# Be There - Stop Gross Dam Expansion Meeting with Boulder County Commissioners -



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

Boulder County Commissioners: Public Meeting to Hear Citizen Comments Regarding the Expansion of Gross Dam (The Moffat Project)

What: Public Mtg. Gross Dam Expansion
When: Mon., Sept. 12, 2011 - 4:30pm to 7:30pm
Sign-Up to Speak: Starts at 3:30pm
Where: Boulder County Courthouse
1325 Pearl St., 3rd Floor, Boulder, CO
Attire: Wear Blue - River Water Blue!

We did it! We sent lots of letters to the Boulder County Commissioners explaining the problems with the proposed expansion of Gross Dam. We requested a public meeting before the County Commissioners. They received our letters and have agreed to host a Public Meeting to hear our concerns about the Gross Dam issue. It is important that we get as many people to show up and voice concerns as possible. Each person will have up to 3 minutes to speak. Please plan on making a comment - no matter how brief. It is very important to let the Commissioners know that the opposition to this project is strong, multi-faceted, rational, and community-wide and that we believe it is their duty to stop this project.

More information is available on the TEG (The Environmental Group) website and on the Stop Gross Dam Facebook Page. Check back often. Both are updated frequently.


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

I'll definitely be there! We are planning a rally starting at 2:30! Bring your Kayaks and inner tubes and wear blue! Thanks for posting this!!


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

oh yea - and dress for the river - life jackets, fishing rods, helmets, scuba gear, whatever.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

How about posting some of the cons of this issue like how it negatively affects boating, fishing etc....


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

good idea! Here's a bunch of info here: THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP (TEG) - HOME


----------



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

The Moffat Expansion and raising Gross Dam over 150 feet higher than its current height (that's double the height). Pulling water from the Frasier, through the divide, and then storing it in an newly expanded reservoir in the Foothills outside of Golden and Boulder, but the water is for Denver. Hmmm, sounds like a bad idea just by the sound of it all. This project, if allowed to go through, is just going to add to the problem of sucking our rivers dry, eventual lower flows and shorter flows. This type of project is not the direction we need to go in as Coloradoans. We need less dams and more regulation on growth that wastes our precious water. 

They plan to pull water from the already hurting Frasier River, and this will lead to the Colorado receiving less also (the Colorado has not reached the ocean since the mid to late 1990s, and the delta is a mess). Water temps in the upper Colorado and other rivers are rising, and this will cause temperatures to rise more in the river, which is not good for the fish. This project will hurt the watersheds. This is bad for boaters, fishermen, outdoors people, hunters, and all of us, since we depend on these watersheds and riparian zones as our sources of clean water and recreation areas away from the cities and flatlands.

This dam will also bring a new concrete plant to the mountains outside of Golden and Boulder, and they are going to remove thousands of trees. There are Elk that winter in this area, on Winiger Ridge, with no other place to go really, so they may be displaced and never return, since this project will last 10 years, and the concrete plant will be running 24 hours a day and logging will be going on for a good part of those years. It is known that Elk will leave an area and not come within several miles of logging operations. Natural habitat will be flooded and drowned, including part of a popular Class V creek run on South Boulder Creek, now the paddle at the bottom of the creek will involve less creek and more reservoir to paddle, fun. What about the dozens and dozens of huge gravel trucks that they want to drive from the plains and up Coal Creek Canyon every day for 5 - 10 years, causing huge traffic problems and safety concerns for cyclists? There already is no shoulder on most of that road. Dangerous. And I know how much all of you enjoy driving behind slow trucks in Canyons.

It is the same story as the crazy Flaming Gorge pipeline. We don't need it, and if we don't say so, they won't stop and it's going to lead to the destruction of more rivers and streams. Maybe in your backyard next?


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

The construction alone sounds like reason not to build the thing. I had no idea it would be that big.

I hadn't thought of it this way, but do they essentially build a new damn behind the existing one? Its not like you can just add rebar and epoxy on another 150 feet of concrete to the old dam.

I'll be there to object.


----------



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

There's a diagram on the TEG Coal Creek Canyon website, that shows the dam expansion, but not really sure exactly how they'll do it.


----------



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

*World's Largest Kayak Drum Circle*

World's Largest Kayak Drum Circle
We Can Stop Gross Dam But We Gotta Make Some Noise!
2:30pm ~ Monday, September 12 ~ 1325 Pearl St., Boulder, Co ~ Courthouse Lawn

It's official, a Rally is planned immediately preceding the Gross Dam Public meeting with the Boulder County Commissioners! The Rally will include the World's Largest Kayak Drum Circle!! And we Need YOU! Bring your boat, bailing bucket or other instruments. Bring your friends. Wear Blue, Dress for the River, and get ready to boogie. 
The Rally will also include a special presentation by the Earth Guardians, a Public Statement Writing Workshop and informational tables. Plan to stay for the Public Meeting and let the Boulder County Commissioners know you want them to stop Gross Dam. Public Meeting starts at 4:30pm at 1325 Pearl St., 3rd floor (Boulder County Courthouse). Arrive early to sign up to speak.

