# BLM Accepting Comments on Gore Canyon Whitewater Park



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Awesome! Gore surf and boof sounds great.


----------



## Caleb125 (Oct 25, 2012)

Sounds sick!


----------



## zercon (Aug 30, 2006)

so this will be downstream of the 3-4 concrete boat ramps? Can drift boats surf?


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Grand County to build a whitewater park ....*just above Launch 2 *.... at the Pumphouse Recreation site.

drift boat surfing?? .......... only with oars.....or is it row's....

And a big round of applause to the BLM!!!!!


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

coming from a rafter, it seems like an odd place to put it considering how many boats (especially commercials) that are putting in at launch 1. 
why not put it in just above launch 1?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

*Where's Ramp #2?*

I've never really paid much attention to the numbers of the boat ramps, however #2 Launch may be the concrete, furthest-upstream boat ramp. This would make sense if they numbered the ramps in the order they were built - does anyone know the ramp numbers? 

I checked the BLM's website for a more detailed map than the project location map shown in the Environmental Assessment (EA) linked above  (which shows about 7 square miles) and didn't find one, and the legal description on the EA only lists the "Section 12" but nothing more detailed. This is kind of like trying to find your street on a state-wide map.

Note - the EA appears to be an incomplete "shell document" that is no where near completion yet and has yet to have any actual analysis of the presumed impacts added added to it. 

Hopefully we can get some better maps and maybe even some conceptual park design drawings without having to go to BLM Kremmling to review their hard copy files. 

Also, note what Hannah said about submitting your comments here on MB:



> ...Comments posted below will not [be considered] official scoping comments...


If anyone goes through Kremmling could you stop by the BLM and get copies of any conceptual design maps and maybe a map that shows the project location with respect to the boat ramps?

Thanks,

-AH


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

Launch 2 is where the staircase is just upriver from launch 3. Launch 3 is the furthest launch downriver.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

treemanji said:


> Launch 2 is where the staircase is just upriver from launch 3. Launch 3 is the furthest launch downriver.


#1 is the furthest up stream.  you know.....the one everyone uses.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks guys - I'd been under the impression the WWP would be upstream of all the launches. But apparently it's just above the the middle one.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Most Gore kayakers takeout at launch #2, for reference. As annoying as it might be having rafters pass through our surf waves, from an access and environmental impact standpoint, it makes sense to have the development between the launches. The short section between launch 1 and 2 is the best gradient in that area... already developed... and Pumphouse boaters could use launch 3 if the features are too big for them. Concentrating the crowds seems better than sprawling the development upstream.


----------



## bigben (Oct 3, 2010)

i smell a shit show...;-)


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

between launch one and two makes sense to me. At first I thought they were talking about putting it in where the 4wd road is down to the river upstream of pumphouse launches, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I love the idea of bringing a playboat to gore, leaving it at the takeout and swapping my creeker for a playboat for a little post gore surf session. If its a good feature, it could be a park n play feature for folks not wanting to run gore.


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> between launch one and two makes sense to me. At first I thought they were talking about putting it in where the 4wd road is down to the river upstream of pumphouse launches, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
> 
> I love the idea of bringing a playboat to gore, leaving it at the takeout and swapping my creeker for a playboat for a little post gore surf session. If its a good feature, it could be a park n play feature for folks not wanting to run gore.


You own a playboat?


----------



## zercon (Aug 30, 2006)

If it is BLM land on which we pay the BLM a user fee, what is the benefit to Grand County?


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

zercon said:


> If it is BLM land on which we pay the BLM a user fee, what is the benefit to Grand County?


The protection of future flows through the RICD.


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

bigben said:


> i smell a shit show...;-)


I don't think it will be a shit show. The number of rafts that float through there is a small fraction of the number or tubers floating through Golden. Plus, the number of kayakers in line to surf should be way less as well considering the distance to any major city. Should be easy to share the river... 

I think it will be fun for the commercial rafters to actually get a little splish splash added to their day of mostly flat-water as well.


