

Aspen vote signals future for rivers and hydropower

By Matt Rice
Guest Commentary

Aspen citizens sent a powerful message in November when they voted against the Castle Creek hydropower project despite strong support from the city of Aspen and the Aspen Ski Company. [1]

The vote was significant, not only on the local level, but on the state and national levels as well. It sent several powerful messages: 1) Never underestimate a group of concerned citizens and their commitment to protecting their local rivers; 2) Hydropower projects and any other sort of renewable energy development must be designed to incorporate community values; and 3) Conventional hydropower that harms rivers is not the future of renewable energy.

The debate over the Castle Creek project divided a community committed to environmental sustainability and pitted high profile environmentalists and community leaders against each other. The outcome, a close non-binding vote against the project, may not result in Aspen abandoning it, but it does send a clear message to hydropower developers beyond Colorado’s most famous mountain town.

All hydropower dams impact river health, and many cause major damage. If you have ever driven east on I-70 through Glenwood Canyon you have likely seen the Colorado River completely dry in the section below the Shoshone Hydropower Plant. Hundreds of hydropower projects operate like this, leaving stretches of river completely dry degrading habitat, water quality, and limiting recreation.

The Castle Creek hydropower project’s design reflects the 19th century thinking that has so damaged rivers across the country. The project would divert a significant percentage of the flow from Castle and Maroon Creeks, sentencing almost six combined miles of the creeks to a state of drought for several months a year. This is a puzzling project coming from a city that prides itself on its environmental leadership. The stated purpose of the project is to replace coal fired power generation to mitigate global climate change. This is an important goal, and we should be doing everything we can reduce carbon emissions, but it begs the question: does it make sense, in the name of renewable energy, to destroy the very resources we are trying to protect from climate change?

All of the most productive locations for dams have already been developed over the past 100 years. What’s more, our society now places a high value on healthy rivers for clean water, fishing, and boating — values that sustain healthy economies and communities. Hydropower projects that disproportionately impact the environment are no longer necessary. Cost-effective alternatives exist, like improving efficiency on existing projects and installing hydropower on existing dams and irrigation ditches.

To support these alternatives while minimizing adverse impacts on rivers, wildlife, and recreation, American Rivers is working with the hydropower industry and a bipartisan group of members of Congress to support the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act and its Senate companion bill, the Hydropower Improvement Act. These bills incentivize the development of low impact hydropower.

This is the future of hydropower development. Aspen’s vote signaled that the future is now.

Matt Rice is director of Colorado Conservation for American Rivers.