# Is there a whitewater park being built in Ft. Collins?



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

Dont we all wish it were that simple.


----------



## hkydef (Jun 7, 2006)

The rumor is that a very small playpark will be built just downstream of College Ave. It will have 3 play features as I hear it. I think the guys at The Mountain Shop may have more info. As far as opinions go, here's one. Unless the powers that be can get some guaranteed flows through town, it will be a nice rock pile. Some of the very "green" folks here in the Fort, don't want development along the river at all. Good luck with access and flows to all.


----------



## RiverWrangler (Oct 14, 2003)

OK - how about a little more positive attitude here fellas. The money is nearly there and consturction may start as early as late this spring. What we need is support from within the community. Yes, there is a small contingent of "green" activistists fighting development along the river corridor. Problem is, I don't think too many of these folks have been down there recently as there is 1) already an old diversion dam in place, 2) trash everywhere along the banks, 3) invasive species "flourishing" and 4) an already transformed riverbed. All in all, this no longer a "natural" river corridor as is. 
The proposed river park aims to clean up this zone, plant native species, create aquatic wildlife habitat by forming defined pools and eddy lines and generally create a more pleasant atmosphere where everyone will want to hang out - not just the local homeless population. This play park will be a big deal in Fort Collins, will have an extremely postitive effect on the north downtown area and will have plenty of flow during the spring and summer months. Late season agricultural demand will provide "off-season" opportunities to play and three features is better than zero. Think about it - it will be a safe place for kids and others to learn to paddle, have a quick lunch session when you don't have time to drive up the canyon and practice slalom (eventually). 
There will be some fundraising events this spring and the best thing you can do to help this park is to stay positive and attend these fundraisers. If you are interested in helping in a more committed way contact Matt Evans at [email protected]


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

My senior engineering project is to design the park. The town will put in two drops just below the existing structures. We surveyed the entire site recently with the latest GPS technology. It didnt come as a surprise to me when the data verified that there is 1' 4" of elevation drop from start of the park to the end. Thats 8" per drop. So dont get to excited...  I wouldn't even bother.

If we could modify the upstream structure it would give about 6 feet of additional head to work with, (more than enough for some epic drops) but the town says...NO!

Constuction is planned to begin next fall and park should be finished in the spring of 2008.


----------



## brandonschmit (May 24, 2005)

*hmmn... 8 inches per drop won't be very good...*

I'm not an engineer and may be missing something, but could they go for a reconfiguration of the top drop right below the bridge on College Ave? From observing other successful features around the state, shortening and perhaps steepening the concrete apron and deepening the pool behind it could turn that first drop into a nice feature. If they'd go ahead and put concrete rather than boulders on the second drop, the water would have m-wave type velocity that could create something worthwhile.....a consult with playpark engineers that do this all the time could change some minds within the development team.

Apologies up front if the previous post has been misread. Are there really plans to use a college class to engineer the drops? Not to rag on a class project, but wouldn't it be better to actually use the people that design these parks for a living? Lacy, Shipley, et al. only seem to get it right 1/4 of the time as it is. It would stink to invest all that time, money, and planning and have nothing to show for it. It's the responsibility of the boaters to keep the city planners on track. They may not understand the "art" that goes into making these riverbed modifications work. Just my 0.02.

Brandon


----------



## hkydef (Jun 7, 2006)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of developing a river corridor that reflects well on the Fort and improves the North College Corridor. I have not boated Golden, but have visited. I'm very impressed. How nice would it be to have a place like that here in the Fort? Matt, and others, have invested much personal time to this project. I've heard they've even purchased some water rights to keep some water in the Poudre. I am disheartened by some who would keep the river the way it is to retain its "natural beauty" on this very short stretch that is kind of an eyesore as it exists. 

Thanks for calling me on the "negativity". I may have been caught venting some frustrations.


