BACA

The Citizens Watchdog

ISSUE II

BEAGLE
Water, Land, Sun
across the land. These areas support both land and water based animals, insects and plants, and are essential in the interrelated web of our natural world. Riparian buffers are a rivers right-of-way. Small streams need buffers, too. A healthy riparian area is evidence of wise land use management.

March/April 2012

If you would like to submit articles, advertise, announce or put something in the upcoming section FOR TRADE or contribute financially to this newspaper, send inquires to the editor: Karen Koyote karenkoyote@yahoo.com PO Box 492 Crestone, CO 81131

The Bacas Disappearing Riparian Areas and Wetlands

Why Are They Drying Up? Hint..not just a drought The health of our waters is the principle measure of how we live on the land. Luna Leopold By Karen Koyote Special thanks to Glyder

What is a riparian buffer?

They are often the thin lines-of-green that makes up the land next to a river or stream. In its natural state, it has native plants growing on it: trees, shrubs, or tall, coarse grasses; the type of vegetation depends on the climate. They are also called vegetated buffer zones. As the name suggests, these plants buffer the stream from anything that flows into it polluted water, eroding soil or toxic chemicals. The roots of the plants hold the river banks in place, stabilizing the land and absorbing the water and materials that flow
1

Why are riparian zones important?

Riparian buffers are important for good water quality. Riparian zones help to prevent

sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, pesticides and other pollutants from reaching a stream. Riparian vegetation is a major source of energy and nutrients for stream communities. Riparian buffers provide valuable habitat for wildlife. In addition to providing food and cover they are an important corridor or travel way for a variety of wildlife. Forested streamsides benefit game species such as deer, rabbit, quail and nongame species like migratory songbirds. Riparian vegetation slows floodwaters, thereby helping to maintain stable streambanks and protect downstream property. By slowing down floodwaters and rainwater runoff, the riparian vegetation allows water to soak into the ground and recharge groundwater. Slowing floodwaters allows the riparian zone to function as a site of sediment deposition, trapping sediments that build stream banks and would otherwise degrade our streams and rivers. Development pressure inevitably means pressure on aquifers. Natures own water treatment facilities, riparian buffers help cleanse and recharge wells and groundwater supplies. They are a real bargain compared to a multi-million dollar piece of infrastructure.

Wetlands
The term wetlands is being used under the definition provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). According to that definition wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. Wetlands help maintain the level of the water table and exert control on the hydraulic head. This provides force for ground water recharge and discharge to other waters as well. Ground water recharge occurs through mineral soils found primarily around the edges of wetlands. The soil under most wetlands is relatively impermeable. A high perimeter to volume ratio, such as in small wetlands, means that the surface area through which water can infiltrate into the ground water is high. Ground water recharge is typical in small wetlands such as prairie potholes, which can contribute significantly to recharge of regional ground water resources. Researchers have discovered ground water recharge of up to 20% of wetland volume per season.

In 2000 the legislation was enacted, and in 2004 the Baca Ranch was purchased and the Great Sand Dunes National Park was formed. The BNWR was subsequently closed to the public. The BNWRs stated purpose is To restore, enhance, and maintain wetland, Some of the wetland types in the Greater Great Sand Dunes region including the Baca Grande, includes wet meadows, river oxbows, marshes, riparian corridors, and croplands. These wetland ecosystems are generally surrounded by dry uplands vegetated with greasewood and saltbush. upland, riparian and other habitats for native wildlife, plant, and fish species in the San Louis Valley. Much less information is known about the
wetlands on the Baca Ranch. Because the ranch has previously been under private ownership, little research on the area has been done. However, it is known to contain an extensive wetland ecosystem. When the new land is officially acquired by the national park service, it will become a wildlife refuge managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The FWS currently oversees other wetlands in the region, including Alamosa Wetlands.

