# Could a whitewater park be done in CO?



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

You build it and they will come. I being one of them. We have talked about asking water world if they would let us in on the last day of the year they are open. Something like that. But i tell you this if i didn't have to ski in the winter i wouldn't. I just do it to pass the time.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

IF you are going to do a closed circuit pumped whitewater course in CO, I think it should definetly be an indoor facility. If you did that, you would do quite well since there are alot of us that would love to get our boating fix in the middle of winter. Hell, if people are willing to spend 350-1000 bucks on a ski pass, I would imagine that they would be willing to spend similar amounts on a season pass to an indoor whitewater course. Otherwise, I'm not sure that kind of course has much more to offer then the existing river fed courses.

JH


----------



## benrodda (Mar 27, 2004)

So here are some random questions around this whole topic?

I thought that the one in athens had some kind of assistance from the tide?

How many CFS do you think Disaster Canyon at Elitches flows? I think that a theme park in Atlanta opened theirs up for olympians to train or something like that? Is the one in Charlotte going to be a closed circuit?

I know that a place in LA has opened up two artificial waves similiar to the one at Water World. Even though they are really probably too shallow for Kayakers maybe their is something to be learned from the commercial aspect of wha they are doing.

This is a fun topic I think.

If we can find a pump that could provide anywhere from 400- 600 CFS and pump it up to a hight of around 10-20 feet that would be really cool I think.... Is that even possible?

ben


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

oh thats possible, they've done it at the last two Olympic venues, and now the Charlotte park too. The one in Athens (the greek variety not the southern american one) used Sea water since it was the closest available large water source. The Penrith Whitewater stadium has a standing pool that doubled as the Crew venue to feed theirs. I'm not sure about total flow for those parks, but I do know that its more then substantial for their needs. The Athens park had a ton of water going down it. The coolest part about it was that at one point the river goes over a bridge over itself.

Another option is to do releases, meaning hold back the water in a catching pool at the top until it gets high enough and then let the water go. This would reduce the amount of water you would have to pump on the go but at the sake of only being able to boat in 15ish minute increment or something.

I think an indoor whitewater park would be a viable business in Colorado. You'd likely have to open it to more then just kayakers though, as we are only of limited numbers. As much as I hate to say it, Raft trips down through there would make it much more financially viable. I guess this topic begs the question, how much would you all pay to use an indoor whitewater park?

JH

p.s. I think they should make a super clean 15-20 foot waterfall on the course too. JH

p.p.s As for the Elitches "river ride" part, the time they did it in Atlanta was when that area was in drought and the traditional course didn't have enough water, so it was an act of desperation since people from all over the world had showed already. Its only been done once as far as I know, and didn't get a whole lot of favorable mention. Hehee....funniest part I heard about was that they had a gate right after the dark tunnel, and nearly everyone missed it since they got blinded coming out of it. One cool thing is that it probably offered some of the best spectating ever for a slalom event. JH


----------



## wrob (Aug 18, 2004)

Check out this park! http://www.charlottewhitewater.com/ If anyone is interested in actually pursuing something like this I'd be really interested in getting involved


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

I think this is a really cool idea and I would definately pay for a pass to a place like this. I think my cost threshold would be around $300-$400, depending on how close it is to home (and how good it is). I thought the idea of releasing water in spurts was an interesting concept. I know on the Madawaska River in Ontario, the dam releases the majority of their water from 8:00a.m. to 4:00p.m. to maximize the recreational use of the water. So, on a large scale I know that the idea works. However, I don't know how large of a holding tank would be required for a sustained flow of an hour or more. If the intervals were any less than an hour you would definately face some serious crowding problems, though. Also, would the ski areas have issues with water going to purposes other than snowmaking? If this could be done so that most of the water is continuously recycled, I don't think this would be an issue. Anyway, really cool idea.

COUNT


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

The ski areas would be the least of our worries when it came to water use, as they have virtually no water rights themselves (they are allowed to borrow the water for the winter, as all they are doing is spraying it on the side of a mountain and then letting it drain back into the river they take it from). Its more the agricultural interests you would have to worry about here, but I don't think it would be an issue. If the water is collected and then kept until it is put back into the water system, then its usually not an issue (Water World for instance).

If you were gonna do it, you'd just have it be a continually recirculating stream that flows down to a catch pool where it is pumped back up to the top again. In order for this project to be able to work financially, I think it would almost have to be in the Front range rather then in the mountains. I just don't think there is enough boaters in any single area to justify the large expense of building this kind of thing.