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

*Re: hmmn... 8 inches per drop won't be very good...*



brandonschmit said:


> Apologies up front if the previous post has been misread. Are there really plans to use a college class to engineer the drops? Not to rag on a class project, but wouldn't it be better to actually use the people that design these parks for a living? Lacy, Shipley, et al. only seem to get it right 1/4 of the time as it is. It would stink to invest all that time, money, and planning and have nothing to show for it. It's the responsibility of the boaters to keep the city planners on track. They may not understand the "art" that goes into making these riverbed modifications work. Just my 0.02.
> 
> Brandon


I dont know if you read the previous post but I'm one of those college kids. And "NO" the town is not using us to design the drops. It's merely a school project. The town will of course review the design but in the end I believe a qualified team of engineers will be doing the final design. Hopefully Lacy. And for good reason to. I am the only avid kayaker on my team and these people have no clue what it takes to make a good drop. None of them a have even been to a kayak park. They are way more focused on getting this thing finished and a grade put on it than designing a good drop. I mean my team is starting to dislike me because I am trying to push for a better design, and by doing that I am making the project harder and more complicated for them.
And those poor suckers down at the city also have no clue!!!!! I mean just absolutely no clue what it takes to make a nice wave. There plan is to make a park that everyone can use (like tubers). They even think that the course will be used to run, over and over again. I tried to explain to them that kayakers will be playing IN the wave!!! Not just running through it!! And making novice features will not bring kayakers from a far. Beginer kayakers will also grow out the drops in a few weeks anyways. We should try to build something that keeps people coming back. They just dont understand that all levels of kayakers can still play on an advanced drop (look at salida). I wish they would just grow some balls and build us a sick place to play. 

Ohh and they don't want to touch the riverbed or any of the structures up stream. The sad thing is...is that there is so much potential to have a great feature, but the city will never let it happen. What the city needs is to get the boating communities input on this matter, so we can get something gnarly built. Ever since the mountain shop gave the project to the city I knew it wasn't going to be good. Who wants to play at a little 6" drop anyways when there is epic boating 15 mins up the road. We have had about 4 meetings with the city and this is just the general impression that I get and its just so discouraging.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I think it took years of work for the Pueblo crew to make their park happen. The city council has to be shown how beautiful the park can be and what a draw it is. Salida and Pueblo are the models from what I have seen. Can you do a presentation showing Salida on a June day with the kids on their bikes and people paddling? If they could see that part, they might change their mind.


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

gh said:


> I think it took years of work for the Pueblo crew to make their park happen. The city council has to be shown how beautiful the park can be and what a draw it is. Salida and Pueblo are the models from what I have seen. Can you do a presentation showing Salida on a June day with the kids on their bikes and people paddling? If they could see that part, they might change their mind.


GH your exactly right; the city needs to be shown how attractive a park can be. Since the town wants this to be a park for all skill levels I thought we should use golden as a model for the 2 drops that are going to be put in place. But Craig Foreman the City Planner has said outright that they do not wish this park to be like that of Golden's and Golden is to advanced. How can golden be too advanced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would think golden is a place for all levels. Arrgh. 
Maybe some paddlers from the community could get together this spring and have a meeting with the planning dept?


----------



## bkp (Mar 19, 2006)

As a member of the board of the Pueblo Paddlers I can tell you that our park would never have happened if it were not considered a fish ladder first. Sometimes you have to give an inch to get a mile. Politicians find it much easier to make river improvements for some reason when it is designed to improve the fishing. And you know, that is fine with me. I think improving the fishing habitat helps everyone. 

So my advice would be to be prepared for plenty of opposition to any stucture in any river. However it is amazing how attitudes change when the discussion turns to money and economic benefit. When surrounding businesses realize that there is money to be made from boaters who visit such a facility, they will eventually get on the bandwagon. There is a whitewater course in South Bend Indiana. When the Pueblo course was on the drawing board there was a video that the South Bend folks produced and sent to the Pueblo City Council. It basically said if you have a river and you don't have a whitewater park you are letting a stream of money pass you by.

I say don't let them build something that no one will use. Holding out for what boaters and fishermen will be happiest with will be worth it in the long run. Persistance pays off and if they build something that no one uses then they will say, "See we told you this wouldn't work."

I wish you in FC all the best and hope that with the help of someone like Gary Lacy that your city will see the light and build something amazing.

You can see work being done on our fish ladder....er....whitewater park at the blog address below.