The Problem is that these wetlands in our area have been drying up.
And as you can see from the previous information, these areas are very important for recharging our aquifer and thus maintaining our water supplies, as well as removing toxins and providing essential habitat for wildlife. Our local covenants protect these wetlands and sensitive habitats; however it came to the attention of the Biosphere Coalition www.biospherecoalition.org that the Baca National Wildlife refuge (BNWR) is actually negatively impacting these areas with questionable practices.
3

There now has been ten years of destruction of riparian habitat within the Baca Grande Subdivision. Some historic flows have been impeded completely. The subdivision creeks, particularly Cottonwood and Spanish Creeks have become ditches for 8000 acres of irrigated hay production (In kind hayfield improvements) on the BNWR. They also run approximately 500 head of cattle on protected land each year. Survey mapping and photos show that sensitive species have been damaged and their habitats destroyed.

And to top this off the BNWR is currently involved in an Environmental Assessment (EA) for a risky deep drilling project that would drill 14,000 plus through many aquifers. So instead of restoring and protecting these wetlands as their stated purpose outlines, they are diverting water to irrigate hay fields? The Baca Grande POAs riparian areas upslope from the refuge are drying up, but would still receive water if it wasnt impeded by the BNWR. The Biosphere Coalition is insisting that the BNWR complete a Comprehensive Water Management Plan as well as a Comprehensive Conservation Plan that includes all the natural stream flows within the Baca Grande POA, the town of Crestone and other streams. This should include maintenance and restoration of riparian Crestone Creek, Rito Alto Creek, San Louis Creek, and all tributaries of such. They are also very concerned regarding the impact of the Closed Basin Project to the above waterways. For more information see www.biosphere.org Crestone Community Spanish Classes 6:00PM Tuesdays at the Crestone Town Hall. All levels. Donations and trades accepted for expenses. Proceeds will go to community projects
4

Re: Fair Play for Power Towers: Sympathy for the Devil?
By Michael Lucas Monterey 16 February 2012 Crestone-Baca Grande, SLV Bioregion michael.monterey@gmail.com mm-greenbook.blogspot.com In the February (2012) issue of the Crestone Eagle, under the Living on the Earth header (pg. B-1), Lee Temples two-part feature article starts by claiming it examines the energy sectors role in healing climate change. Next, Mr. Temple said that he is investigating both large- and small-scale energy projects. Temple also claims to seek an ever elusive bigger picture perspective for the sake of creating synergy for the big and little contenders and for bringing some clarity amidst the confusion we little folk still suffer.

As a veteran of sustainability R&D, I was surprised to read Temples apparently expert opinions after he admitted lacking the Big Picture view of the field. Since the early 1970s, I have studied the field of appropriate technology and, from 1975 on, helped pioneer and practiced architectural R&D, green design and sustainability planning. So, I was also surprised to find that, as a respected member of the Crestone community, and as an organizer, consultant, and sustainability advocate with only 9 years of proud experience generating solar PV electricity for himself, he could afford to spend so much time investigating the foregone conclusions he presents in favor of the corporate Big Power agenda. I also found it curious that Mr. Temples credentials do not include anything related to expert professional or academic background in energy science, energy technology, urban planning, innovative energy R&D, macroeconomics, or geopolitical strategy studies. Maybe that explains why his first sentence reads as if the energy sector is an intelligent entity that is healing climate change...? Saying that climate change can or should be healed raises another red flag. Though he did include a few good statistics and mention of two leading activists, DeChristopher and McKibben, why would

Temple seem to damn them with faint praise? Why then dive into a bold pledge of faith and trust in global solutions requiring Global-Interdependence-Philosophy with collaboration of governments, utilities, corporations, and developer/financiers to implement quick, effective, large- and megaprojects. Temple then announces that the global-alliance of mega-power brokers are going to empower small ones as Big Mothers corporate infrastructure gives us the necessary ingredients (like the solar panel) for a small-scale solution. Now, I am not an anti-Agenda 21 Tea Partier, but I see no reason to trust bureaucrats and executives any more than we can trust a corporate mega-demon obsessed with controlling production and distribution of energy, food, and everything else on the planet. Temple tries to build a case for achieving reasonable rapport and cooperation of advocates for small-scale and mega-scale approaches to solving our energy problems. Unfortunately, the statistics, specious reasoning, and framing of the issues Temple offers are all wrong for the context and the real, core issue at stake. A misleading half-truth, even if unintentional is as good or bad as a lie. There are many dimensions or layers in the apparently confusing mass of rhetoric and propaganda

