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. ;~ )