-Bryan
Pueblo Paddlers
http://paddlepueblo.blogspot.com


----------



## Force (Apr 27, 2004)

I posted this awhile ago, check it out then take your foot out of your mouth;

http://www.mountainbuzz.com/viewtopic.php?t=12304&highlight=rfp

The park is being built. A designer should be under contract soon and construction is planned for next fall/winter. Things can still happen to delay the project but the wheels are turning. The drops will *not* be designed by students at CSU. The plans will need to be stamped my a professional engineer not a guppie, hence the RFP. My guess is Lacy will be the designing but becuase it is a COFC project now it has to be put out to bid.

As far as the park goes, its going to kick as and if I see any nay sayers out there after it is built I'm going to make you drink a beer out of my stanky never washed 3-yr old bootie. Got it. Yes, the gradient isn't huge but its enough. The idea is to back water up against the existing chute with the first structure effectively increasing the gradient (EGL) through the park. Honestly the channel slope through the park doesn't mean squat. The trick will be not causing a rise the the FEMA base flood elevations by placing the strucuture in a regulated floodway.


Take that suckas and next time try to realize that many people have donated a lot of time and energy to get this thing done and coming in near the end of the project planning and kicking them in the delicates isn't really appreciated.


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

If you had read the post before it stated the park would not be designed by college kids. But do to that project those college kids have aquired alot of the facts about the park! Also I dont think you have ever heard of the term "100 year flood plain". Backing up water is a good idea in theory however it increases the 100year flood plain.


----------



## Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Okay you want a walk off, everyone its a walk off, there's no holding me back Billy Zaine.

I think you're confused about many things but mainly the scale of things here. The 100-yr FEMA flow for that reach of river is around 13,300 cfs from the FIS report. In the last 5-yrs the peak flow for the Poudre in town was 2,300cfs in 2003. From 2000-2002 the highest flow was 785cfs. While the park will need to modeled using the FEMA Q for regulatory compliance it will be designed with something a lot smaller probably 400-800cfs. So the hope is that while the park is planned to back water up for normal operating flows for the FEMA Q the RR bridge immediately downstream and other controls will drown out any effect of the park and we will meet FEMA compliance issues.

I dont want to puff my chest to big but Im feeling a little feisty today and you should just step off or Im gonna have to boof on top of your head when the narrows starts running. My firm did the preliminary modeling of the park to even see if it was possible at that location and get COFC approval for the concept and I just finished remapping the Poudre floodplain immediately upstream of College so I think I have a good handle on things in that area.


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

I have the FEMA effective model for the reach sitting right in front of me. I'd be happy to email it to you if want to take a peak. And all that flow data you have sounds pretty correct, however its not that significant. What I meant is you cant just go throwing a bunch of rocks in the river to raise the flow depth !! Its illegal. This would obviously raise the 100 year flood plain. Sorry I dont know if you got the memo but last I checked you couldnt do that. Lets look at some other parks like pueblo for example. They didnt get there park built by throwing some rocks in there. They removed the dam and created a series of sucsesesive drops. In just about all cases the head was already there. You cant just raise the water level to whatever you desire. How much it can be raised is the question. So I wouldn't go "boofin on anyones head" just yet.
I dont think you need to be raggin on students either, arnt you a grad student anyways?? Ohh wait does that make you better? Or did you just graduate and now you have real engineering job and know it all?

I know the town is not planning on building anykind of advanced drops and it would be a shame and a big waste to see all that money, time and effort go into building something that will just be "OK". It would surely be a huge loss for everyone.


----------



## JJH (Oct 14, 2003)

Damn, Force has some crazy nerd skills, they might even be better than his boofing skills, which you don't want any part of.

We are working on the city officials too, tyring help them understand, many meetings have been had and are scheduled. 

But in the end, it will dope enough that even Force might learn how to throw down.


----------



## miker (Jan 26, 2006)

What about the water that is going to be diverted from the Poudre to the new reservoir by Ted's Place? Their allotted water will trump any play park in the Fort.


----------



## Force (Apr 27, 2004)

dude,

I'm not ragging on students I'm spefically ragging on you. Saying that you wouldn't even bother building the park is a slap in the face to everyone who has donated time, energy, and money to get this thing done especially when you don't really know what your talking about. While I think you had good intentions in trying to help your attitude sucks. 

I you want a lesson in floodplain hydraulics give me a call 988-5502, I do it everyday. Causing a rise in the 100-yr BFE's is not illegal but normally and in this case not allowed. Causing a rise at lower flows is completely legal and done often for all kinds of projects.