Go to www.stopgrossdam.org for more info


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

Drum circles and dressing like river rats? Seriously, ask a couple regulators what they fear. Ask a couple reporters what sells when attempting to sway the public. A bunch of pearl street lawn sitters is not going to sway public opinion. A well spoken spokesmen who present like the guy or girl next door will go farther than a drum circle vagrant that no one wants sitting next to them because of the smell.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but come on man!


----------



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

"Drum circles and dressing like river rats? Seriously, ask a couple regulators what they fear. Ask a couple reporters what sells when attempting to sway the public. A bunch of pearl street lawn sitters is not going to sway public opinion. A well spoken spokesmen who present like the guy or girl next door will go farther than a drum circle vagrant that no one wants sitting next to them because of the smell.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but come on man!"

To put it frankly, we don't appreciate your negativity. How do you know how i or anyone else who will be there will be dressed? And i might add i don't stink so keep your bigotry and racial opinions to yourself. Everyone involved has put in serious work to get this meeting to happen, including countless letters to the Boulder County Commissioners, speeches and presentations by various members of our community. This would never be happening in the first place if it was being done by, as you put it, a bunch of stinky unkempt people. Serious volunteer time and money has gone into this fight by members of our community, and we need all of the people to be there making some noise. The reporters will definitly be there to cover what is going on outside, as well as the details inside the courthouse. We need everyone to turn out, and river rats should not be discouraged from coming and showing that they care about this. And besides, not everyone wants to get up and speak, and they won't even allow everyone to speak as time would not allow it, so actually we need to make some fucking noise.

As far as well dressed spokes people, we got that too, we have more than a few, and they will be certainly be talking to the County Commissioners, that's what this is about. Will you be there? There is a sign up list about an hour beforehand, and you can sign up to speak, so stop being negative, get off your ass, and come help out.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Canada said:


> Drum circles and dressing like river rats? Seriously, ask a couple regulators what they fear. Ask a couple reporters what sells when attempting to sway the public. A bunch of pearl street lawn sitters is not going to sway public opinion. A well spoken spokesmen who present like the guy or girl next door will go farther than a drum circle vagrant that no one wants sitting next to them because of the smell.


I agree with Canada.

RPM and BackyardAgrarian, its an unfortunate truth but its still a truth: If you're going to walk in the halls of power to lobby decision makers, you don't want to look like the guy that mops the floors at night. You're setting up a perfect Channel 9 puff piece where the anchor chuckles as he runs the video of the freaks drumming.

I saw how folks were dressed at the HB 1188 hearings a couple of years ago, and a lot of us looked like scruffy river rats that hadn't shaved or bathed in a week. The legislators we were trying to persuade probably weren't too impressed with that.

Forget dressing like you're heading to the river. Go into your closet and pull out the button down, jacket, tie, slacks and shiny shoes. Spend $10 or $15 sending it all to the cleaners getting ready and look sharp and well-groomed when you go. Get educated on the pros and cons, and learn how to speak the language of the regulators and people you want to persuade, or find someone that does and make them your spokesperson.

We're a tribal species. It doesn't help to look our cause to be perceived as members of some other strange, foreign, and disrespectful tribe when you want to pursuade conservative policy makers. As for "making some noise" please ask yourself when the last time was that someone persuaded you to their position by making a ruckus.

And be ready to answer the question: "So how _are_ we going to meet our water needs when the Front Range population is expected to grow by 20% in the next 20 years?"

What are the alternatives to the expansion? Do you have economic and environmental analyses that show they'll be better than the propoesd expansion? There are probably a lot of folks that think enlarging one high-altitude reservoir is better than building another one someplace else and compounding the environmental problems even more. Those are the ones you'll need to persuade.

-AH


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Trying to give helpful advice, not rip you down.*

I have no dog in this fight. I am not a radical. I'm just attempting to demonstrate how this appears to the general public. Some of the costumes present at the state for the river access bill, were not the most helpful. Certainly, they provided some catchy screens shots for the local news, but they did not further the access agenda in the eyes of the public.


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

Dear Canada - Please be sure to introduce yourself to me at the rally. I look forward to smelling you myself and determining whether you are qualified to be so condescending. 

Andy H. - It sounds like you really know what you are talking about. Is that why development in Wheat Ridge has been done so spectacularly sustainably? Great work over there in sprawl land. You guys and your wasteful water use is actually the problem here - Your civilized attire doesn't make you civilized, smart or thoughtful my friend. 