As for releasing in spurts, it would have to be a huge catch pool to do this. Just think....if you wanted it to go for an hour at 400cfs, that means that the pool would have to hold 1,440,000 cubic feet of water, which is a ton. You'd also have to have an equally large resevoir for it to go pool up in the bottom. You'd have to reduce it down to significantly less flow or less time (I will admit that I didn't think about this when I mentioned it earlier) then would be desirable. Fortunetly there are pumps that could handle this kind of thing, but they are huge and expensive and cost a decent amount to power, but its been deemed worthy in other cities so its probably something that could do well here.

JH


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

How about having a kayak day at Waterworld when it would otherwise be closed. Perhaps we can convince Waterworld to do it or someone can rent it for a day. 

Do it on a warm day in October or perhaps April. Us Colorado boaters are used to the cold. So what if it is only 50-60 degrees outside.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

That would be sweet...I doubt the suits would let it fly, though. Liability and all that jazz.


----------



## benrodda (Mar 27, 2004)

I just dont know if water world would be all that cool to be honest. I dont think anything is deep enough for it to be fun. 

I would pay for a membership to a place like this.... think of the fact too that if it were indoors you could have sessions well into the wee hours.

ben


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Hmmm..as if my wife needed another reason to divorce me.


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

I have put alot of thought in this idea. Run it like a ski resort, big hotel, resturaunts and season passes. A large circular pool with tow to the top. Five to ten features highligting a real spot across the world. Have it begin with a super clean (for the masses) 10' waterfall followed by the New River Dries wave, Super Wave, Salida Hole, Lachine, Zambezi Special...you get the point all with great eddy service.

A huge circulating pool with a hot tub and a bar in the center. A one time large use of water and then you just need enough water to keep it filled. Boat shops with rentals, a cantina and other things they have at Vail. If Coors can build a stadium they could sponsor there own boating resort.

I would agree that it has to be indoors and in Denver. People would come and train from all over the country and keep the hotels filled. Season passes for $350 and $55 for a day pass. I would and alot others would travel there at least a couple times a winter and fall and if done correctly alot more. I pay way more than that ski all over the west. Keep it open until midnight and have a life guard just like the water parks. Frontranger could get off work and surf all night.


Damn, what a tease!


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

It's been done already. Mind you, not for the mountain set, but the Surf scene in CA. Check out http://www.wavehouse.com for the bruticus maximus. here is another review http://www.surfshot.com/items/magazine_item.html?context_id=259&item_id=587


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

Man that stuff doesn't count. You can't do anything on it. It's about .25 inches deep. You can't do anything on it. I wish to god that you could


----------



## cstork (Oct 13, 2003)

A full recirculating kayak course like in Athens is real expensive. How about a wave pool instead? You should be able to make the wave large enough to be interesting. I've seen video of those in the US somewhere.


----------



## wrob (Aug 18, 2004)

large pool at bottom, small one on top, 2-3 seperate channels, one for teaching/learning circles the outside with mellow features, one steeper with more aggressive features, maybe a creek channel with waterfal options on the side, ability to change the features around... Pumps, conveyor belt, a big hanger type structure, retail, school, race program, mid winter rodeos, swiftwater training for boaters & rescue teams, climbing wall, ropes coarse, teambuilding programs... run it like a rock gym... heat it with passive solar, flatwater lap channel around the whole thing. Without a constant inflow of water its gonna take a whole lot of chlorine..


----------



## Ron (Apr 21, 2004)

I too would love to kayak all winter. I do as much as I can anyway. Ice and all, but I would hope we wouldn't be the cause of having to build more dams or power plants to pump our "fun" water. One reason I choose to skin up the slopes instead of ride isn't only because I'm cheep, but I hate for the earth to have to put out more resources to move my fat butt so I can play.


----------



## Logan (Sep 11, 2005)

*here is a small verzion of the waves you are looking for*

http://www.awmtechnologies.com/features.html


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

I want one of those in my backyard. That would be sick. I wish that the wave was taller and deeper. I'm not sure if you could do anything but spin on those waves. But if i ever get one you are all invited to a clean spin competition


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2005)

i can't wait for the charlotte one to open up, it sounds really cool. i think this would be really cool in places like memphis, dallas,etc. , where there is no real whitewater, but close enough(with in 5 or so hours) to whitewater to have boaters. if i lived in memphis(thats where i'm from) i'd be there everyday.

i talked to one of the designers of the charlotte park and he said part of it will have solid class 4-4+ rapids, super good for training.

cheers 
shagg


----------



## knu2xs (Sep 12, 2005)

Has it occurred to anybody to create a supplemental pump system to existing whitewater parks in the area?

There are already a number of parks in the area offering the type of recreational experience you are searching for. If a park required 800 cfs to be "optimal," however only was flowing 400 cfs, you could crank up 400 cfs of supplemental flow and produce a 800 cfs flow through the play park. There would be no water removed from the riverbed, thus no infringement on water rights.