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

No what I am saying is:
I know the town is not planning on building anykind of advanced drops and it would be a shame and a big waste to see all that money, time and effort go into building something that will just be "OK". It would surely be a huge loss for everyone.

Its just that so many drops have been built in the past and people hype them up and say that they are going to be so killer. Then they get built and no one even uses them. I dont want that to happen in my town. How can I be excited when I have the city planner telling me that that a park like Goldens is to advanced for fort collins? This is basically what it comes down to. Even if we could back up enough water the town doesn't want an advanced play spot. And that is where the problem lies.


----------



## adrock (Apr 28, 2004)

*funds*

Hey all, related to raising more funds for the park (which will kick ass if Force is on it)

I will be showing 'Light in Liquid: a kayak collage of movement and sound' at New Belgium April 19th, 8 - 10 pm, it features the rivers of colorado (especially the big south) and Mexico and many local paddlers.

I will be posting details here soon with a website where you san see some of the film. Its a creative grassroots piece with some great music. Some of the funds will go toward the park as I did two years ago. Beers will be flowing and good times will be had.

Force, is there a chance that an RFP can go out to Ben Selznik and team, they did the utah feature (sorry this is so vague), ask dano, he has their info. I know he was concerned about Lacie doing park.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

Nick Turner's team did the Utah one your talking about. They also did Avon and are doing Glenwood and Frisco in CO.


----------



## adrock (Apr 28, 2004)

turner, right, isn't selznik in that crew too?
Do you know the name of their LLC or how to contact them?


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

adrock said:


> turner, right, isn't selznik in that crew too?
> Do you know the name of their LLC or how to contact them?


you guys are getting all serious. i was enjoying the pissing contest between leif and the junior ranger. :twisted:


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

Nick Turner's address is [email protected]


----------



## holley (Mar 8, 2004)

the_dude said:


> i was enjoying the pissing contest between leif and the junior ranger.


I'm thinking Milo's already got the Junior Ranger thing covered...not sure that one's up for grabs. You'll know it when you spot a JuniorRanger420 posting.

And on a positive note, I really appreciate all the work that everyone has done on this project. Especially Matt, who has not given up on it after all these years. I'll be so stoked to have a playpark in my back yard when this finally happens!


----------



## miker (Jan 26, 2006)

Yea concrete, rocks are fun to jump around on and maybe tagg. 

Are we sure the water will be there in the future?

Pessimist


----------



## Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Water will be a big issue in the future. I saw a presentation at USGS this winter on the impacts of glade reservoir to instream flow on the Poudre through town and the conclusions were not good. The presenters predicted instream flows would be reduced by 50% through town if Glade is built and operational. 

I feel though that we as a community have to opportunity to block construction/design of Glade. Lots of communities around CO have opposed reservoir projects and actually won. What it takes the willingness to be involved with the process and stand up against the juggernaut. Currently Glade is in EIS process and a preliminary draft is due out soon. After it is made publicly available there will be a comment period and that will be the time to let the USACE, local, and state representatives know how our community feels about the project.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

As an occasional resident of fort fun I would like to thank everyone who has donated their time to this project. I hope this allows me to go on the record as offically "not" being a naysayer. Not only would I rather not drink booty beer, but I will go so far as to say I will buy a beer for each of you involved after my first cartwheel in the new feature.

That being said, my $.02...

Nothing ever gets accomplished by puerile insults thrown around a message board. COFC was open in their belief that they were stretched thin with their park and rec's budget. They certainly weren't going to build a playpark on their own. When it gets built it will be as a result of volunteer work by paddlers such as "boof on your head" Force. So rather than insulting their hard work a much need thanks is more in order.


----------



## brandonschmit (May 24, 2005)

*park building companies...*

Does the city have to use an open bid process for choosing who will create the drops? Nick Turner's group may be better that Lacy's company if you look at % successfull features built. 

Anyone know when the glenwood park is scheduled to be built? I'm too lazy to do the search.