But seriously, I have no idea why you both have this unconscionably negative impression of community activists. We have an incredibly intelligent and well organized group of citizens with a well formulated and multi-faceted strategy giving it their all to try to save the Rivers of Colorado. You should be supporting us or better yet, spend some time marketing the issue in the way you think will work and let's all pool our talents, time and resources to make something good happen. You are simply completely mistaken in your comments. It's not your fault for being ignorant but why not start with asking some questions to get yourself up to speed rather than being dicks. Hope you can make it to the rally and public mtg. 

peace and lizards,


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

ps. Not that we shouldn't dress nice, but here's a photo of Boulder County Commissioner Will Toor, one of the 3 commissioners who have scheduled this meeting at our request. Will Toor, Boulder County Commissioner | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Be open to constructive feeedback.*

You have obviously been boating for years and actively advocating for access issues for decades.

When an adult attempts to steer an agenda in a direction positive for his cause, he is called radical and condescending?

What do you want the picture to look like on the five o’clock news? Ask AWA if they liked the focus of the 5 o’clock news pieces on river access being a guy with a cut off kayak on his head. The developers know what they are doing. They filled the room with ranchers who talked about their being on this land for generations, and tourist defecating in their yards. 

Getting people out is great and important. When attempting to sway public opinion, first impressions matter. You are up against suits with millions at stake. They understand how to do this very well. Be open to some feedback from someone who has been to the dance a few times and lost and won.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

RPM,
Your cause is worthy and your efforts are certainly appreciated,but you may undermine them by playing into public perceptions of Boulder as some hippy dippy 'Peoples Republic' with a drum circle.The media will undoubtably show the freakiest people not the more thoughtful ones.Take the Seattle and Genoa WTO protests,to this day whenever it is brought up, they always show clips of people with 'scream' masks,trench coats and blue mohawks,not the thousands of 'normal' protesters.Their concerns have largely been validated since then but they are taken much less seriously because of those perceptions.
On the other hand ,it may help draw attention to your cause.Thoughtful serious people getting 15 seconds of air time are not likely to sway public opinion much.It is a balancing act i guess.

Andy makes a great point about posing alternatives,obviously conservation and more responsible developement are key,but that is a hard sell in a time desperate for economic growth.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Agrarian,

I'd expect we've got a lot more in common than you imagine right now, especially as you seem to have decided I'm "the man" and responsible for all my community's wrongs over the decades. If you'd seen me the last couple of times I spoke at WR Planning Committee meetings, or we sat down over a couple of beers you'd have a better feel for my views.

My comments aren't ignorant. I've just been to too many protests for good causes over the last few decades, seen eloquent people make intelligent and persuasive arguments and then seen the news coverage focus on the handful of raggedy nutjobs that show up and froth at the mouth. I'm sick and tired of seeing causes I support set back by people that think a protest is something out of the 60s and don't consider the audience they need to convince. Protesting isn't something for fringe groups in tie-dye. Its here, today, and if you want to be persuasive with powerbrokers then looking like someone on the margin of society isn't going to help our cause.

As for getting up to speed on the issues, I hope you're familiar with the playbook the folks you're talking to will be using. 

If you want to see all the major and minor projects on the drawing board across Colorado, start with the "Municipal and Industrial Gap Analysis" at the top of the documents available for download.

-AH


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

I totally agree with you and I truly would love to hear your thoughts and lessons from your experience. Redefining what our society thinks of as Progress is a big job and will take lots of collaboration. Thanks for your continued engagement on this vital issue.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

I would like to hear what you think a less impactful alternative would be? Before you say it, not having blue grass lawns is not going to make a big enough impact to stop need for water supplies in the future. 

Also, strong point in getting support by calling Andy out for Wheat Ridge and the Boulder County Commissioner for how he dresses. Those points really made me want to get dressed up in kayaking gear and come help you out. If you want support a little more tact could help.


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

hey nathan, 

I think watering lawns and the pavement that inevitable gets watered along with them is important because it demonstrates that we as a society don't take our water use seriously. It also represents a significant majority of household water use so i think it needs to be looked at. 

But you are right - 80% of Colorado's water goes to agriculture, much of it junk food agriculture at that. People think Ag is a sacred cow and don't want to suggest reducing water allocated for Agriculture - but there are far better watering methods that could be used. we can't really deal with our state's water issues without reducing Ag water use. One disincentive to conserve is that we are a Use it or Lose it state so farmers have to use their water or someone else will. Without a real or rational statewide water plan that focuses on leaving as much water in the rivers as possible, no farmer has any reason to use less. this has to be dealt with - and it has to be dealt with across state lines since so much Colorado River water also goes to agriculture in California. 

Second, we have to prevent water from going to natural gas hydraulic fracturing. I know people want to be energy independent and it burns cleaner than coal, but it also uses extraordinary amounts of water and it poisons ground water reserves each and every time. The industry is engaged in a huge push for massive fracking expansion in Colorado and this has to be stopped. We will not only drain our rivers for it but destroy our underground water supplies as well, and we have cleaner energy options options that as a matter of policy we should be focusing on instead. 