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

As a kayaker, SUP'er, and rafter I am freaking stoked with this plan!!!!! Launch 1 is my favorite launch, along with every other rafter...  now I can surf while waiting for our party to arrive.


----------



## earnyourturn (Aug 31, 2004)

Although a cool idea, I think the already crowded ramps and camping at Pumhouse will become even worse. Maybe have the commercials launch at #3 to lessen the burden. Is there any options near Radium or just below Rancho, those seems to have less traffic, not sure they have enough drop though. I really like what Grand County has been doing along the river and their efforts are much appreciated. I wish Routt County would do something similar on the upper Yampa.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

If folks are worried about congestion / camping... comment on the BLM email. Ask them to put in more camp sites or have better launch management.

I do own a playboat. Its primary use is low water confluence training sessions in mar/apr. If there were some quality waves to surf I would bust it out more often, but my opinion is that good features are pretty limited on the front range. If we could have union chutes at 2000 or trestle wave at 1800 on a regular basis I would probably playboat a fair bit. 

A good play feature up at gore would make gore weekends even that much more fun.

As for whats in it for grand county... obvious... more visitors = more cash into the county for food, gas, ice, tourism etc. Many other locations have successfully done this.


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

I agree 100% that this is a cool idea, but very unwarrented. Pumphouse is not a great kayak run even for begginers so I don't see why anyone would go there for a playpark... People coming of Gore may enjoy it.What after the play park ? paddle... flat water or just go on down to usually busy launch 3. This area is crowded enough as it is. The flows are there and I dont think they are going anywhere most of the water is spoken for downstream. Securing flows via man made play park seems "artificial". I also find it strange that the the park features "will not be visible at normal flows" so you won't be able to see them at 700-800 and lower? Not that it really matters just saying. Parks already exist IMO that are in better locations and on runs that are more interesting in a kayak. Bring on the shit show, oh wait it already is one so lets add to it.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

I agree. Why not put it somewhere that is not as crowded and good kayak water? Why put it on a section primarily rafted?


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

Securing manmade flows through a manmade playpark may seem "artificial", but it is also "effective." I guarantee that it will work better than bitching about golf courses.

This section of river also has some of the most reliable flows in Colorado, averaging over 1000 cfs through the late summer and fall- something that almost no other location with a whitewater park can claim. 

You can really tell that this has turned into a flatwater rafting website when people start complaining about an additional wave in the river.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

jmack said:


> You can really tell that this has turned into a flatwater rafting website when people start complaining about an additional wave in the river.


 
Yeah...I am anti-anything that hurts the fishing


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

jmack said:


> This section of river also has some of the most reliable flows in Colorado, averaging over 1000 cfs through the late summer and fall- something that almost no other location with a whitewater park can claim.
> 
> You can really tell that this has turned into a flatwater rafting website when people start complaining about an additional wave in the river.


My point exactly: the flows are already there. The idea is good, the location is bad. I wouldnt count on the park securing anything but a congested hoard of people. Another "wave" would be cool just not there.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

This is obviously a hot topic that has been debated in other threads, but it’s a fantastic idea that is pretty much a win for everybody. I'd like highlight very valid responses that Kyle, jmack, and Jennifer have said and add a few of my own:

- It doesn't matter whether a playpark is the most sensible way to secure flows are not, it is a way that will work based on water law and therefore is good for recreational users. Don't assume that just because flows were good last year that they're going to be good next year. Establishing releases for recreation as a valid use is very important in an increasingly water starved west.

- There is some sense to constructing the park in the midst of already developed areas instead of disrupting more areas. Like Jennifer said, almost all functional play parks are crowded, generally way more so than this one is likely to be. Golden is always a circus on a nice weekend day. Steamboat has crazy amount of tubers, swimmers, rafters, etc. coming through on nice summer days. People all find a way to manage just fine and have a good time. Most downriver runners enjoy the extra features. As Kyle noted, if the feature is a significant issue for your Pumphouse run (I’ll bet this will be the minority of users), the lower launch can be used. I suspect this site is also opportunistic based on the nature constriction of the riverbed here. On nice days, this area is always swarming with activity. If you’re seeking solitude you find it above or below the launch sites and a new feature isn’t going to change any of that.