Brandon


----------



## kakahead (Nov 2, 2005)

Sorry for relaying all the information I had about the project to the buzz. I guess there are some things that the "sensitive types" just shouldn't hear. If you say something good about it everyone is happy. If you say communicate problems associated with it, all the sudden your insulting it and everyone involved. Why not let people know the good with the bad. Maybe I'm not an optimist, but I'm certainly a realist. I proboly should go with the goverments modo of "if nobody knows then theres not a problem". But not to worry... to make it up to ya I'll be handing out maxi pads downtown today(extra absorbant). 
Say one thing wrong around here and all the sudden we got people like Emberton dropping his power words like "My Firm" and his fancy smancy acronyms that nobody understands. Sorry buddy, but all the hydrologic equations in the world are not going to solve the problems associated with this project.


----------



## ToddG (Nov 29, 2003)

respect yer elders, kid


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

can't we all just get along? group hug? something? shit. no reason to get personal here. if leif says there's enough gradient/EGL to make it work, i believe him. he's done just a little bit of modeling in the last few years. besides if the park didn't turn out to be the best park in the US but still turned out to be pretty good, does that mean you won't surf it?

the word is that the Corps will approve the EIS for Glade and NISP as it was submitted, so that makes the Glade project a virtual certainty, which as leif says will really hurt the flows through town. if the permit is approved, you can count on the project being built UNLESS some of the municipalities/districts back out and make it more costly for the remaining entities to make the project happen. that's where the focus should now shift to.


----------



## bosco (Feb 6, 2004)

Just thought I'd put some numbers on the flow issue for everybody.
I just ran the flow duration curve for the Poudre at the Fort Collins gauge using data from 1975 to the present. 

Flow(cfs) Exceedence % Days/yr
27 50 183
88 30 109
154 20 73
516 10 37
1373 5 18

As an example, from this hisorical data we can expect flows greater than 516cfs 10% of the time, which means about 37 days/year. This would obviously change with Glade Res. coming online. Whoever designs this will surely look at this and hopefully make sure that the structures are effective (fun) at lower flows. You just have to work with what you've got. 

And Kakahead, Force is spot on about the raise in water surface elevations. FEMA only cares about the 100-yr flood WSE. The structures can increase head (stage) at lower flows as long as they don't affect the 100-yr floodplain.

As far as the big issue, the time and money will be spent to get this done, so we'll just have to make the best of what we have, and thank all those who've donated either. [/img]


----------



## Force (Apr 27, 2004)

Okay here goes, I'll try and clean up my tone up a little. 

Since the project is now public it, the design and construction has to put forth to the public. The RFP states that the designer must have at completed at least 3 prior projects. That means basically Lacy, the McLoughin group (in Denver), and Turner are qualifed to put forward a bid to do the design work. I posted a partial RFP on Boatertalk, MtnBuzz, and Boof.com to try and get anyone qualified to put in a bid. I believe the deadline for the RFP is still open so if anyone would recomend a specific designer tell them to submit a bid ASAP. Lacy and the McLoughin group were contacted specifically and will probably be submitting an bid. 

Back to the park specifically, is this going to be the best feature in the states? are people going to drive across the country to surf the park? hardly and i hope not. Are the chosen designers going to do the best they can to make a kick ass park? Yes, and thats all we can ask and I have faith that they will do the best with what they have to deal with. However, the design of WW park is a very inexact science at best so quality of the end is not guaranteed. Is the site perfect? no. Will it provide a better option/play that BTO? most likely. Will it be the M-wave? no. Will glade effect things? Yes, and the design of the park will need to consider that meaning it will probably be designed for lower flows. 

*Most importantly, will it be worth it? YES*, and it is worth "bothering with". It will provide a great resource to the town and local boaters when you don't have time to head up the canyon, want teach some to roll/boat in a controlled setting, and probably for a week or two out of the year have some kick ass play sessions. 

Peace out...


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

:lol: :lol: "Proposed Trees" :lol: :lol:


----------



## prozoned (Jun 17, 2005)

who cares about all this stupid engineering shit, this park will be sick


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

"this stupid engineering shit" is the difference between Salida and Pumphouse. Have some respect.

COUNT


----------



## klamb (Oct 14, 2003)

Only in that the NISP EIS is not yet done. You should still be able to comment. Even if the initial public scoping comment period is over, there is strong likelihood the CORPS is continuing to accept public comment. It helps them better define and refine their studies.