Also, cities around the country are reexamining their building codes and refining them to require more sustainability requirements. I think we would be well served to do that here and really take a hard look at how we can reduce water use in residential and office buildings. Great strategies have already been developed and now we just need to implement them.

Another thing is that the distribution system for water is terribly leaky. Money slated for diversion and dam projects might be far better spent fixing leaky pipes than in taking more water out of rivers. As an aside, this also helps prevent contamination from getting into the water system. 

Basically, we are a Local Rule state. That means the legislators at the state level can't stop a project like this. they have told us we have to go to our local governments and somehow convince them to use their 1041 powers to take the big huge step of stopping dam and diversion projects. Given the 100 year momentum for building dams, we know we are asking a lot but our rivers are really on the verge of collapse and we want Boulder County (Gross is inn Boulder County) to stop this project so that we can create a statewide discussion on what the heck we are doing with our water resources. The citizens haven't had a say in the many compacts and agreements negotiated and it's time we do. 

The population of Colorado is expected to double by 2050. The rivers are on the verge of collapse so we can't realistically take any more water from them, despite the big drive to do so. No one is manning this ship. So - the only real solution is to cut in half our per capita water use to accommodate the growing populations. We need to stop building dams and figure out how to do this. All of our futures depends on it. I certainly don't have all the answers but I would like to help put the brakes on ever more water diversion projects and create a statewide discussion about what we SHOULD be doing and how to go about doing it.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

Thank you. That was a well put explanation that shows what you are trying to accomplish. 





BackyardAgrarian said:


> But you are right - 80% of Colorado's water goes to agriculture, much of it junk food agriculture at that. People think Ag is a sacred cow and don't want to suggest reducing water allocated for Agriculture - but there are far better watering methods that could be used. we can't really deal with our state's water issues without reducing Ag water use. One disincentive to conserve is that we are a Use it or Lose it state so farmers have to use their water or someone else will. Without a real or rational statewide water plan that focuses on leaving as much water in the rivers as possible, no farmer has any reason to use less. this has to be dealt with - and it has to be dealt with across state lines since so much Colorado River water also goes to agriculture in California.


In my opinion this is what needs to be addressed in Colorado and until it does we will continue to be looking for more water sources to bring to the Front Range. Until there is incentive for Ag to use more efficient systems all around the water issues will continue to be big in CO. As it is right now there is only incentive for Ag to be inefficient because of the use it or lose it policy in the state water law. It will cost money to upgrade to efficient systems and then they are going to lose the water right for the water they don't use. It's a no win situation for the water right holder and until that changes conservation is not going to be an acceptable answer for water shortages.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Water is too cheap on the front range.*

People don't realize how precious a commodity it is. My annual bill below the blue line in Boulder was less than an average summer month bill in my current community. When water gets expensive, people start to xeriscape and conserve.

Like gas. Everyone was chugging around in big SUV's a decade ago. When gas spikes suddenly it is attractive to conserve.

This is amplified when you tie in agrarian water rates. Go to towns that were historically arid planes in Colorado and see the greenest lawns and all the field systems being slow creep overhead impulse. Probably the most inefficient systems in agriculture, but also the cheapest to put in. Agrarian rates are unbelievably inexpensive when compared to the residential rates you front rangers are accustomed to.

From a river access issue, Gross Mountain is a complex one. We will lose one great rapid. If other canyons are dammed as an alternative, we could stand to loose entire runs. The activist side of me says don't give an inch. The realistic side of me asks if this the battle to invest in?

So, I support your cause, but also stand by my initial comments. Don't allow your argument to be tempered by going out and beating a bunch of drums. Don't give the press the easy way out. If one of your cause shows up in a green Speedo, that is all the public will see. If you all show up looking like the neighbor we would love to have, you have a 10% chance the press will focus on the substance of your argument. That is 10% better than if you go and beat drums and wear costumes.

Andy, thank you for articulating my point much more eloquently than I can.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Andy and Canada - you guys are on the right track  Agriculture as we know it in Colorado is not sustainable in it's current form, to change the way we irrigate is expensive and the only way to make water conservation attractive to agland farmers and city dwellers alike is to hit them in the wallet.


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

Farms are very important in order to keep a sustainable country. Without food production, we won't last long. It is more important than energy. However, the economics are such that farmers are not wealthy people. Most barely make ends meet, yet they provide the nation with our food supply. Hitting them in the wallet for the cost of irrigation water will likely put family farms out of business, and allow only large corporate farms to exist.

These farmers realize the value of water and know that that value will only increase over the years. That is why they are smart enough to hang on to as much as they can. The more water they have a rights to, the more their property is worth. The problem with the Prior Appropriation Doctrine is that it doesn't do much to encourage efficiency. Like our style of government, it isn't perfect, but it is probably the best out there until we can come up with something better.