- The dichotomy of difficulty on the runs is an argument in favor of adding a play park. Right now there's no place for a user group in between the Gore class IV/V crowd and the Pumphouse class II float trip / fishing crowd. This offers an opportunity for playboating kayakers (both beginners and advanced), SUPers, surfers, tubers, boogie boarders. There’s also very much a lack of quality playboating features in this area and not only does this section of the Colorado offer this, but also what is likely the longest season in the state and on a relatively higher volume river. Low volume (<500cfs) features tend to be difficult to get working (Golden, Boulder, Confluence), whereas higher volume features tend to be great (Glenwood, Durango, Steamboat). There’s no reason that in the right hands this couldn’t be one of the best features in the state offering an unprecedented 9 month season while helping secure recreational flows and protect the area. That’s a huge win for whitewater recreationalists.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

This is one of the best locations in the state to build a whitewater park. There are already facilities in place (parking, restrooms, etc), it's centrally located, and it's one of the few places in the state with water for a large portion of the year. Win, Win, Win. 

The kayakers can easily avoid the rafts in the eddys when the rafts come down, and the rafters won't even remember that they passed a few kayakers near the put-in.

Moving the features upstream of Launch 1 will just increase the impact that users have on the riparian land up there, and will surely bother some fishermen who like to hike up from pumphouse to fish. It makes sense to use the access points that are already in place rather than create new ones. The rafting folk will just have to learn to play nice on the 50 or so yards of river that this is going to affect.


----------



## willoughby (Mar 15, 2004)

treemanji said:


> The idea is good, the location is bad. I wouldnt count on the park securing anything but a congested hoard of people. Another "wave" would be cool just not there.


Better where, Pinecliffe? This is a Grand County project, and Pumphouse is an established aquatic recreation site. It's the takeout for Gore, the put-in to Radium and has a campground and restrooms already on site. You can fish, kayak, raft, camp, hike, bike and pretty soon surf there. It's a great idea exactly where it is.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Hoards of kayakers... Dude it's a play feature not a slalom coarse get over it.. It secures flows for the colorado river, what's not hard to agree with unless one day you are cool with Denver water taking most of said water....the colorado won't mean shit when it's gone if you want to think like that!


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Mike and a few others have nailed it in terms of the WWP "securing" recreational flows on the Upper Colorado. This means that by building the "diversion" structure and putting the water to the recently-recognized beneficial use of recreation, a water right will be "perfected." In the big picture, this also means that the holder of the water right, Grand County, will have the option to oppose any diversions which would infringe on the water right in the future. This also helps further establish the precedent of recreation being a beneficial use of water in Colorado.

From a solely boating perspective, sure, there are probably lots of better locations for a park, however there were a large number of criteria any given location needed to meet (parking, land ownership, floodplain issues, etc.). I'd expect lots of great places got cut before anyone even drove out and did field recon due to the criteria. The alternatives (Alternative 1 is typically "no action") evaluated in detail for the park were: 


Alternative 2a The County Road 11 Bridge Crossing at Radium; 
Alternative 2b The Radium boat launch; 
Alternative 2c Upstream of Pumphouse Launch 1; 
Alternative 2e Inspiration Point

Check out the EA starting on page 5 for the details of the site selection process.

-AH


----------



## jennifer (Oct 14, 2003)

I think the location is great (we need something between class V and class II to entertain the majority of boaters), and I am not worried about the crowds. I am actually more apprehensive on whether it will get used at all. 

Lets look at Golden - even at prime flows, 90% of the features are worthless play spots. But hey, lots of kayakers flock there because it is right there a midst a large population and they can hit it after work or even on their lunch break. 

However, the Gore park is going to be a destination spot, so it HAS to be really good, otherwise no one is going to bother driving there to hit it. If Golden got a 90% failure rate on their features (IMHO), then it is not looking good for a few waves at pumphouse. Are any of the features going to be worth a 1-3 hour drive to play there? I hope they really buckle down and design these well so they will draw boaters to the area.