swirling around the mega-power energy monopoly issue, but they can be chunked down to the bottom line basics and governing dynamics for easier chewing and digestion. If he was simply confused, maybe Mr. Temple will appreciate some help with his mission...? First, there is an attainable Big Picture view of The Problem, which is a human problem, not a technological problem. The debate and protests are not about small-scale versus disastrous large-scale technologies. The protests are about stopping the use of unnecessary and/or inappropriate technologies and ecocidal or excessively harmful, unsustainable faux solutions. Without giving enough facts and statistics for adequate context, no amount of deliberate or accidental bias will ever rid us of confusion or get us to the Big Picture view. We are all but drowning in the Big Energy cartels ocean of lies, propaganda, and bad statistics based on the best bogus science debt-dollars can buy which is not very good at all. In the article on The Safe Bet: Renewables (The Nation, June 27, 2011, pg. 4 & 6), Kumi Naidoo reveals the energy industrys biggest, dirtiest secret: Supplying our growing demand for energy does not depend on fossil fuels or nuclear, and renewable [green] energy is not only capable of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear; it is already on its way to

doing so. Naidoo goes on to say, The growth of the sector is the industrys best kept secret...it dominates nuclear power globally by a ratio of 6 to 1. Naidoos facts and statistics may seem to support Temples proudly globalist agenda, but they do not. Pointing out the most basic scientific fact about the Suns output, Naidoo says, Its so plentiful that it can meet our energy needs several thousand times over...just 1.3 percent of viable renewable energy could power 21 percent of developed economy needs in the next decade. I emphasized viable because viability efficiency, effectiveness, durability, sustainability, and the whole life-cycle cost:benefit ratiois at the heart of the core issue. Who defines viability in the global energy game, and who decides what is an acceptable cost:performance ratio? Are stockholders, brokers, directors, and executives really going to give you the best deal? Do you want to trust the likes of BP, Big Coal, and nuclear industry experts to put real efficiency and your best interests first, before short-term profits, quarterly reports, and payrolls? Well, why trust Big Power boosters to treat you better? Remember what nuclear industry experts and Mad Men told us? Of course, it will be

absolutely safe, and nuclear power will make electricity too cheap to meter. In case you think that I really am a rabid antiAgenda 21 rabble rouser, consider this: will we ever have effective, sustainable Big Government or Big Power solutions without pure politicians, pure executives, and pure stockholders? Sure, the big Power Tower in California has been pretty safe for humans for decades, even with all the earthquakes, but what about for the inhabitants of the environment that was destroyed? Am I a bleeding heart, animal loving, people hater? No, but I hate the thought of all that expense and all that wasted energy (over 85% of it) that leaks out of all those multi-billion dollar transmission lines. Thats why I hate the big wind generators used for wind farms, with their old, obsolete propeller and generator designs and megapower lines. Its not just the initial expense, ecological damage, and billing rates, the huge waste involved is atrociously inappropriate, no matter how far gone we are or are not. We will all always pay too much for those Big Power renewable energy sources, that makes the issue of small versus large technologies completely irrelevant. The core issues are quality, control, and sustainability. Even if high voltage transmission lines, Big Solar, and Big Wind

technologies improve, minimizing waste and maintenance costs, and even if stockholders, directors, executives, and public officials become pure saints, what about the national security issues? In the documentary on the oil industry dilemma, Houston, We Have a Problem, the former US ambassador to Pakistan who helped start our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, admits doing so because we could not afford to let the Russians have air bases only a half hour from the Straight of Hormuz. Now, you may not mind paying Big Power brokers whatever rates they want you to pay for their tax deductible investments and payrolls, but do you honestly think that terrorists, bad guys, and war will be eliminated in the next 5 years or so? If you believe that, you may be right but, if not, are you really sure you want to trade energy dependence on oil for dependence on a global Faux Green cartel? Big regional energy generators and transmission lines are easy targets for terrorists and war mongers. Big plants and high power lines are also vulnerable to failure, blackouts, and meltdown caused by giant solar flares and, if the whole national grid goes down, they could take over 2 or 3 weeks to repair and restart. In 3 weeks without electricity, hundreds of millions of us could suffer and