I think the issue can be fixed under the current system if the state would be more aggressive in enforcing beneficial uses that go with the water rights. If technology allows for more efficient farming of a certain crop, then the state shouldn't allow water rights as if they were flood irrigating. By the state being more strict about the amount of water that can be used per acre for a certain crop, farmers would be forced to find ways to stretch their supply. However, as I mentioned before, this could drive many farms out of business. So the issue is very politically sensitive.

My personal opinion is that the farmers should keep all of their water as long as I continue to see on the front range: gardens in the street medians, acres of city-owned turf grass, and landscape fountains that run in the heat of the day. It pisses me off every time I am on that side of the mountains and hear about how they need more west slope water.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Rivermanryan - if the gov't would quit subsidizing corn and start subsidizing farmers who actually grow nutritious foods it would be much easier for family farms to survive.

I agree with your statements but my family has been farming without irrigation since before I was born so I know a family farm can survive without irrigation - perhaps not in Colorado but then again maybe we should revisit agriculture standards in the west completely.


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Bumping for the Meeting tomorrow (9/12), at the Boulder Courthouse.


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

really looking forward to seeing you there dave!


----------



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

Thanks Guys! See you there. Looks like we will have a good turnout and have a lot of folks who want Boulder County to hear their opinions. Even some county commissioners and people on the water board coming from the other side of the divide to say they don't want this dam and water diversions to happen. Good stuff!


----------



## Chief Niwot (Oct 13, 2003)

Hope to be there too!


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

I'm going to be there as well. I'm going to leave my boat at home, and show up well dressed with some photos of what I'm fighting for, and alternative ideas that I believe are better.


----------



## goldcamp (Aug 9, 2006)

I second Canada's opinion that a bunch of routty boat bangers is counterproductive to stop expansion of the dam. Arm yourself's with solid information about the negative impact of the dam, the displacement of elk habitat, disruption of recreation, disruption of tourism, increased traffic in coal creek canyon. You can bet the proponents of the dam will have thier ducks in row with the myriad of reason they feel the dam is neccessary.


----------



## rpmcolorado (Jun 8, 2011)

Glad you all are coming! Do whatever you think is best to sway the County Commissioners opinions. What matters most is that we all play a part. 

PS - Check out the front page article in today's Boulder Daily Camera!!

PPS - some folks are going to be there as both boat bangers AND as eloquent speakers on the pertinent subjects and speaking points


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Pretty big turn out, though much more of Coal Creek resident, than a boater contingent.

Lots of eloquent speeches as well as some emotion.

The County Commissioners know that many of there contingent are very against it, and that it is a big sacrifice for Boulder with no upside, beyond those that appreciate Arvada's ability to sprawl.

I went in thinking this was a done deal, but maybe its not.

there were 2 speakers for the project: A Grand County Commissioner and a Lafayette Water manager, who says they get some guarantees of in-stream flow minimums for SBC to support fish, and of course his little Baseline lake.

Sounded like Grand County has been promised some upgrades to get them on board. Specifics not mentioned, beyond him saying they are on the G. County website. 

The Boulder County commissioners have the power to stop this, if they are brave enough to do the right thing and support a legacy of conservation as opposed to supporting a legacy of destruction for other's developmental greed.

Fingers crossed.


----------



## BackyardAgrarian (Jun 22, 2011)

Big thanks to Kyle McCutchen, author of Whitewater of the Southern Rockies, and Dave and all the boaters who showed up to the public mtg. The level of knowledge about the Colorado River Basin waters and the RIMBY rapids within Boulder County gave an added depth to the discussion that was really interesting and thought provoking. 

One of our community members overheard the county commissioners talking before the meeting started. They were amazed that there was an overflow crowd! We definitely succeeded in getting enough people there to make a big impact. 

I second Dave's thoughts on the level of discourse. People's comments were amazing, inspiring, smart, and overwhelmingly reasonable!! If you weren't able to make the meeting, you can drop a line to the commissioners and let them know what you think: [email protected]. 

Onward!

peace and lizards, 
~ liz


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Any more details from of what was said? Did the boating community oppose the enlargement only, or did the community support other options?

As I understand it, gross expansion was the favored alternative by environmental groups back when two forks dam was defeated. At the time enlarging gross was deemed to be a lower impact solution than flooding the south platte canyons. It seems to me that a key push for this is denver water's identified supply gap in the future and additional drought contingency that hasn't gone away.

My guess is that if gross enlargement doesn't go forward that some other means to get additional water supply will go forward which would likely be 1) buying up agriculture water rights, or 2) a new dam. Buying up agriculture water rights could significantly impact farmers and plains farming towns. A new dam would have signifacant impacts too. 

One misconception I have heard is that some people think stopping water projects like gross will stop development and growth. This is untrue. Development (good or bad) will continue, and if projects like gross don't come forward, development will simply buy up agriculture water rights. 

I'm not advocating or opposing gross expansion, I'm simply pointing out that if gross doesn't go forward, something else likely will. If you oppose gross, you might be implicity pushing something else forward. 

