# Gross Mountain Reservoir



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*What's the effect of 125' of loss on USBC?*

Anyone have access to a Topo map and can tell what the end effect of this is? My mindset at this point is that this is a muchbetter option than de-watering something else. (Like the super pipe from the green).


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 26, 2006)

Here is the draft EIS: https://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/html/od-tl/eis/moffat-deis-docs.html

There is a ton of info there but if you look under the executive summary it gives all of the options with a few maps showing the expansion, the all are around 100 feet of elevation added to the dam. This really sucks because that is going to get mighty close to the best rapid on the front range.
We have until January to give input into this, hopefully we can stop it but it looks like it is going to happen.
-Tom


----------



## El Flaco (Nov 5, 2003)




----------



## CUBuffskier (Jul 7, 2005)

Also looks like the best cliff jumping spot on the front range will disappear.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

I can't see how expanding the resevoir would make a dam bit of difference. The foot print is small. Isn't the Frazier River basically dewatered already?


----------



## foreverhard (Apr 14, 2009)

FrankC said:


> I can't see how expanding the resevoir would make a dam bit of difference. The foot print is small. Isn't the Frazier River basically dewatered already?


This is the kind of thinking from which we need to evolve. Each new water theft is always justified partially by the idea that "it's just a small percentage". Currently, over 60% of the Fraser River's water is being taken out. This already sucks. The new water firming projects want to raise that amount to 72%. To the idea of a dewatered Fraser River, I say Fuck You. And give the water back!


----------



## tellutwurp (Jul 8, 2005)

Before you preach, if you are from the front range, ask yourself, where am I from. 

That is the real problem.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Ya gotta pick and choose your battles. This one probably isn't worth it. Not all dams and diversions are bad in my opinion. Look at how the Blue Mtn Resevoir keeps the Blue and Colorado Rivers running all summer. Also, the supplemental water from the Twin Lakes/Roaring fork diversion keep the Ark running until Mid August. All this would be kaput by July if it wasn't for the dams. 





foreverhard said:


> This is the kind of thinking from which we need to evolve. Each new water theft is always justified partially by the idea that "it's just a small percentage". Currently, over 60% of the Fraser River's water is being taken out. This already sucks. The new water firming projects want to raise that amount to 72%. To the idea of a dewatered Fraser River, I say Fuck You. And give the water back!


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

There is a hearing tonight in Granby and Thurday night in Boulder: American Whitewater - Public Hearing added for Denver Water's Moffat Collection Project

I think the issue is not so much raiding Gross, as it is the stolen westslope water from the CO and Frasier Rivers. 

I thought this was pretty much a given, as it was part of an old agreement to not build 2 forks Dam on the South Platte.

I'm not sure, but I think it only adds about a third of a mile of flat water to USB and would not flood the last big rapids.

For Tom and Christian, it should add a significant high water season to USB as well as extend the season in the lower canyon.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

*Meeting in Denver tonight, 12/3 Thursday*

There is a meeting at the Stapleton Doubletree Hotel TONIGHT. I will be attending and hope to see many others that can make it. My points will be that the Fraser River is already horribly dewatered, and that the expansion must not destroy anymore of the Upper South Boulder Canyon, which includes the some of the greatest whitewater on the front range, namely RIMBY. I hope to see others there.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

Unfortunately I can't make this tonight, but I wonder if someone could post the significant arguments on each side from these meetings? I'd like to at least send some intelligent written comments.

I'm still unclear whether or not the added capacity would impact rapids on USB. Does anyone have a definitive answer? That certainly seems important from the whitewater community's standpoint of recreational impact. 

Personally I tend to be against most of these types of water projects at this point. We don't really solve any problems with this type of project. The Front Range is desirable place to live with a large number of employment opportunities. Because of that people will keep coming here. All that a water project like this does is allow more development until we once again have the same shortage of water as before (if not worse since people seem to always overestimate the benefits of these projects and developers always adopt these best case estimates). I think people supporting these either do not have any long term vision for the community and are merely looking out for their own benefits, or they see them as stop-gap measures with the hope that some technology revelation will lead us out of the mess. Unfortunately history has generally frowned up populations overextending their resources.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Well said. I will post some of what is said at the meeting.


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

Dave, 

You may know better than I but to me it looks on the map like it would flood at the very least the entire run-out to RIMBY if not the whole rapid when it would be full to capacity.


----------



## xkayaker13 (Sep 30, 2006)

Based on that map, and other topo maps RIMBY will likely be gone. RIMBY is located on the end of the straightaway in which the new reservoir capacity would fill up to. The run out will definitely be gone, the boof will likely be under water, and the entrance to the RIMBY may be above still. Regardless, the entire rapid should still be exposed during early season when the reservoir's level is low. The flooding of the rapid could cause other issues though. 

