On July 18th, after a grueling spring and a dry, hot summer, Garfield County in Utah was added to the natural disaster list gathered by USDA thus making it eligible for federal emergency assistance funds because of the worsening drought. Crops were being devastated, farms were in trouble. Everyone was feeling the impact of water that wasn’t coming.
Five days later, Heather Grossman of the Utah division of Natural Resources made a presentation to the County Commissioners about the exciting and important beaver translocation program they had developed in conjunction with the forestry service and pretty much every other brilliant mind in the region. The deceptively simple idea is that beavers placed in adequate locations upstream will preserve and protect water flow downstream, and help keep Utah’s memorable landscape hydrated. The financial impact of beavers was even studied in the recent report from the Grand Canyon Trust which concluded:
The ecosystem services that could be provided by increased dam-building beaver populations in the Escalante Basin would provide benefits in the form of avoided costs for water storage, habitat restoration, and water quality treatment (Table ES1). The services would also supply a number of other identified and demonstrated direct and indirect benefits in the basin. Based on beaver population densities observed elsewhere in Utah under similar conditions,beaver could provide benefits to local residents and visitors well into the millions of dollars per year.
Armed with fiscal impact data and an impressive collaborative management plan from the Forest Service, Heather described how they had walked the dry streams to pinpoint adequate habitat, and calculated the area for tolerance, received training in flow devices from an expert in Massachusetts, and advice on safe relocation from an expert in Colorado. Heather explained how they’d carefully relocate beavers from impacted areas to those very areas where they could best make an impact. Maybe she showed this film, or maybe she didn’t. The commission doesn’t post minutes
Well on August 13th the Commissioners wrote back the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and said thank you very much. but no thanks. Even though we’re thirsty and haven’t seen a puddle in months, and you’re the department of resources we don’t actually want THOSE resources because beavers are ‘icky’ and controversial. We thought about it for three whole minutes and know better than every scientist in the state. We plan to protect our drought by keeping out beavers and don’t ever ask us again. Never mind that beavers help climate change and birds and fish and reptiles and raise the watertable so that our wells won’t run dry and never mind that Garfield County will host the very first ever Beaver Festival this year in the state and folks from all over will come learn about beavers and how they impact the watershed and possibly how foolish we’re being. Our minds, (hermetically sealed cavernous chambers that they are), are made up. No beavers for Garfield. We have decided to keep worrying about the drought instead of allowing it to be mitigated.
No word yet on whether the commissioners have hand written letters to every constituent explaining their decision and apologizing for the fact that even though their daisies are wilting, they’re been told not to flush, and their children haven’t been swimming since last summer they are still voting to prevent ‘water-savers’ from being moved into their county. They know what they’re doing. Beavers are controversial.
Hmm… I’m thinking of creative ways to use the upcoming festival to pressure the commissioners to have a change of heart. Bobbing for beavers? Rubber beaver races? Or maybe just a big dunking booth labeled “let beavers fix our watershed” and the commissioners lined up one by one along the top! Yeah, I like that idea. Big teens waiting in line to throw the winning ‘beaver ball’ that is going to hit its target and drench all of Garfield.