Further, since the features are already there, the only expense would be to install and maintain a pump system. This would be much more manageable from a both fiscal and liability standpoint.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

knu2xs said:


> Has it occurred to anybody to create a supplemental pump system to existing whitewater parks in the area?
> 
> There are already a number of parks in the area offering the type of recreational experience you are searching for. If a park required 800 cfs to be "optimal," however only was flowing 400 cfs, you could crank up 400 cfs of supplemental flow and produce a 800 cfs flow through the play park. There would be no water removed from the riverbed, thus no infringement on water rights.
> 
> Further, since the features are already there, the only expense would be to install and maintain a pump system. This would be much more manageable from a both fiscal and liability standpoint.


I have definetly heard this idea before too and its a good one. The main thing you would have to worry about is whether the river below where things are being pumped is too dry, and also river sediment going through the pumps. Since you would be drawing water upstream from the pumps and not allowing it go downstream, its definetly gonna cause a loss of water downstream. Obviously it would only be in spurts but its an issue none the less. The sediment issue is less of one since I am sure there are ways to filter it before it goes through the pump.

Another cool thing that might be possible with this is to have it be partially hydro-electric powered. If you were to have it flow down a grade before it went into the pumps, it could first go through a power turbine and then into the pump system. It probably wouldn't be able to power the pumps entirely, but it would at least cut down on how much you had to pull off the grid to run the park. You could also leave it going when the pumps are not in use and contribute power to the grid and maybe make up even more cost. 

Lastly, I do think that an indoor course would be something we haven't seen yet, whether it be a building built over an existing river or just something built from scratch. I do think it would be succesful and would draw crowds, but it would be quite an investment. Making it ecologically safe would be very cool, with Solar Panels and the like to at least heat it. I'd definetly be part of this project if I had more money, but as it is I am only a lowly kayaker with not much capital.

JH


----------



## 217 (Oct 27, 2003)

clear something up for me...supplemental pump system would only cause a decrease in the amount of water for a few minutes right? and since the water levels in CO streams change so much anyway i'm confused as to the problem.....


----------



## knu2xs (Sep 12, 2005)

double-a-ron said:


> clear something up for me...supplemental pump system would only cause a decrease in the amount of water for a few minutes right? and since the water levels in CO streams change so much anyway i'm confused as to the problem.....


You are correct. Yes, initially a flux. However, as almost all of us are well aware, this would quickly be mediated only a few miles downstream. Water does an excellent job of smoothing out fluxuations.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

well........the way I was thinking of this is that if there is 400 cfs, and you want 800 cfs, then you are gonna have to pull most of the water out of the river at some point and pump it back upstream. Therefore at the least the water flowing downstream will be severely cut off for a time. I suppose that it wouldn't be for too long, but that initial time could have an effect. 

Yes, flows vary quite a bit in CO, but not usually this quickly, with flash floods being one of the ways it does happen. You would also have to worry about what happens once you allow all the water to go once the pumps are off, as it will send a surge. Its not really a huge issue, you would just have to be aware of it.

After thinking about this a bit, the only place where something like this would be particularly usefull would be a place like golden, that experiences low flows for much of the year. I'm not sure that doing something like this at golden is all that great of an idea, as taking it from 180 cfs to 300 really doesn't make the park all that much better. For the rest of the year when its flowing allright you wouldn't need it. I do think you would have to design the park around this type of system so that it could take advantage. There is also the obvious issues of safety and having an inlet to the pump at the bottom of a course where tubers and the like will be. I'm sure you could design something that would be fine, but it still is an issue. Obviously there will be a bunch of stuff like this that a planning commitee would have to worry about.

JH


----------



## knu2xs (Sep 12, 2005)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Obviously there will be a bunch of stuff like this that a planning commitee would have to worry about.
> 
> JH


With such through consideration of the issues required to successfully execute such a project, it looks as if we have a very qualified committee chair.


----------



## earthNRG (Oct 24, 2003)

We would not be limited to only doubling the flow through any particular section of river. For example in Golden: if we wanted 800 cfs, but only have 150 cfs of natural flow, we would need pumps with a capacity of 650 cfs (More capacity would be better so we don't over stress the pumps). When we first turn the pumps on, they will only pump 150 cfs (there's only 150 cfs in the streambed). Once that gets dumped back in upstream there will be 300 cfs. Now the pumps can pump 300 cfs, puting 450 total through the park. This additave effect continues until we are pumping 650 cfs, meaning we have 800 cfs running through the park and the natural flow of 150 continuing downstream from the pumps.

If we turned on the pumps this way then downstream flow would be zero until we reached our optimum flow through the park. However, we could start out by pumping only 50 cfs, and gradually ramping up the pumping speed to maintain a reasonable, environmentally sound flow downstream from the pumps.