----------



## bobbuilds (May 12, 2007)

I am very excited about this development as well!!

I have some questions if anyone knows the answer or point me to a link.

1. What will the flows be through gore canyon with the secured water rights?

2. What months will the flows be good for?

basicly what will we see for flows at the end of the seasonin sept, oct, nov?


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

Alternative 2a The County Road 11 Bridge Crossing at Radium;
Alternative 2b The Radium boat launch;
Alternative 2c Upstream of Pumphouse Launch 1;
Alternative 2e Inspiration Po
Good discussion. If they're going to build it this loaction or Radium is the best on the list of possibles. If built myself and my family will enjoy it I'm sure when we're up for a day of paddling flat water. I like to play in the park and then go run some moving water not gonna happen here. I kayak so do our kids we raft too, I just dont see it securing flows. When Denver or who ever starts wanting the water the playpark isnt going to mean a thing to the water people and the money. If Grand County wants to build a play park to make some money on user days fine but dont say its to secure flows for boaters. Unless Im really missing something here the water people really dont care about us. I would like to point out that in bad snow years this run peaks in August when the people downstream start calling for water, my point, the flows are already there.
They should have built a playpark on the Dolores in about 1980. Rolleyes


----------



## willoughby (Mar 15, 2004)

These are junior water rights and aren't likely to have any impact on the flows for the foreseeable future. Mostly dictated by Shoshone and the Palisade calls downstream. I'd expect a fairly typical fall flow through Gore, around the 800-1000cfs mark.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

treemanji said:


> If Grand County wants to build a play park to make some money on user days fine but dont say its to secure flows for boaters. Unless Im really missing something here the water people really dont care about us.





The answer is that you are indeed missing something. Grand County has applied for RICD (recreational in-channel diversions) rights based on construction of a water park feature. The constructed feature demonstrates required beneficial use. I don't know water law, but I know there are conditions surrounding those rights, that opposing interests will continue to challenge those rights, but right now these are legal rights respected by the state and if your goal is to continue to garner support for recreational based water allocations, then it can only help to secure those rights based on the existing legal system.


----------



## ukonom (Nov 21, 2008)

It means a great deal for securing flows as any future water rights or changes to existing water rights will have to hold to the "non-injury" standard - meaning they couldn't do something that would impact the right of the RICD to receive its decreed water. I think there is some flexibility in that since the RICD was approved under the Colorado Cooperative Agreement between the west slope and the front range, but this is definitely still a big win for river flows and recreation.


----------



## Tim Kennedy (May 28, 2004)

I think its a big win for western slope water rights and the immediate future of flows on the Upper sections of the Colorado. As front range communities and populations continue to expand, one of the only sources being targeted to meet the fresh water demands are rivers on the west slope. The RCID would help in maintaining minimum flows on the Colorado from Kremmling to Dotsero. Otherwise, we could face reduced flows in Gore Canyon and the Pumphouse and lower sections above Dotsero in the future. There are several projects that have been looked at such at the Wolcott Reservoir proposal, which would meet the water needs downstream of Dotsero (Shoshone, Cameo, Grand Junction, etc.) through exchanges. Essentially, if they can find a way to store water downstream of the upper diversions, in the Eagle River and Roaring Fork River systems. They can pull more water through the Moffat Tunnel, Roberts Tunnel, Grand Ditch, Adams Tunnel, thus "drying" up the river above the Eagle/Colorado confluence to extremely low flows for a large part of the year. 

Link to Wolcott Resevoir feasibility report: 

As the demand for water increases in the front range of Colorado and throughout the states and cities west of the continental divide to the Pacific Coast, we will continue to see a threat to the natural flows and water resources of the rivers of the west. This is unfortunately what happens when people want to live in an area that doesn't have the water resources to support the growing population. The RCID is a small step to helping provide recreational flows in our rivers, so that we may continue to enjoy these resources during our lifetime. I don't mean to sound too negative, but in the not too distant future, the RCID and recreational concerns may mean very little when it comes to managing the water resources of the western US. We should do what we can do, while we can still do it.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

"This is unfortunately what happens when people want to live in an area that doesn't have the water resources to support the growing population."

