Log In


Reset Password
Columnists View from the Center Bear Smart The Travel Troubleshooter Dear Abby Student Aide Of Sound Mind Others Say Powerful solutions You are What You Eat Out Standing in the Fields What's up in Durango Skies Watch Yore Topknot Local First RE-4 Education Update MECC Cares for kids

Show support for requiring quieter or no-wake boating on Lake Nighthorse

Now that the environmental review for the Lake Nighthorse Draft Recreation Master Plan is before us and public comment is due by May 25, those who originally spoke in favor of a quieter lake or no-wake lake five years ago can voice their comments once again. Ideally, others will join the fray. Yes, gas-powered motors will be on the lake, given the Wallop-Breaux funding requirements, but a quieter, no-wake lake might be negotiated if enough people support the position.

The current “reduced footprint” for recreation is less than half of the original acreage – essentially, the lake and a narrow band around the lake remain. While high-speed boating remains in the preferred action plan, that issue was the most debated during the hearings, forums and workshops in 2010-2011. Why not revisit lake recreation as everything else has been revisited? Water-based recreation merits the same kind of scrutiny or reconsideration given all the rest.

The multiple draft changes since 2011 were not part of a public process; they came from the Animas-La Plata Operations, Maintenance and Replacement Association, Durango’s Parks and Recreation director, the Bureau of Reclamation and a number of lawyers.

My recent review of all eight pages of 105 written public comments submitted in 2010-2011 for the Master Plan Draft, showed overwhelming support for non-motorized or low-impact boating. The original debate had been framed for motorized vs. non-motorized use until the ramp funding bind reared its head (requiring gas motors) during the hearings. One unidentified government official wrote “gasoline-powered boats must be allowed but the size of the engines is negotiable.”

I keep hearing from power-boaters and trollers alike that this lake is too small (about 1,000 acres if you remove the no-wake section) for water skiing and high speeds. Even speedy bass boats are designed to get to far-flung places, and there are no far-flung places on this lake. Yes, I revere quiet use and still do not understand how one small segment of our boating community can suck up all the stillness this lake could offer. Decibel restrictions and mufflers were put in place for the neighboring communities, but what about those on the lakeshore or in the lake? Anglers generally appreciate no-wake areas, and yet their voices have been rather quiet on this issue. The city seems to think speed boats will bring in bigger fees. Really? Aren’t there questions about the city’s ability to face another substantial financial obligation? Going big is not always the best solution.

A lake with such a beleaguered history, so close to a population that values quieter connections to our surroundings deserves a better fate. The tribes are firm about environmental and cultural considerations and the Bodo family’s original intentions for this revered basin were to keep it a wildlife area into perpetuity. Others have said we have a potential gem for a lake “different” that could be truly exceptional for nature enthusiasts and quiet users alike.

This subject will remain controversial. Upon leaving the public open house after the design workshops at the fairgrounds in January 2011, someone asked me how I felt about the Draft Plan. I expressed dismay about the high-speed motorized allowance, and she wistfully said she wished the high-speed issue could be voted on by the community. That comment came before Durango’s Parks and Recreation director swooped in to volunteer as the manager. Perhaps more community discussion or even a vote needs to take place before a noisy, choppy lake is a reality.

The 2011 two-day-long “design workshops” for water-based recreation left unanswered questions in my opinion. Might that be a bigger discussion for another day? I am told that six people were consistently at the water-based recreation table and that only two of those were in favor of high-speed boats. Should the bureau’s preferred high-speed, water skiing plan have been decided by two people and a facilitator who seemed bent on bringing the group to this supposed consensus? I wish transcripts or minutes were available from those meetings.

The Draft Assessment is available online at http://Whywww.usbr.gov/uc/progact/animas/index.html. Written comments are to be submitted by email to jliff@usbr.gov. A copy of the document can also be received by calling Justyn Liff at 248-0625.

Kristine Johnson, of Durango, is a longtime conservationist who holds memberships with a number of local and national environmental groups. Reach her at johnson.k@bresnan.net.



Reader Comments