In my opinion, USB doesn't need much more water during peak runoff although it may help extend the season. USB at 1500cfs? I'm not so sure about that idea. haha


----------



## teleski1 (Nov 8, 2004)

Ignorance!!Kill a river ========kill a valley not only the Fraser is affected here......fuck you Denver fuck you Denver Waterboard. Water some more sidewalks........


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

To telltwurp and telliski, you are both idiots. This issue is much larger than some east vs west pissing match. This is not some gain to the front range or Denver kayaking community. This is the death and alteration of the Fraser River (which is already pretty dead), the Blue River, and the loss of flows to the entire Colorado basin. It is high water Gore and Barrel Springs. It is the destruction of the bottom .4 miles of the Upper South Boulder run, and the destruction of the most scenic parts of the run, the parts of the run that are furthest removed from the railroad. It is the addition of 3/4 miles of flatwater to the lake paddle out. It is the alteration of flows to South Boulder Creek which are already horribly unnatural, and often run to high during the season, because they add as much water as they are allowed, based on a percentage of the natural flow. It makes high water higher, and the shoulder seasons drop off more quickly so that are runnable window is shortened... if the place would even still be worth running. It is the destruction of RIMBY, one of the only wilderness waterfalls in the Denver/Boulder area, and the affection of it being Right In My Back Yard should be noted that this is Denver's backyard. It's boulder's back yard. It's Wigston's backyard. It is the further alteration of flows in the Lower South Boulder Canyon. They will justify the other destruction by increased flows on USB, which does little good since most of that water will be pumped into the newly proposed Leyden Gulch Reservoir, and that water will never make it to our legal access point in Eldo Canyon. 

This proposal will negatively affect every kayaker in Colorado. This is not some east vs west, summit vs front range, native vs non-native issue. This is an issue that every kayaker that wants to continue kayaking needs to deal with now. I was in a room last night of roughly 50 people. Three kayakers showed up. Myself, CWWA access director, and a paddler that works for Denver Water. Out of the six people that spoke last night, every single person was opposed to the project. Everyone was either a politician or worked for Denver Water. Hopefully someone will show up the meeting in the mountains, since bitching about it here is doing little.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

My impression of this project was it is going to happen one way or another. Being at the meeting did it seem like they were taking comments to make the best decisions or just taking them because they are obligated to? The unfortunate part of this is they will go where the money is even if it is destructive and unethical.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

It's very easy to ignore 6 of us in a room of 50-60. 

I will be at the next meeting to voice my concerns. I will do what I can to stop this project. I won't sit and watch our best double black drown and simply accept that we will get more powder on the greens and will be able to ride the same. This is bullshit. I will at least fight for what I can. 

December 8th — Keystone Conference Center, Keystone (10633 Tennis Club Road, Keystone)


----------



## doublet (May 21, 2004)

Cutch - Thanks for being on this and sorry I was unable to make last nights meeting (and will likely be unable to make the Keystone meeting.)

Is there someone we can address public comments to? A targeted e-mail/letter writing campaign could possibly be quite effective.

KSC makes good points above that I would like to include in some written comments somewhere.

RIMBY is in my top 5 fav rapids on the Front Range and it would really suck for it to sink. Also, for everyone but Christian USB season will be shortened by this. The unnatural USB flows already suck as USB goes from 200 to 1000 in under a week and often drops back to 200 in under a week.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I skimmed through the draft EIS. This seems to be a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Seems like the proposal calls for drawing more water out of the Fraser and Williams Fork and routing it through moffat to SBC and into an enlarged gross reservoir. The alternative seems to be taking the extra water from the blue river and delivering it through roberts to through bailey. Seems like the colorado river basin will see diminished flows regardless of whether the gross enlargement goes through.

Individuals can submit comments on the draft EIS through january 2010. While I understand the value of USB to the V+ community, this is a very small user group not likely to be valued by the decision makers. Paddler opposition should focus on bigger picture issues. 

I did a bit of research last night and came across some numbers that might be used to oppose the project. Average denver water customer usage is around 160-170 gallons per person per day. Denver water has around 1.3 million customers. Sante Fe has apparently been in a significant water shortage for years and has reduced per capita usage from 168 gpd down to 101 gpd over the course of a decade or so. If Denver water were able to see those kind of conservation successes, by my numbers you could reduce demand by 90,000 acre feet annually. The Gross project numbers state 16,000 acre ft from conservation, and 18,000 acre ft from gross will meet the anticipated 34,000 acre ft projected increase in demand. Sante Fe has already demonstrated conservation success, that if replicated could reduce demand by 3 times the projected demand increase from Denver water.

As in the case in many situations it is far cheaper to use conservation to get a gallon of water than it is to build new supply for a gallon of water. I think that this proposal should be open to a fair challenge on how how aggressive the conservation should be. Perhaps the boating community could rally some opposition around the lower cost conservation option and have some numbers to back it up.