In my opinion the best solution would be a western US regional strategy that looks at supply and demand across the west. I think that a mississippi river pipeline through the plains and to the front range would be able to supply the front range with water without drying and damming up rivers in the mountains. A mississippi pipeline project could also supply water the the plains where the Ogallala aquifer is drying up and will not support america's "breadbasket" indefinitely. This type of solution would enable colorado to minimize west slope diversions to the east slope and keep more water in basins that desparately need it. While we are at it, Cali needs major desalination plants to support its water needs.

I think we will be hosed in 50 yrs at the current piecemeal planning rate pitting city vs. city, county vs. couty, and state vs. state. The sad thing is that the money that was "unaccounted for" (ie lost or stolen) in the middle east wars could have fully funded a mississippi pipeline project. An extended severe drought could cripple the US west, and no one has a long term regional plan to address this.


----------



## Chief Niwot (Oct 13, 2003)

I was at the meeting too, as well as, the Nederland meeting last winter. 

Per Ian's comments, I was thinking the same thing this morning, if not this project, then what’s the next best option? Denver Water and the other Front Range water hogs are not going to stop their pursuit of more water and they seem to think they have done all they can in terms of water conservation. I would hate to see Two Forks come back in to play. The Gross expansion might be the best option? 

There were many interesting statements made by the speakers. Three, not exact quotes that got my attention:

-Denverites/Front Range uses 86 gallons a day per person in comparison to Europe and Australia; by conserving water, they use 40 gallons a day per person. 

-Another comment was half of the water used on the Front Range goes to watering grass. 

-The majority of Denverites believe a green lawn is very important or highly desirable, something to that effect.

If these statements are factual, then I believe we have a long ways to go in education and conservation on the Front Range, before we need more water. This is where progressive Boulder County might be able to find a legal out and say enough is enough no expansion and make this an issue on a much larger scale? At least conservation would give us more time for a more comprehensive plan like a Mississippi pipeline. 

I also read an article about a gravity water pipeline from a large flowing river in the Northwest to Colorado. I can’t find it, did anyone else read this article and can reference it? Edit Here it is: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1218263105159940.xml&coll=7&thispage=1


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Intersting link AJ. Sounds like folks on the other side of the divide have been thinking of using columbia river water for the southwest. One quote from the article was key to me...

"When desert cities -- enduring record drought -- reach the breaking point, water will have to come from somewhere. And water in the West is largely a zero-sum game: For someone to get it, someone else will have to give it up."


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

> Another comment was half of the water used on the Front Range goes to watering grass


Wrong. 80% of water on the Front Range goes to farmers. 7% goes to industry. 13% goes to Residential, of which 4% goes to grass. I guess 4% is half of 13%. 



> Denverites/Front Range uses 86 gallons a day per person in comparison to Europe and Australia; by conserving water, they use 40 gallons a day per person


Yes, but ........ the average water use on the Western Slope is 110 gallons per person per day, and the average water use in the US is 130 gallons per person per day. Aren't statistics great?


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

Seriously, the entire Western US system of irrigation farming needs to be revisited, the picture is much bigger than Gross expanding or the Front Range. This is an issue for all western states who utilize irrigation in farming, it is not sustainable in the long run. Even a pipeline will not prevent the over-salinization that occurs with any irrigation farming, within a few thousand years the ground will be too salty to grow plants. Welcome to Idiocracy and we didn't even have to use Brawndo.


----------



## Max's Dad (Jan 5, 2010)

basil said:


> Wrong. 80% of water on the Front Range goes to farmers.


This number may very well be correct. However, the water that "goes to farmers" is misleading in that it combines both crop irrigation and golf course irrigation. 

Since the crop irrigation and the irrigation of golf courses are not broken out, there was a study that estimated Colorado golf course water use for the year 2005. Below are some of the results from the study.


Golf courses irrigated 2.27 feet of water per acre, with a total usage of 56,184 acre-feet.

The source or the water used:
Surface water usage: 36,881 acre-feet
Ground water usage: 8,658 acre-feet
Public supply water usage: 4,484 acre-feet 
Grey water usage: 6,160 acre-feet

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1267/pdf/OF08-1267.pdf


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Basil, perhaps you should have shown up to the meeting with the correct data and explained to the board that you would prefer that the project go through so that you have less water in the Colorado River and more on the Front Range. Some folks did. Statistics can be factual or skewed bullshit, but the scope of this discussion focuses on diverting water or not. 

Ian, I like your points. I agree that it is a zero sum game. 