Except that agricultural needs use the VAST majority of this water. What you should be saying, is this is what happens when people try to grow shit in an arid climate. Look at the last Colorado water use study.


----------



## Tim Kennedy (May 28, 2004)

"Except that agricultural needs use the VAST majority of this water. What you should be saying, is this is what happens when people try to grow shit in an arid climate. Look at the last Colorado water use study."

I would love to check out the last Colorado water use study. Can you provide a link to it.

I agree that agriculture currently uses the largest percentage of water in the Colorado River basin. According to some studies, in the neighborhood of about 75%-80% of Colorado surface water is used for agriculture. However, there is an increase in demand right now in municipal and industrial use. This is in part due to the growing populations in the areas that utilize Colorado River water

check out this link: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/TechMemoC/TMCreport.pdf

Copied from above link:

2.4 Summary of Trends in Historical Water Use
Historical data presented in Technical Report C – Water Demand Assessment (Reclamation, 2011b) demonstrate an increasing trend in Colorado River water use over time. Figure C-2 presents historical Colorado River uses and losses by category. From this figure, trends of increasing M&I water use and stable to decreasing agricultural water use can be seen, consistent with the population and irrigated acreage trends of the Southwest.
M&I water use has increased over time as a result of continued population growth in the Basin States. The Basin States include some of the most rapidly growing areas of the United States and typically have had growth rates far exceeding the national average. While population growth has slowed in recent years, the projections for the region continue to remain higher than the national average (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Significant decreases in per capita water use, largely due to improvements in indoor fixtures and appliances, have partially offset the water demands associated with increases in population.
Agricultural water use has been relatively stable in recent years, with some reductions likely due to the recent drought. Some reductions in irrigated acreage have occurred in the Basin, consistent with trends in the western United States, and appear to be associated with economic conditions, supply limitations, and pressures from urban encroachment due to land use changes and water transfers. Continued population growth is expected to continue these recent pressures on agriculture lands and water use.
Water use for energy purposes has grown over time, generally consistent with population growth. The growth in population has translated into increased energy demands in the Southwest with energy supply importation from other areas and expanding use of renewable energy. This growth in energy demands has been partially mitigated through federal and local energy conservation incentive programs.

from another study:

Rapid population growth is the major driver of water demand. Between 1990 and 2000 AZ’s population increased by 40% and CO’s population increased by 30%. Population projections predict continued increasing demand

link:Colorado Watershed Assembly - Colorado Water Facts

Well…I think we've sufficiently hijacked this thread.

To get back on track, if you have any opinions on the proposed whitewater park at Pumphouse, please submit some feedback to the BLM via the address in the OP.

I just think it's a bit narrow minded and short sighted to oppose this project because it might be an inconvenience. It helps to sometimes look at the bigger picture. If you don't want to have to run through the new features, use launch 2 or 3. If you don't want to drive all the way to Pumphouse to go play boating, then go to another play park that's closer to you. 

I don't really want to go on a rant…because, before you know it, I might start making crazy sarcastic suggestions such as in an effort to alleviate congestion, make launch 1 only a takeout for Gore or a put in for the whitewater park. Maybe then we'll have less dog crap around the ramps and parking area.


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

Some of these numbers are older, some are newer, but the percent used for public supply is in the 5% to 10% range with agricalture in the 85% to 90% range.

Source 1:
In Colo. agriculture, efficient water use doesnâ€™t always pay | Colorado Water Trust

Clip from Source 2:

*Colorado Water Usage Statewide*
It’s important to review water used for oil and gas development in context with other state water uses. Over 90 percent of all Colorado’s water is used for agriculture and 6 percent is used for public supply. Below we have estimated what Colorado’s oil and gas water use could be at maximum build out.

