamation, does not want the planned diversion of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers to proceed.

The first article, €œISC uneasy over Fed €™s Gila diversion terms, € was in the September 18th Daily Press, and the second, €œStalled river talks lead to meeting shift, €œ appeared in the September 25 edition.

That the Bureau of Reclamation, the BOR, is trying to scotch the diversion project is understandable

The BOR released a report on 4/14/14 with the ungainly title, €œPreliminary Appraisal Level Economic Analysis of the Benefits, Costs, and Regional Impacts of the Arizona Water Settlement Act (AWSA) Tier-2 Proposed Projects. €

This report shows that none of the three diversion projects in the Tier-2 proposals made any economic sense after all costs were considered, especially the big diversion project now being pushed by the ISC and the CAP Entity.

When I read this, I called Craig Roepke, NM Interstate Stream Commission Deputy Director, and asked him if this didn €™t end any hopes for a major diversion. Craig said something to the effect: Gosh, no. The ISC disagreed with the BOR and the ISC had their own economic analysis.

Hmmmm. The BOR has been building damns, evaluating and doing water projects all over the country for decades, and it wouldn €™t be surprising if they had a feather or two ruffled by the upstart hicks from New Mexico disagreeing with their analysis. If so, I believe that chicken has come home to roost.

The key is the following sentence from Ben €™s Sept. 18 article: €œThey (the BOR) also wanted the secretary of the Interior to have no financial responsibility if the project should fail for any reason. € This, and another BOR demand, the ISC and CAP entity found unacceptable.

Why would "no financial responsibility" be unacceptable?

I have long wondered how the proponents of the diversion would raise the necessary financing, which could be as high as a billion dollars. Has there been a tacit assumption that the federal government would guarantee the debt required? If so, it looks like that ain €™t gonna happen.

Gads! I may be forced to admit that the feds actually showed spending restraint and fiscal responsibility for once.

NOTE: The above, with substantially the same content, was submitted as a letter to the editor to two different editors in Silver city, and rejected by both. This is a huge and crushing blow to my self esteem, and will require weeks of therapy to undo, maybe months. Sigh. ;~ )

Content on the Beat

WARNING: All articles and photos with a byline or photo credit are copyrighted to the author or photographer. You may not use any information found within the articles without asking permission AND giving attribution to the source. Photos can be requested and may incur a nominal fee for use personally or commercially.

Disclaimer: If you find errors in articles not written by the Beat team but sent to us from other content providers, please contact the writer, not the Beat. For example, obituaries are always provided by the funeral home or a family member. We can fix errors, but please give details on where the error is so we can find it. News releases from government and non-profit entities are posted generally without change, except for legal notices, which incur a small charge.

NOTE: If an article does not have a byline, it was written by someone not affiliated with the Beat and then sent to the Beat for posting.

Images: We have received complaints about large images blocking parts of other articles. If you encounter this problem, click on the title of the article you want to read and it will take you to that article's page, which shows only that article without any intruders. 

New Columnists: The Beat continues to bring you new columnists. And check out the old faithfuls who continue to provide content.

Newsletter: If you opt in to the Join GCB Three Times Weekly Updates option above this to the right, you will be subscribed to email notifications with links to recently posted articles.

Submitting to the Beat

Those new to providing news releases to the Beat are asked to please check out submission guidelines at https://www.grantcountybeat.com/about/submissions. They are for your information to make life easier on the readers, as well as for the editor.

Advertising: Don't forget to tell advertisers that you saw their ads on the Beat.

Classifieds: We have changed Classifieds to a simpler option. Check periodically to see if any new ones have popped up. Send your information to editor@grantcountybeat.com and we will post it as soon as we can. Instructions and prices are on the page.

Editor's Notes

It has come to this editor's attention that people are sending information to the Grant County Beat Facebook page. Please be aware that the editor does not regularly monitor the page. If you have items you want to send to the editor, please send them to editor@grantcountybeat.com. Thanks!

Here for YOU: Consider the Beat your DAILY newspaper for up-to-date information about Grant County. It's at your fingertips! One Click to Local News. Thanks for your support for and your readership of Grant County's online news source—www.grantcountybeat.com

Feel free to notify editor@grantcountybeat.com if you notice any technical problems on the site. Your convenience is my desire for the Beat.  The Beat totally appreciates its readers and subscribers!  

Compliance: Because you are an esteemed member of The Grant County Beat readership, be assured that we at the Beat continue to do everything we can to be in full compliance with GDPR and pertinent US law, so that the information you have chosen to give to us cannot be compromised.