Having lived in Colorado on both sides of the divide, and having family ties that deal with both residential and rural water rights (though not agricultural) I feel like I can see a few sides to this argument. Living in Denver, as a direct recipient of more water if Gross were to go through, I would benefit through more guaranteed economic growth presumably. However, my neighbors and I have plenty of water (our lawn is dead but we have a few plants), and there is plenty of water to go around. There are two golf courses nearby. Denver is not facing a water shortage at this time, and much can be done to conserve more water that what we already are, or utilize it better with urban gardens over kentucky bluegrass. Denver is facing an inability to continue growing at the pace it has because we would run out of water. Being one of the largest city's not located on a major river this was inevitable. We already have an extensive diversion system in place, and it already takes a lot of water from the western rivers. 
Growing up in Grand Junction, it was evident that the place has an extensive system of canals, the majority of which seem gravity fed, and with tons of irrigation water to flow through the valley. The green trees grow where there is irrigation, and the arid desert is just beyond that line. It's relatively efficient use of river water that makes a relatively short deviation from the river. 
Contrast this with Denver and you are talking about a lot of pumps and extensive piping to get the water to where it needs to be at a huge financial cost to negatively effect the western rivers. I don't believe it makes sense for Denver to build themselves out of their water dilema by creating more diversions. Gross Reservoir may be a better alternative than the flaming gorge pipeline, but they are both temporary fixes to achieve the stupid idea of huge urban growth along the arid front range. 
I would rather see the money that goes towards huge projects like the Gross Dam project go towards public transit projects along the I-70 corridor (advanced rail), and encourage growth (assuming population growth is inevitable) across the state of Colorado where the water is already located. But those are other ideas. 

Beyond just flat out opposing the project, there are some things that could be done better. Although the statistics are contradictory, the amount of trucking that this will create along Hwy 72 is somewhere in the range of 1 truck every 3-5 minutes (assuming business hours), for 5 years. They are doing some slow consideration of alieviating this by using the rail road. It seems that if the project isn't going to pay for improvements on Hwy 72, then they should be moving the majority of the materials via train to the road above the dam.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I spoke with one of the Denver Water Operations guys about gross expansion. I'll relate what he told me (not supporting their claims, just relaying information to help inform)

He noted that Denver Water has a fairly large water right on the Fraser river but that they don't have much storage capacity in gross to store water for drought years. In 2002 denver water came very close to running out of water in gross and if that happens, that could leave the north end of the metro area without water in just a single bad drought year. While the project may be an enabler for growth, Denver Water see's it as a fix to a serious vulnerability in their current supply.

Another comment he made was that extra water would be brought over from the fraser in wet years, but that they wouldn't bring more water over in dry years. He pointed out that their water rights and tunnel capacity are in the 900-1000 cfs range. In wet years (like this year) they can bring that much water through the moffat tunnel, and indeed they did this year. In dry years, when the fraser doesn't even flow over 900 cfs, denver water will not be able to exercise the full water right and will leave in stream flows in the river. In 2002 denver water brought over about 300 cfs peak flow through the tunnel.

Denver water's concept is to add storage in gross reservoir so that it can store water in wet years and have the storage to make it through a drought year so that they won't run out of water for the northern part of the city. 

Denver water also projects a supply gap as early as 2016 that the project is supposed to help address.

From my perspective...

I've spoken with some folks who have been around for a long time who have a pragmatic view, and they think gross is the best option with the given that 1) denver water already has the rights to the water and thats not going to change, and 2) denver water will develop additional supply within its capacity to keep up with growth. You may be able to stop gross, but you won't likely be able to stop denver water developing additional supplies.

The bigger arguements about total population size in desert communities or long term agricultural needs are tough issues that require a much larger perspective and longer term thinking that most politicians and planners are doing now. I hope that changes in the future.

One thing I see neglected in this discussion is opportunity. As part of Denver Waters proposal they know that they have to mitigate impacts. They are proposing to give boulder storage in gross to provide instream flows for south boulder creek below gross reservoir. From what I read thats really just tiny flows in the late summer / fall so the creek doesn't dry up completely. What's absent from the discussion is mitigation for recreational flows. This is the perfect opportunity to point out that recreational whitewater opportunities on USB and the Fraser can be negatively impacted by the project and the the project should consider mitigations like planned releases on south boulder creek below gross, or planned flows on the fraser where denver water would shut off the moffat tunnel during peak flows to let peak flows flush the fraser and provide fraser river runners the opportunity to experience high flows.

How does this type of negotiation happen? One way is American whitewater. Right now there are too many issues for the limited AW staff (1.5 staff in CO right now) to tackle all of them, but increased AW membership in CO could help drive more CO projects. Join AW to help increase AW's CO presence. CO will continue to face issues like this for the forseeable future, and we need to develop the long term AW staff to help us with the fight.


Just my two cents...


----------



## jonny water (Oct 28, 2003)

Ian,

Very informative and fairly unbiased post. It's easy to jump on the band wagon thinking that all dams are bad, but we need to consider all points of views before condemning anything!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

I don't know details of the Gross reservoir area topography or alternate damsites but as a hydrologist I've got a few of thoughts on the matter after reading Ian's post above:

1) Denver Water's set on adding additional storage and its doubtful we'll be able to stop it from happening somewhere on the Front Range - impacts will occur no matter where an alternate dam is built. These could include drowning a good run in some other canyon.