If we were to be serious about this line of thinking the Golden park (or wherever this thing gets put) will have to be reworked so that the one hole that's any good isn't the only hole worth playing in. Additionally, the now free, public park will have to start charging users. That's the inevitable fact of having a park that will need a large, constant inflow of money just for upkeep.

The catch pool issue is not hard to solve. Golden already has one just below Ford St. where Coors collects water from Clear Creek. The hydro-electric plant is a good idea, and would help mitigate the operational costs. 

Hmm... maybe I should change my senior design project to a fesability / design study on this idea... Anyone out there want to sponsor me for that?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

knu2xs said:


> Electric-Mayhem said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously there will be a bunch of stuff like this that a planning commitee would have to worry about.
> ...


Who me? I would love to be on the commitee, but being the chair wouldn't be my bag at all. The main reason being that I am in such an unstable place as far as where my location will be for the next year or two. I'm definetly not at the place where I could be able to afford to put in the time or be able to commit to being around for as long as it would likely take. I would be all over giving input, even if I have no real background in this area. Fortunetly there has already been stuff done similarly to this, at least as far as using pumps to run a whitewater course. They may not have used it as a suplementary system with the whole ramping up idea, but its definetly been done on a large scale (ala Penrith, Charlotte, and Athens) so I am sure we could make it work here too. 

FYI, my vote would be to either avoid Golden, or tear out most of the drops and start from scratch. I think its reached the limit of tweakability and may need to start from a clean slate, mostly referenced by the fact that almost every tweak they have done has made the given feature worse. I think Lyons or the South Platte (union probably) would be better places to do it.

Also, I think the indoor whitewater center is an even better idea. Accesible and heated year round paddling in Colorado is something that would be truly unique and I think it could be a viable business. Obviously you'd have to do some financial planning research to really see, but I think its got good potential.


----------



## juan (Jun 1, 2005)

Just a thought on this. Obviously you need to pump water through the system, and back up to the top, most likely at least 20-50 feet of head to have enough fun, (falls, drops, etc..)

I just worked on a job where we priced out pumps for an industrial use, and the estimated cost for 1 pump with 35,000 gpm capacity (77 cfs), is $1 million, with the power required to run it. So, you can see the costs getting pretty crazy on something like this.

That said, its a great idea, and I've thought of it myself many times. The pump issue is probably just an obstacle, not a fatal flaw-


----------



## knu2xs (Sep 12, 2005)

juan said:


> Just a thought on this. Obviously you need to pump water through the system, and back up to the top, most likely at least 20-50 feet of head to have enough fun, (falls, drops, etc..)
> 
> I just worked on a job where we priced out pumps for an industrial use, and the estimated cost for 1 pump with 35,000 gpm capacity (77 cfs), is $1 million, with the power required to run it. So, you can see the costs getting pretty crazy on something like this.
> 
> That said, its a great idea, and I've thought of it myself many times. The pump issue is probably just an obstacle, not a fatal flaw-


Surplus pumps from water-pumper fire engines...

Also, this is an outdoor recreation development project, thus there are monies available through the Land and Water Conservation funds. Further if these monies are used, the park they are used in is protected through perpetuity. This means the area is protected from any eminent domain or non-outdoor recreation development by the authority of the Department of the Interior. Although this limitation must be carefully considered, it can sometimes be a very benificial clause to have protecting a park.


----------



## PARKER (Apr 21, 2004)

Man, this whole idea is well and good but your taking some of the beauty out of living in Colorado. Boat and Boat like hell when there is water. When the water drops, Seek out the water but don't be afraid to get on a bike or go for a run. Get your heart rate up a little so when the snow flies and your breaking trail through waist deep fresh you don't blow a lung. THEN, when the temps start climbing, sit back with 12 PBR and start training for the run-off. You wouldn't want to go into the season with an out of shape liver.

Embrace the seasons folks.

Plus, This seems like a huge waste of resources. Lets not do anything more to encourage the current administrations "need" for energy. we already drive enough with shuttles and road trips. 

:?:


----------



## OpenBoatBob (Nov 3, 2003)

*WWplaypark dreaming*

Great discussion. I work at the REI Flagship store in Denver. We've been exploring this idea as well and want to partner with others to make it happen somewhere in the downstream proximity of Confluence Park, as the City is considering plans now for what to do with that area. One thing that I would like to explore that may be an additional plus for the community is the potential for the facility to clean the water as it enters the facility and then leave it clean as it exits back to the river; a conservation boost which would both aid the environment as well as paddlesports impression on the larger community. Although I'm guessing that this could entail a range of additional costs to those currently being discussed here, some kind of filtering has to be considered. Anyone who has rolled in Confluence Park knows that it is not a healthy environment. It's officially "Class B" municipal water for health, which means it's considered "safe for floating upon, but not immersion within." Let's continue to explore this and find ways to act upon it.


----------