die in horrific chaos. Yet, maybe colossal solar mass ejections will keep missing us...? Still, what about the hassle-convenience ratio? In the long run, as Mr. Temple claims, is it really better and cheaper to let big corporations and bankers and governments take care of our needs or getting more insulation and installing solar panels over our roofs, garages, shade trellises, industrial buildings, and parking lots? Aside from famous green name dropping, trivializing and misrepresenting the works of those named, Temple only assures us that new green commerce models...have improved the global business activities of established corporations and new ones, like SolarReserve. Honestly, without thoroughly investigating him, it is impossible to know whether Mr. Temple really believes what he says, or whether he meant to write a PR piece for SolarReserve in exchange for stock and options. Are there any whole truths in Temples glowing praise for the Big Power Tower projects planned for here, to serve a poor, global, power hungry Big Energy cartel? Well, all Temples support for SolarReserves project would be applicable to a distributed generation solution provided very quickly by new green energy co-ops.

Local/regional community development associations and co-ops can support publicprivate consortiums that give local residents free energy efficiency upgrades, equipment, installation, and maintenance in return for a healthy profit on surplus energy exported to the Western Grid. Rate payers might save up to 10 or 20 percent during the payoff period then, as co-op owners, receive dividends and/or contributions to community trusts. The number of sustainable jobs and training programs created by local/regional green energy co-ops will dwarf the number of mostly unsustainable jobs serving the Big Power Tower industry here and elsewhere. Like most of the dollars, most of the jobs involved in building a Power Tower disappear or go away after construction, unless Secretary Salazar (DOI, US Department of Interior) plans to change his mind about creating a Baca Historical Park honoring the appropriate technology, cultural genius, and integrity of his ancestors. Can the ecological and commercial benefits compare with the wonder of two or more world famous Power Towers that feed hapless energy junkies across the globe (or the front range & beyond)? That seems very unlikely. As in the Solar City community in Germany (Google it), installing solar PV

panels on rooftops uses no other land, avoiding new negative impacts on other areas. Germany gets a small fraction of the sunshine we get here, yet their payoff period with 400% extra capacity is only two years. Generating electricity where it is used eliminates local costs for expensive power lines that cause environmental damage and health risks, often in the form of wild fires or high temperature fire storms (re: San Diego County, CA). Extra panels can generate surplus energy for sale over existing lines, bringing profit directly to the community and/or Green energy co-op owners (residents & businesses) directly. On-site solar power can support either low voltage direct current uses or low frequency AC appliances, avoiding Big Power system terrorist threats, without upfront costs to ratepayers. That might clench it for most local folks, but there are other issues to consider. What might be of most concern to local and regional residents are the deeper implications of Mr. Temples article. The long-term economic prosperity of regional residents, ranchers, and business ownersfrom the Four Corners to the Eastern crossing of the Sangre de Cristos into New Mexico and all the way up to Leadvilledepends on livable viability, ecological vitality, and tourism. Mr.

Salazars proposal will not be complimented by two or more giant Power Tower complexes nearby. Nor will the globalist industrial mindset want to stop with Power Towers. If they get away with fooling their victims into supporting more concentration of power and control in their hands, why not turn the SLV into the Haunted Desert Reserve, get rid of most residents, ranchers, businesses, and then tap the natural gas? Is that unlikely? Then why did Mr. Temple leave out the part about the SolarReserve owners wanting new escape clauses for a no cost, no liability Exit Strategy? For less accountability and easier sell-off to a bigger corporate owner with deeper pockets and more lobbyists. You might wonder this: if our governments are sitting at the table with a full house in terms of renewables [green energy], why do they choose not to play their winning hand? Theres a hidden partner in this game, influencing their every move. Ms. Naidoo also reminds us that, Corporations, like casinos, are driven by short-term profit, not for the long-term health of their customers. Ms. Naidoo, unlike Mr. Temple, has no illusions or rationalizations [?] about the real nature of the corporate loot pursuit. She also sees, like many of us in or out of the official Occupy movement that government