*Table 1: Colorado Water Use (2005)*

*Million gallons/Day**Billion gallons/Year*Irrigation (crop)12,321.854497.5Irrigation (golf course)40.6414.8Public -supply864.17315.4Domestic34.4312.6Industrial142.4452Livestock33.0612Mining21.427.8Thermo-electric123.2145Total withdrawals13,581.224957.1
Source: USGS 2005 _Estimated Withdrawals and Use of Water in Colorado, 2005_
- See more at: Colorado Oil & Gas Association

And from 2009, the per capita water use on the Front Range was dropping, but rapidly rising on the Western Slope:

As water use falls in Front Range, it explodes elsewhere in Colorado - The Denver Post


----------



## gretch6364 (Nov 22, 2013)

I still think we should do everything we can to secure flows, and the Colorado River is under attack, but I dislike all the finger pointing at Front Range residents. A growing population is going to use more water, yes, but focusing mostly on our water use as individuals is misguided IMHO. Yes, we should us less, but as that first source points out, the first place we should be looking for conservsation is agricultural uses and how to be more efficient there.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

This is somewhat complicated and requires a knowledge of colorado water law as well as current events in CO water issues.

Simple Answer:
-If you support keeping water in the colorado river for gore and pumphouse tell the BLM you support this project.
-If you support peak flows in June being reduced to 400-500 by additional water developments that would significantly harm the river ecosystem and recreational boating, then tell the blm you don't support this.

Details...

AW has been working on this with Grand County since 2008 and fully supports the RICD and the playpark.

AW worked on long term project on the colorado river basin. Projections were made that if future water development projects took place that the colorado near pumphouse could be reduced to 400-500 cfs through runoff. There is a looming threat of multiple future projects to take additional water out of the colorado river (moffat collection, windy gap firming and others). The ONLY vehicle avaiable in Colorado water law to keep water in a river vs. a water right to take it out is the recreational in channel diversion (RICD). Historically RICD's have been filed in conjuction with capital projects to build whitewater parks which essentially protect in stream flows to protect a capital investment in a whitewater park, which brings in revenue to the county / town etc. While this may seem like a round about approach its the way things have to get done the the complext water law...

So... to keep water in the river you need and RICD, to get and RICD you need a whitewater park, to get a whitewater park you need funding and support.

EVERYONE in the boating community should unanimously support this. Its a big deal, its got the full support of AW, and its the right thing to do to keep water in the Colorado river.

There is a big misconception... "The water is already there, so it will be in the future". WRONG! Many of the water rights that call for water on the colorado are fall water rights that keep the river flowing in Aug-Oct. There is a lot of water during runoff that flows down the river that is not being sent downstream for a water right... its just flowing downstream. Future projects can be built on the upper colorado to capture and store that water. Projections are that the colorado river peak near pumphouse could be completely reduced to base flows during peak runoff (ie 400-500 cfs) if additional projects are put in place. Tim K also noted that exchanges can mean that upstream storage projects could be put in on the upper C to get water to the front range, and then water could be exchanged from other future storage projects on the eagle or roaring fork to deliver water to downstream water rights holders in glenwood and the grand juntion area. Do not think for a second that the flow of the colorado river is safe because of the way it flows right now. Also, water rights for the shoshone power plant are a big factor in late summer flows. That power plant is old, and has a limited useful life. When the shoshone plant reaches the end of its useful life and is crumbling down, there is no gaurantee that a replacement dam / plant will be built, and there is no gaurantee that those water rights wont be sold or lost due to lack of use, especially to front range water interests. I'm sure multiple agencies would work to keep that from happening. Water rights are use it or lose it. If you can't keep using the water (because the plant is decommissioned), then that water right wont be applied as we know it.

Also, folks bickering over whether or not pumphouse is a good location are completely missing the point. Pumphouse is by far the best location for the majority of river users, and thats all that matters to planners. Pumphouse is the obvious meeting point where class IV/V boaters take off gore, and class II/III boaters of all sorts put on pumphouse. This is the only location that ideally fits for both user groups. As a gore paddler, I can say that I would use a play wave at pumphouse since its the gore takeout, but I would not likely drive or float downstream for a play feature after gore.