I still think a mississippi pipeline to the front range, desalination plants in cali, and free flowing rivers throughout the entire western united states would be better, but there is a slim chance of that every happening.


----------



## farmer (Apr 30, 2004)

Cutch, thanks for the heads up on the Keystone Meeting. I will make sure to get the word out to all the raft company/kayak crew from WP/Granby area. I know a few company owners are already getting into the mix over that way. I will try and make the meeting.


----------



## doublet (May 21, 2004)

DSP also makes really good points. The loss of RIMBY is really why I care about this (I'm a selfish bastard...) but in the grand scheme of things we should be against this because it is unnecessarily stealing water from the West Slope (i.e. Gore/Barrel/Shoshone/Westy/thirsty west slopers) to support something that is entirely unsustainable.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 26, 2006)

I think the better argument to address this is from the western slope point of view and how it would negatively affect business in the area (because everything is about money). I will try and read through the EIS after finals and write them a letter. I think I am with tyson on this one also, that for me the main reason for being against the project is USB, maybe it all just flushes at 1500?


----------



## teleski1 (Nov 8, 2004)

Yo Cutch I,ve been called worse but growing up next to the Fraser for my entire idiotic life sure has me a bit steamed over what is happening...It is sad to drive the pipeline and see our high mountain creeks with but a trickle coming out of them... Then to go to the city and to see conservation isn't happening with grassy medians, sidewalks,streets watered etc..etc... and seriously Cutch quiz a few folks who aren't rats whether kayaking or fishing and see how many are aware.....idiots......Ha!!!!!!

On a more subtle note Fuck you Denver Waterboard


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I don't think the economics of the west slope / fraser valley is a strong argument. What is the economic impact of taking more water out of an already reduced flow watershed? Whatever that impact may be, its going to be far smaller than the economic benefit to denver that the extra water would supposedly support.

To me it is a strong argument to point out that they will spend a bunch of money to make the dam higher when it would be much cheaper to conserve. 

One other thing is that and environmental impact statement is supposed to identify impacts of a proposal, and if it is approved, there are usually mitigations to impacts. There are usually secondary impacts, and the final record of decision will attempt to address the impacts and impose mitigations to minimize the impacts.

A potential impact might be flooding of excellent whitewater. A possible mitigation might be managing reservoir levels to keep the rapid exposed if at all possible when flows are in the range when boaters paddle USB. The EIS says that the res level will be lowest in april before the runoff, and highest sometime in june or july. There is a document in the EIS that notes the overall percentage increase in flows though USB, but this is annual water movement, and no note is made for instantaneous cfs flows. One question would be, how in detail would reservoir levels and diversion flows change under the new proposal. 

I'm going to write a letter in opposition of the proposal, and asking for mitigations of the lost whitewater opportunities if the proposal goes forward.

In general I just wanted to point out that simply wishing RIMBY wouldn't be flooded in of itself is not an argument that the folks running the EIS are likely to do anything about. Opposition usually takes the form of 1) bitching and moaning, or 2) concise issues that raise valid points in the realm of decision making. If you write letters or go to the meeting, do your best to keep your opposition away from the bitching and moaning type. Bitching won't get you anywhere in the EIS process, and no one really cares to hear anyone bitch. Technically all comments submitted in the NEPA process must be addressed in the final record of decsion. Bitching comments are simply blown off as not valid. Valid concerns and issues will likely either 1) kill a project or 2) result in mitigation measures.

Examples of bitching and moaning comments... "fuck denver water, this sucks"

Example of valid concerns... The proposed action will flood 1/3 to 1/2 a mile of one of the front ranges premier whitewater runs and will have a damaging negative effect on local recreation. In addition the project will spend money to create extra supply, but conservation would be much cheaper. If the project does go forward, mitigation to ensure that minimum impact to recreational opportunities on south boulder creek above gross reservoir should be incorporated in the record of decision.

The project also claims that one of the justifications is to help reduce the vulernability of denver waters supply. A large percentage of denver water is delivered though the south platte system, and the concern is that catastrophic events on the south platte system could leave denver without water. In reality, the extra 18,000 acre ft in gross would be a drop in the bucket compared to denver waters total needs, and a small increase in gross would not significantly change the reliance on the south delivery system.

In summary, its OK for your reasons of opposition to be a loss of whitewater. If you really want the best shot at fighting this, you should include stronger arguments that are bigger in scope.


