A short story about the Animas River highlighted the complexity and importance of taking into account all aspects of changing the river and riverbed. The issues involved are beyond “split-the-difference” notions of compromise.
The story (Herald, April 3) concerned a Thursday meeting of the Animas River Task Force, a stakeholders’ group, held to discuss the future of a stretch of the Animas upstream of the Main Avenue bridge. The Animas River Master Plan, approved by City Council, envisions improvements in the area, primarily for safety.
Also included, however, are plans to include new boulders to improve the experience for rafters and boaters. And that is where things get interesting.
The safety work is not controversial. The river banks need to be stabilized and potentially dangerous trees removed. That work needs to be done from any point of view.
The addition of the boulders, however, is not nearly so clear cut. A Parks and Wildlife biologist said the boulders could hurt prime fishing areas. That, he said, is both because fish tend to avoid whitewater areas and because that kind of water attracts greater numbers of rafters and kayakers.
Along those same lines, a Trout Unlimited spokesman said this project could make anglers feel as if construction on the river was never-ending. A water-sports advocate, however, said he thought whiterwater parks can create fish habitat.
In any case, he said, his group’s plan is to “try to make it work with the fishermen.”
That is admirable, as far it goes. And it must be said that all in attendance have a heartfelt love of the river and an honest respect for each other.
But the fate of the Animas cannot come down to a compromise between kayakers and fishermen. The river belongs to us all: property owners along the banks, people whose only interest is to stroll along the River Trail or dabble their feet on a hot summer day, downstream water users, those who would only watch and listen, rafters, boaters, anglers and, yes, even the often-cursed tubers have legitimate rights and responsibilities. They, too, deserve a voice.
And, while they cannot be heard, the health of the fish population and the river itself must always be considered.
Meetings such as Thursday’s can go along way toward resolving potential conflicts between some river users. They should not, however, be thought of as representing all those who should be considered.
