# Dam on Poudre near FoCo



## jbLaramie (Feb 1, 2021)

Saw this news story that the plans for the proposed Glade reservoir on the poudre river upstream of Fort Collins is “moving forward”. The proposed dam site is near Teds place, which is about 2.8 miles downstream of picnic rock. Unsure of how many recreational river miles will affected. Story indicates that it could start filling in 6 years. Have to see what additional steps the process has to move through before being officially approved.









Plans for proposed reservoir in Northern Colorado move forward, Highway 287 to be relocated


"Northern Colorado continues to grow. This project will provide a reliable water supply for this region into the future."




www-cbsnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org


----------



## John_in_Loveland (Jun 9, 2011)

The Dam IS NOT on the Poudre. It will however, pull excess run-off water from the Poudre. It is located north of Teds Place, somewhere along 287. 287 will be relocated to the East of the Hogback.


----------



## kayakfreakus (Mar 3, 2006)

Hopefully north of Ted’s place means not impacting the natural river corridor and there is no loss of that. 

Not surprising given the state of front range growth, but still sad. Hope they will allow for public comment/input as the process proceeds along with the EIS and other planning happens.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

Save The Poudre – Help us save the Poudre from the NISP/Glade Reservoir


----------



## jbLaramie (Feb 1, 2021)

Haven’t been able to tell so far if/how much water stored in the dam will be released into the Poudre during low water or if it’ll be going out in canals or pipelines. 1.7 million acre feet is a decent size. Flaming gorge is 3.8 million by comparison.

Edit: It’s 170K, not 1.7 million acre feet


----------



## KrisG (Jun 22, 2012)

I don't know anything about the project, but the above link states the proposed capacity is 170 thousand acre feet, not the 1.7 million that jb laramie mentioned.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

FAQs | NISP | Northern Water







www.northernwater.org





170,000 acre feet


----------



## jbLaramie (Feb 1, 2021)

Good grief, I missed the comma…



https://www.fcgov.com/nispreview/files/nisp-general-map.pdf?1626970692


----------



## JC5921 (Apr 27, 2012)

kayakfreakus said:


> Hopefully north of Ted’s place means not impacting the natural river corridor and there is no loss of that.
> 
> Not surprising given the state of front range growth, but still sad. Hope they will allow for public comment/input as the process proceeds along with the EIS and other planning happens.


Are you a caveman that has been frozen for the last decade? The public comment period already happened.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Perhaps the Unpopular opinion and maybe I'm missing something.... but I don't really have a problem with this if it isn't impacting the river corridor directly. I tend to oppose most dam projects but also acknowledge that sometimes it's a necessary evil. This project appears to be small and relatively low impact and at least it is using water from this side of the divide. As water diversion projects go.... it's pretty easy to stomach.

Am I crazy?


----------



## DismalRiverRunner (Oct 30, 2020)

Front Range is a cool and hip place. Great vibe and people are moving in by the bucket loads. Unfortunately they are out of water. This is only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## wack (Jul 7, 2015)

De-watering the Poudre river through town seems to be one obvious problem. Fish will and have been dying if this continues. 
I fail to see the logic in pumping water uphill using massive amounts of electricity to save it in a storage facility that likely won't ever be full, as senior water rights holders (Greeley/Weld County) already pull most of the water from the river before this facility.


----------



## Lauren N (Oct 27, 2020)

The cost vs actual benefit seems like a disparaging component to me. The cost of building a dam and rerouting a common thoroughfare, the time to do so, all to supply more water to an already unsustainable community- it seems like the benefit vs cost analysis just can't simply add up. It's pretty clear in the west that dams have been an unsuccessful endeavor, most have upside costs associated with them, lots have crumbling infrastructure, and seasonal flows can have huge detriments to communities both up and down stream.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

The project is a trade. Trading dirty ag water for clean water that can be sold to the Front Range. The river will die in FC. The majority of Fort Collins does not benefit from the project.

Just adds to the prospect of more suburban sprawl.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean NISP is not causing damage and benefitting a few people over the many.


----------



## jaffy (Feb 4, 2004)

John_in_Loveland said:


> It will however, pull excess run-off water from the Poudre.


You say "excess", I say high water fun. 

I'm assuming this will put an end to the 1k+ flows through the play park, which is a huge bummer.


----------



## IATNR (Oct 2, 2013)

Well I guess I can start dumping my old tires, car batteries and that nasty sofa in that valley now. Let the waters of the reservoir cover my sins.


----------