----------



## dblodgett (Mar 6, 2007)

*Get over yourselves*

Ok, I live in whitewater hell, Wisconsin. I am starting a research project, undergraduate, to create a whitewater feature in a whitewater park 150 miles from my house. "the nearest whitewater of any kind" 

You fools are bitching and moaning about this stupid little project 5 minutes from your spoiled asses house. 

Stop getting worked up about BS and go do something. You are from Colorado, you are spoiled, and it's going to your head!

I just got done calibrating a flume, slope, flow, mannings N, etcetera, and building a simple scale model to beggin my modeling, and got online to see this and it is really discouraging when people in paradise can find crap like this to bitch about.

And as far as yer CSU project, sorry your friends hate it, do independant study and your life will be easy. I hate people who have a great life and find reasons to bitch about it.

I'm not ussually this agro, but it's been a long day.
Dave


----------



## rhm (May 16, 2006)

dblodgett,

i would hardly call wisconsin "whitewater hell" 

http://www.gowaterfalling.com/waterfalls/maps/statewisconsin.shtml

you've got more whitewater there than a lot of states can say they have. now if you lived in florida, mississippi, or louisiana, i think you would be onto something.

and for your info, a lot of colorado is a long way from whitewater. depending on where you live, and also depending on the time of year, you can't find whitewater within several hundred miles.

there are a lot of boaters here who live in the mountains. we are jonesing all winter long. the only place that we can go for some whitewater that isn't frozen in the form of snow is down to the front range, or on a long road trip to some other warmer climate.

so we sit around and talk on mountainbuzz, and people get on each others nerves. people are all entitled to their own opinions. sometimes those opinions rub other people the wrong way. then people start arguing with each other. that is just the way it goes with internet forums.

just wait untill you try to get your project up and rolling. there will be all kinds of hoops to jump through. and people will probably point out some kind of problems. then you will probably get defensive since you have invested so much time and energy. these guys aren't arguing for the fun of it. they are trying to point out and work out any potential problems before they become actual problems.

i know some people are getting a little bit emotional here, but everyone just wants a play park that will be worth the time and energy invested in building it. everyone's ideas are important. even if it looks like it is just arguing fioor the sake of arguing.

this is how these things get done. there will be arguments about a project like this until the day it is completed. someone wil have to argue with the city council and point out all the benefits, while the opposition who wants the river left alone argues the other side and tries to show the problems. then someone will have to argue for water rights in the water court, while someone else will argue against issueing the water right.

if we have seen all the arguments for and against a project before it gets to the city council, or before it gets into the water court, then at least we know what to expect when it gets to that point. so don't tell people not to argue. people are just throwing out all the possibilities, and that can't be a bad thing.


----------



## dblodgett (Mar 6, 2007)

*Debate, and inform, don't argue*

Point taken, but I would venture to say that arguing on forums is counterproductive. 

I don't mean to say don't debate ideas, but when people are just whining it's lame!

We really don't have much of any whitewater. I live close to the illinois border. 

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/state-summary/state/WI/

The only stuff worth paddling is 6 hours away on the border with the UP of michigan. as are most of the waterfalls in the state. The closest one is big smokey... 4 ft. and controled by an indian tribe that charges $25 to run it.

See how easy it is to misinterpret what people have to say...

D


----------



## Arn (Nov 8, 2003)

Wow, you guys have a lot of synergy going on there. You are all going to have be on the same side and take any oppostion or discussion off line or better yet over a few beers to get this to fly. Also, 1' 4" of drop is plenty. Good Luck
Arn


----------



## Ahughes (May 22, 2007)

I recently watched a presentation on Glade Reservoir and was surprised by what I learned. The water district was very upfront that it will reduce flows through town, but not nearly to the extent that we have been led to believe by those who are trying to stop the project. The woman from the water district said that the project will reduce flows through town, on average, by one-third, and that the reservoir would only take water from the Poudre 4 out of 10 years, when the river is running high.

She specifically mentioned that the Corps is working with the city to make sure the kayak park is still viable given the new reservoir. I hope this is true.

She also said that the water district will be required to do stream restoration work and riparian enhancement and that they want to partner with Fort Collins and do that work in town.

They said the Environmental document will be out this summer/fall, and that there will be more public comment then. 

The water district has good information about it on their website: NCWCD Home Page if you want to learn more.