2) Gross is in the foothills where evaporation losses are likely much less and the canyon steeper than an alternate lower-elevation damsite. Building a dam for DW's additional storage in flatter terrain at a lower elevation would result in more water surface area in a hotter environment, thus higher evaporation losses for the amount of water stored resulting in less water available to use, and the need to pull even more water from the Fraser/Colorado Basins to meet the same need on the Front Range.

3) One thing Gross has in its favor is that there's already a dam there, along with all the other infrastructure for conveyance structures. The area needed for another dam for the equivalent additional storage would likely be greater than the additional area for the Gross expansion, resulting in greater overall loss of habitat somewhere else. Additionally water conveyance infrastructure would need to be built in what I assume are currently pristine areas resulting in further environmental impacts.

If DW's going to build a dam somewhere, it may be that the Gross expansion is actually the lowest-impact and most efficient way to store water. Personally I'd like to see aquifer storage and recovery used but the northern part of DW's service area isn't well-suited for that geologically.

Throw some recreational flows into the mix and it could be a reasonable project and a relative win for Front Range boaters compared to an alternative that DW would want.

-AH


----------



## kiakco (Mar 29, 2008)

Heyduke lives! Just a bunch of red tape, stuffed shirt propaganda. Apparently there are only a few spines left in the boating community these days. Too bad. I'm with RPM


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

I'm all for conserving water and limiting growth. I wish everyone's third child could be forced to move to Texas at age 18. 

Instead of bringing water to Denver where people use 86 gallons/day, let's just force people to move to the mountains or Grand Junction and let them use their 110 gallons/day. There's also more land there to build golf courses. 

It would be a shame if they built a dam at the bottom of Foxton & Deckers runs.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

So you are belittling Foxton and Deckers boating value and thus their boaters ?You think they are lame so intermediates and beginners around metro Denver and C.Spgs. can piss off ? You've had some great posts /positions and some bad.' don't get this one.

In regards to Two Forks ,isn't there some deal that expires soon and they could try to pursue it again ? How far up the respective forks would it flood again? thanx


----------



## basil (Nov 20, 2005)

Part of my post was sarcastic, but not the part about Foxton. I love that stretch. I'm just trying to get people to think and not take life too seriously. 

By the way, some of our best runs are dam feed. Gore, Ark, and Bailey


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*I'm with Andy*

If were going to dam it, dam it high. If we could find an economical way to refill aquifers, it would solve so many problems. A few of you young engineers, I smell a thesis that is ripe for grant money.


----------



## Swank (Jun 20, 2009)

I just want to comment on the use urban gardens instead of "Kentucky bluegrass".

Being a grounds professional I don't know of anyone who is installing "Kentucky bluegrass". We typically install bluegrass variety/fescue/rye blends that are more tolerant to our dry climate here and have better wear properties and actually use less water. Also the one advantage to blue grass is in a drought you can actually turn your water off to bluegrass. It will totally brown up and go dormant through the drought typically june-aug then when you do start getting water to it again it will come back. A lot of your native or low grow varieties will die off or become so stressed that weeds take over causing even more problems.

I know DPS has over 20,000,000sq.ft. of irrigated turf (just check their website) and the City Parks and Recs has more than that. That would be a whole lot or urban gardens and who would maintain those?


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

I actually agree Swank. Was more just using that example as I have heard it a lot in the past. And I also like some grass, though I could care less about golf. The schools and parks in Denver are great, and I'm a frequent user of City Park in Denver, and they take water. But they also provide that space for a lot of people and events, as opposed to the McMansions in Castle Rock that have huge yards for few people. 

Basil, what exactly is your point in this entire discussion? Please think before you post and don't use sarcasm because you aren't good at it. 

We are removing dams all over the west, and celebrating that as a victory for free flowing rivers, which most kayakers are supposed to love. Here on the front range a bunch of you are assuming that it's inevitable that we will have to build more dams, and we should just choose the best alternative. I fear that if Gross goes through that we will be more likely to see additional projects get approval, such as Two Forks and the Flaming Gorge pipeline. No one is openly discussing this as an alternative to these other projects, and there is no guarantee that if Gross goes through the others will be stopped. 

What kind of mitigation is Denver Water really going to give us? A better flow season on Alto Alto (which I hear we are at risk of losing access to due to landowners), more water in USB (thus, a more limited season to paddlers due to unnaturally high flow), or more water in LSB which gets taken out above Eldo in the shoulder seasons. Having more water in the system may even allow for fewer releases on Bailey Canyon and Foxton. The Colorado River will definitely have less water. Let me guess, a paved parking lot at the put-in to the river that runs only on weekends. Oh, and we won't get ticketed for paddling across the reservoir that buried the creek that we were trying to paddle.


----------

