Mesquite’s response to Virgin River flood scrutinized

Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2005 | 9:17 a.m.

Federal agencies and an environmental activist joined Mesquite officials Tuesday to look at the city's response to flooding on the Virgin River.

The meeting took place a day before a conference should bring together many of the same people for a look at the flood response.

Mesquite used bulldozers and explosives to channel the river after flooding damaged or threatened homes and public infrastructure. While city officials claimed, and continue to claim, that emergency conditions authorized their work, environmentalists and federal officials expressed concern.

Some of those who toured the flood response had sharply contrasting views of what the city did and what it might need to do within a few weeks to avoid more damage from feared spring runoff.

Daniel Patterson, an ecologist with the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, went on the tour of the work. His group has strongly objected to the flood-control efforts along the river, which is home to at least five endangered species of birds and fish.

"You have to see it to believe it," Patterson said. "The city of Mesquite actually went into Arizona and bulldozed part of the river in Arizona. It's a lot worse than I thought. There is quite a bit of destruction of endangered species critical habitat on public lands."

Bryan Montgomery, Mesquite city manager, said the city has responded to an imminent threat, and the work it is doing is important not just to protect the homes, a school and other public infrastructure but to preserve some of the habitat itself, which could be affected by more flooding.

Montgomery said city officials were to meet with federal officials today for the consultation that they required to allow work to go forward.

The federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management, did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday. Kirsten Cannon, BLM spokeswoman, said the agency would reserve comment until after the meeting today.

Montgomery said the threat of further flood-related damage is "of grave concern," because some of the precipitation measures along the Virgin River's sources north of Clark County are hundreds of times the usual average. That precipitation is now locked up as snow, but when it melts, it could mean more flooding downstream, he said.

The federal agencies and the city agreed on a two-step plan to resolve flood and habitat concerns last week. In the short term, the city would take steps to protect property from further damage. The longer-term response would protect habitat.

"We're talking about days and weeks for the short term," Montgomery said. "The longer term may take months."

Montgomery said environmentalists may never be happy with the city's response plan.

"We may not be able to address all of his (Patterson's) concerns," Montgomery said. "If he just wants nothing done to that river, that's probably not realistic, even to protect the river."

The Center for Biological Diversity, however, has already sent a notice warning of a lawsuit if the flood response continues in a way that could harm critical habitat. Patterson said the threat is still very much on the table.

"We're real concerned that the endangered species act is not being enforced," Patterson said. "It's a very bad precedent and word gets around... We have endemic species in the Virgin River. There is critical habitat on the river that is absolutely needed for the recovery of those species."