Plastic realities
Dear Editors,
I would like to address Sheryl Lock’s letter (Telegraph 9/22) about the massive plastic bag “island” in the Pacific Ocean.

 

In 1988, I was a committee member of the U.S. Congress’ Office of Technology Assessment on designing for the environment. Even back then, plastic bags were manufactured using organic materials such as corn starch additives to make them bio-degradable. Furthermore, if indeed there are millions of pounds of bags floating in the ocean, I want to know how they got there and why it is only concentrated between San Francisco and Hawaii and not in the Atlantic or Indian Ocean? I cannot believe people are discarding their grocery bags in the Pacific (certainly not land-locked people living in Durango.) It is not the consumer who is doing the dumping at sea. Personally, I bag my trash in the plastic bags I get from the market and then bring them to the recycle center. What local governments do with the trash after that is the real issue. Bags filled with trash, no matter what they are made from, have been dumped in landfills for decades.

 

For years, landfills have been designed with leach-proof liners and are frequently “turned” to assist in decomposition. How do Ms. Lock and Greenpeace explain the bags’ appearance at sea? If, in fact, they are being dumped from landfill barges, the crime lays with the recycle centers and not the individual who discards their waste at the local recycle center.

 

Let’s get the facts straight before forcing choices on someone else. If Ms. Lock believes the plastic grocery sack is the culprit she might want to consider bringing all her groceries home in burlap sacks or wooden crates because most everything today is packaged in a material that can take years to decompose; yes, even paper and cloth. And if landfills are not the answer, high-heat incineration technology has also existed for decades and the residue left after burning is miniscule, while the generated heat can be captured and used as an energy source; enough to heat thousands of homes and provide municipal power.

 

The public needs to understand the facts before making the choice of “paper or plastic.” And incidentally, the “Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter at Sea” was signed by dozens of nations in 1972, so it is really government’s job to assure compliance and not the individual who takes groceries home in a reusable tote, paper bag or plastic sack.
– Stew Mosberg, Bayfield

An empty choice
Dear Editors,
City residents will soon be voting on a bond issue to fund purchase of water from the Animas-La Plata project in a decision with some important ethical and environmental considerations. The best argument for the City to purchase this water is that much of the environmental damage is already done, therefore this provides an alternative means for storage in case of drought or damage to our Florida and Animas river water supplies.

 

However, participation in A-LP creates a quandary for citizens who wish to live lightly. The project is an example of living beyond our means, unsustainably. The primary problem is little impending need for the water.

 

Our current supplies would have handled a 40,000 population in the drought of 2002, widely accepted to be a 100-year event. Only downstream irrigators or New Mexico could trigger our needing more water storage. Regrettably, a compact between Colorado and New Mexico was not part of the A-LP settlement, leaving the City of Durango with uncertainty.  

 

Currently, our rivers serve as our reservoirs! Plans call for purchase of water in preparation for when City of Durango population hits 40,000. The City share of A-LP water would be used about 50 days every 20 years. Nearly half of the stored water would only be used one year in 100 – it will be left there to evaporate in the other 99 years. The bulk of this is for lawn care, which appears to now have equal footing with indoor water use as a requirement of our society. Durango summertime use is nearly five times our winter use, thus triggering the “need” for storage and fear-inducing statistics about the lack of current storage.

 

Most of the water purchase is to hedge against the possibility of downstream irrigators or the State of 4 most measures, this is a good price for water rights into perpetuity, and other options could be much more expensive.

 

The City engineering study evaluating the water purchase makes no adjustments for improved conservation or water use patterns in the future due to higher-density growth. In fact, it assumes higher consumption per capita. City forecasts do not account for the relative high seniority of City water by placing a call on the river, effectively subsidizing other users.

 

Admittedly, these potential efficiencies are very small compared to the assumed demands from downstream states.

 

The power use of the project is also beyond our means. The entire A-LP uses electricity – a lot of it – 67.1 million kwh annually. This exceeds all Durango residential use! WAPA hydroelectric provides the power at preferential prices.

 

However, replacement power will most certainly be from global warming and polluting coal-fired power plants (which may increase the likelihood of our “needing” additional storage). The pumping has no accommodation for “smart grid” time-of-power use.

 

In another example of the project being beyond our means, annual evaporation and leakage from the A-LP reservoir equals or exceeds Durango’s annual water use! Sadly, the power use, evaporation loss and other environmental harm will happen regardless of whether the

 

City decides to buy its full share of water (a 4 percent “slice” of the reservoir).  

So city residents are left with an empty choice. Purchase water that we might not need until the next 100-year drought – “Buy more now because it is cheap!” Or, a choice to not participate, which means the water allocation defaults to the State of Colorado, and then perhaps to the Southern Ute and Ute Mountain Ute Tribes for whom the reservoir was justified (they hold approximately 80 percent of the water in the project).  

 

Sadly, Western water law encourages everyone to grab as much water as possible – “use it or lose it” – without any incentive for substantial conservation. Some voters may contemplate water problems of threatened species and dewatered rivers, such as our Animas and the Colorado River water often not reaching the delta in the Sea of Cortez. Who speaks for these sorts of issues as we make our local decision? For me, it is a pity this vote is too late to mitigate the damage.

 

How one decides to vote presents a difficult choice … buy now because it is cheap insurance, versus sending a message about unsustainable project design.
– Kent Ford, Durango

Heart & Hands a great success
To the Editors,
To those businesses and individuals who donated food, drink, time, silent auction items, and love to our Hearts and Hands for Ginny fund-raiser, we owe our sincere thanks. More than 30 businesses and individuals provided food and drinks, and another 200-plus donated items for a silent auction. A band played, kids played in a “bouncy house” and everyone had a good time. Amazingly, Ginny and her family

(Jim, her husband; Megan and Emma, her daughters) were able to attend, and were overwhelmed by the support of our community.  

 

To all who donated or contributed their time, thank you for making this a stellar event!
– Sincerely, The Fort Lewis College Department of Biology, via Shere Byrd