----------



## phlogistonrich (May 1, 2009)

I attended the 12/3 public hearing on the Moffat Tunnel project:
· What does a 72,000 acre-foot expansion mean to the paddling community?
o *For the expert paddler:*
o The increased footprint of the res would mean that (at least) the last .4 miles of the Upper South Boulder Creek run (the final rapid section, named “RIMBY”) would be, as the Denver Water folks put it, “inundated.” A nice way of saying “destroyed by flooding.”
o Furthermore, even slightly raised water levels above RIMBY could result in the disappearance of eddies that paddlers count on for scouting, setting up lines, etc
o Consequently, the flatwater paddle-out across the Gross inlet would be extended—kind of a pain in the ass for already tired (possibly freaked out) kayakers
o The change in flows/levels _could_ effectively shorten the USB season
o All told, the proposed changes would affect the region’s premier expert run
o (I learned most of this from Kyle McCutchen)

o *For the intermediate paddler:*
o To keep the res full, lots more water will be diverted from the Fraser (Colorado) drainage, through the tunnel, and down USB
o This means that the peak (1000+ cfs) will be longer and go later into boating season
o Based on projections, the run-up and drop-off from peak flows could be extended, but it’s hard to say (couldn’t get a very good answer from Denver Water) —could effectively lengthen the Alto Alto season, which would actually be good for the intermediate paddler
o Bad for the immediate paddler: The Fraser Canyon, which as it stands hardly has runnable flows, would hardly ever run if more water gets diverted through Moffat
o Again bad for the intermediate paddler: Based on some graphs I saw, the Moffat project could result in reduced fall Blue releases from Green Mountain Res. Wouldn’t mean that the run would be lost, but could mean that peak flows would be lower and that the lower Blue season could be shorter
o (I learned most of this from graphs, the EIS, and dialogue with the Denver Water folks)

· I got up and spoke my piece, voicing opposition to the increase in the dam size, increased dam flows, etc

· I would strongly encourage people interested in this issue to make their opinions known
· The fourth hearing that was supposed to be at Keystone was cancelled due to inclement weather. It will be resheduled for January of 2010
· For more info on the next meeting, and the propsal in general, see
http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/Planning/FutureWaterSupply/WaterSupplyProjects/Moffat/

Finally, yes, I agree with both Frank and Dave. Ya gotta pick your battles, and this one might be the least of proposed evils. However, additional diversion would really dick over those who live on the west side of the Moffat tunnel. Ultimately, as long as people keep moving here and the Front Rangers continue to lust after non-indigenous green grassy yards, the water demand will go up and up.


----------



## alanbol (Jun 3, 2005)

An alternative to raising the dam and diverting more water:

85% of water in CO goes to agriculture. (The vast majority of that goes to grow hay and alfalfa for cows.) So, based on that fact, there are alternatives (that nobody here talks about).

1. Front Rangers could pay to line all the ditches (and other measures) to conserve ag water and then use the "saved" water. 20% water conservation on the ag side doubles the water available for the urban front range. 

2. Front Rangers can just flat out buy water from farmers. 

I know this doesn't address the here and now of Gross Reservoir, but when you get push-back from folks saying that we absolutely have to divert more water from the western slope, you have a reply.


----------



## nathanfey (Jun 7, 2006)

Hey Kyle and all,
Tonights meeting in Keystone has been cancelled due to weather. The Army Corps will reschedule for January. FYI.



Cutch said:


> It's very easy to ignore 6 of us in a room of 50-60.
> 
> I will be at the next meeting to voice my concerns. I will do what I can to stop this project. I won't sit and watch our best double black drown and simply accept that we will get more powder on the greens and will be able to ride the same. This is bullshit. I will at least fight for what I can.
> 
> December 8th — Keystone Conference Center, Keystone (10633 Tennis Club Road, Keystone)


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

I have just gotten off of a 4-day Desolation Canyon trip, and at 35,000 cfs, the rapids were amazing. But what was a million times more amazing were the riparian ecosystems up and down the river. SO FULL OF LIFE! Dams kills lizards and lots of other important things. They are all bad... This Gross Rez issue is heating up again as the last round of permits are under review. If anyone wants to discuss or be on the citizen action list, drop me a line.


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

I'd love to be in that loop; I thought it was pretty much a done deal?


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

there's a renewed citizen action against the Gross Dam expansion. The last few permits are expected to be issued over the next 6 months or so. We are trying to stop these from going through. People are also organizing for litigation if all else fails. 

EVENT TO ATTEND: Public meeting in Coal Creek canyon (Hwy 72 between Golden and Boulder) on Thursday, July 21st at The Coal Creek Canyon Improvement Association (CCCIA) 31528 HWY. 72. P. O. BOX 7331 GOLDEN, CO 80403. The meeting will begin at 7:00pm. Please plan to speak out and make your voice heard. Each person can speak for up to 3 minutes. State Senator Jeanne Nicholson and Rep. Claire Levy will host the event and representative from Denver water and the Division of Wildlife will also be there. PLESE COME AND BRINGS FELLOW BOATERS AND CITIZENS. 

Join us on facebook: Stop Gross Dam | Facebook - for info about the progression of the project and for ongoing action items and ways you can help stop this and other dams in Colorado.


----------