----------



## the_dude (May 31, 2006)

Ahughes said:


> I recently watched a presentation on Glade Reservoir and was surprised by what I learned. The water district was very upfront that it will reduce flows through town, but not nearly to the extent that we have been led to believe by those who are trying to stop the project. The woman from the water district said that the project will reduce flows through town, on average, by one-third, and that the reservoir would only take water from the Poudre 4 out of 10 years, when the river is running high.
> 
> She specifically mentioned that the Corps is working with the city to make sure the kayak park is still viable given the new reservoir. I hope this is true.
> 
> ...


Do you work for the NCWCD?


----------



## Ahughes (May 22, 2007)

the_dude said:


> Do you work for the NCWCD?


Nope... I attended the city council meeting the other night where the water district presented. I don't think all reservoirs are bad and want to maintain a balanced viewpoint on some of these issues.


----------



## thumper (Dec 9, 2004)

*I call Bulls&*t*



Ahughes said:


> The woman from the water district said that the project will reduce flows through town, on average, by one-third, and that the reservoir would only take water from the Poudre 4 out of 10 years, when the river is running high.


 
33% of the flows on average; 4 out of evert 10 years; when the river is high...
Lets see, the Poudre is estimated somewhere around 300,000 ac-ft avg. annual flows. So in ten avg. years, that equals 3,000,000 ac-ft. 1/3 of that is 1,000,000 ac-ft, or over 3 full years of flow down the Poudre. In my eyes, that means they will be taking all they can for those 4 outta 10 years, with the majority being during peak (cottonwood & willow regeneration, aquifer recharge, pollution/nutrient flushing, etc). 

Bottom line, when they (their water right) are in priority, they will take every drop they can. She said their pumps will move 1200 cfs into the res., meaning *1200 cfs less through town*. This flow includes water received via exchange, meaning better priority, not the 1980ish priority that the res. recieved. When you look at recent flow records through town you will see daily peak streamflow averaging around 2500-3000 cfs, meaning *they will be taking half at peak!* And leaving nothing for the majority of runnoff and the shoulder season if there is anything to take.

As to their comments about enhancement, how can you enhance a riparian cooridor without any surface flow to sustain and recharge the aluvial aquafer or scour and replenish gravel and sandbars? Haven't we learned anything by Glen Canyon Dam...

I was there also, and those people had my head swimming as to why anyone wanted to go $800 million in debt for a lousy 40,000 ac-ft of water (including interest, thats $20,000 per ac-ft, when NCWCD even said on the open market 1 ac-ft = $10,000) to supply the farmers, when this debt will just drive the communities it intends to supply to expand/sprawl rigth out onto the very farmers' lands that it won't save just to line the pockets of the developers.

Bad, Bad Bad sad news if this continues. You can bet my state rep/ senator/ county commissioners/ city councilmembers/ etc. will hear what I have to say!!

SaveThePoudre.org - Don't Flatline the Poudre!


----------



## Ahughes (May 22, 2007)

I just posted the below in another forum. I think you all are focusing on the WRONG thing.

I just have to jump in here. As someone who both kayaks and waterskis, I don't see why Glade Reservoir is a bad deal. The water district is building the flatwater enthusiasts a new place to play, and is not doing anything to harm the Poudre where 99% of rafters/kayakers use it...in the canyon.

If you want to be against something, I would be against the Halligan/Seaman project, which WILL reduce flows through the canyon from the North Fork down. Fort Collins' leadership is being totally disengenuous when they vilify Glade Reservoir, which has been modified so it does the least amount of damage to the river possible, and support the Halligan/Seaman enlargement, which will put a new dam on the North Fork within view of the mainstem, and will actually pump water out of the mainstem to put into it. All for "drought protection" for the subdivisions in Fort Collins and so Greeley can grow out to I-25.

check it out for yourself: http://www.fcgov.com/utilities/pdf/s...dation-map.pdf


----------



## thumper (Dec 9, 2004)

Don't know if you noticed or care sweatheart, but I'm not just concerned about recreation, but actually screwing things up worse than they are...
PS- Glade will never be full when you can only divert 4 out of every 10 years....have fun mud skiing.
the North Fork projects are a whole different subject and you probably will find most folks feel similarly about those.


----------