officials, corporate officials and their Spin Doctors, should remember who their stakeholders are. Naidoo also wrote, When there is money to be made, the profits go to private industry; when disaster happens, the spills and meltdowns are shouldered by the taxpayer. Clearly, the real issue and choice is about who gets to control power generation, who gets to own the equipment, set ecological quality standards, set the rates, sell energy, collect the revenue, and who decides who gets electricity, how much, and when. Advocates of non-centralized green energy only need to suggest that the advocates of Big Power corporations that they get real and get totally green. Yes, solar Power Towers are not like nukes or BP deep water rigs, except in their scale and profile amidst the echelons of government grant-makers and favor vendors. All the big advantages of Big Power control of renewable energy generation is reserved for the owners and colluders. If or when they get their way, grants, subsidies, and revenue goes to them, not to small projects, innovative inventors, superior green energy entrepreneurs, or self-funded local community development projects. There are many very real benefits of appropriate renewable energy resources and distributed generation with community-based

control of energy and energy policy. Local and regional support for truly effective, appropriate energy generation can transform the nature and structure of our national power grid and how we live our lives. The question, again, is how and who will be in charge, us or our corporate managers and bean counters? What about Temples closing argument? I guess he wants us to believe that between his first paragraph and the concluding sales pitch, he finally found his not so elusive bigger picture view of the noble Big Power agenda of his green commerce heroes in the UN (or in the sunny, windy nations of the Sahara), and in our US Congress, the DOE, county and state government, and all those nice energy sector corporations and executives he failed to name. Temple assures us that the SolarReserve Power Tower project will ensure our health and prosperity as we foster the healing of climate change with a global corporate energy grid. Is Temple expressing false confidence or encouraging cosmic arrogance and obliviousness? Temple says the Power Towers are healthy, inexpensive, and ready to go now, implying that a community-scale solution would cost more and take longer to start-up. The truth is that distributed generation using solar PV panels on rooftops can be up and running

10

quicker than SolarReserves Power Towers, with profits for local users instead of energy bills and expensive whole life-cycle costs. Temple failed to mention that, unlike big Power Towers, rooftop solar panels use no water in this already over tapped Peak Water disaster zone. Maybe fear colored, slanted, and contracted Temples view, making him see Big Power in the hands of a few trustworthy Energy Lords as our only hope. Maybe he thinks his view is bigger and better than ours or more profitable...? Maybe the Big Picture view Ed Lyell shared in his excellent article In Search of Economic Reality (C.E., Feb., pg. B-12) will expand Temples view and his understanding of the Big Power game. So, whose view is best for the most rate payers, job hunters, elders, and children? Ms. Naidoos view of reality and the global market in the green energy sector, envisions expected growth exceeding $2 trillion in the next decade, with proportional expansion of its 2 million member workforce. The real potentials? The green segment of the US building industry has grown by over 50% per year since the Meltdown began. A fair shake on a level playing field, with appropriate technology, and good management, would enable our Green Energy sector to catch up

with China (now leading supplier of solar panels), at least domestically. For the next 30 years, community-scale distributed generation of green energy will be the best scale for most residential commercial energy users, the most affordable and sustainable option as well. Do you really want to see the beauty and economy of this valley further degraded by a glaring Twin Tower monument to haste, stupidity, greed, and waste, while paying a heartless corporation for what? Who would really benefit us gullible local yokels or the global Energy Barons? Under corporate control, this valley will become an industrialized extension of the Great Sand Dunes. When? When the gas, oil, and water are too scarce for profitable exporting, the energy vampires will move on, leaving their twin towers behind when they are too costly to maintain. It seems wise to ask Mr. Salazar and President Obama to help stop Big Power exploitation in the San Luis Valley now. What happens here affects all the properties, communities, and tribes downstream, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Truly wise community resource use and truly sustainable ecological planning policy are equally important for all of us and our children.

11