As for front range water interests and money vs. a RICD, well only time will tell. Grand County knows that its financial stability and long term viability depends on having water. Securing water flows in the river is a big deal, and if they get the RICD before other projects they will have a legally binding water right that can not be taken away unless the law is changed or unless they sell the right, or give it up. No one can just take it... Grand County would have to want to give it up. My guess is that Ground County would rather keep water in its backyard regarless of how many millions of dollars a developer on the front range wanted to pay for the water. Its a self preservation issue.


----------



## Hannah_at_BLM (Oct 20, 2010)

*Comments to BLM*

Just remember, posting your thoughts about the Gore Canyon Whitewater Park (for or against) on Mountain Buzz are not official comments and cannot be used in the Environmental Assessment. Please send an email to [email protected] or write Annie Sperandio PO BOX 68 Kremmling, CO 80459 with official comments.


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

gretch6364 said:


> Some of these numbers are older, some are newer, but the percent used for public supply is in the 5% to 10% range with agricalture in the 85% to 90% range.


These figures, and the senior water rights assigned to the users, have remained roughly the same for decades, despite Front Range, West Slope, Nevada, Arizona, Cali exponential growth.

For the upper basin states, the most recent estimate demonstrated about 82% ag water use. A little lower for the lower basin states. This, of course, used to grown primarily alfalfa, wheat, barley (outside of the Imperial Valley), crops farmers east of the 100th meridian are paid gov't subsidies to not grow. And used for mainly cattle, of which the US is 4th in total exports.

The whole concept of western water law of prior appropriation, and in fact, several elements of the Colorado Compact itself, is a broken, outdated system. It may have worked for early miners, with their hydraulic canons and sluices, and later for large scale ranchers and farmers, but 2014 water priorities should be different.

This of course has absolutely nothing to do with the water park. Sorry for the rant. Off my soapbox.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

Seems like a great place for a park- but I question the use of "below ramp #1", rather than just upstream? Unless you re-route all the commercial (and basically all raft launches) to the downstream ramps, aren't you going to have a parade of rafts interrupting the park? The current thru that area pushes you into the river left bank from the minute you launch- so unless they re-channel the river to make an alternate way thru, the park is gonna be a funnel for all the rafts that launch.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

Osseous said:


> Seems like a great place for a park- but I question the use of "below ramp #1", rather than just upstream? Unless you re-route all the commercial (and basically all raft launches) to the downstream ramps, aren't you going to have a parade of rafts interrupting the park? The current thru that area pushes you into the river left bank from the minute you launch- so unless they re-channel the river to make an alternate way thru, the park is gonna be a funnel for all the rafts that launch.


I don't think it's an issue. The rate of launches is not that high there and easy for people in the park to move over and let someone pass. I'll bet the rate of through traffic in Golden or Steamboat is about 10x greater.


----------



## SBlue (Jun 5, 2007)

Thank you Hannah at BLM for posting up this up here on the Buzz, and also for reminding us how to submit formal comments. Good discussion points Buzzards.

I once heard someone say something along the lines of "don't let the quest for perfection get in the way of accomplishing something very good." That doesn't always resonate with me, but sometimes it's well taken. This won't be the perfect play park but there is a lot of good accomplished by having it in place.

My email of support is submitted.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Osseous said:


> Seems like a great place for a park- but I question the use of "below ramp #1", rather than just upstream?


Just upstream of ramp #1 is a huge, somewhat lengthy pool of flatwater. Building whitewater parks that are good requires just a little bit of gradient and volume. Where the river is funneled, and has some gradient, happens to be just downstream of boat ramp #1, and thus it's a pretty good location. Re-channeling the river sounds like a bad idea, and pointless since kayakers are quite used to waiting for rafters to get out of the way, and will continue to do so impatiently.  Building two channels would make the flow much worse for a play feature (and damage the river more than necessary during construction). 

As said before, if you are worried about the current shoving you into the left bank in the WWP, you can always use boat launch #2 or #3. 

If you like having water in Pumphouse to float your raft down, then this is a good project to support.


----------



## Osseous (Jan 13, 2012)

I think it's a great idea- and I do support it. I was just wondering about the mindset of the kayakers having to deal with a constant flotilla or rafters in their features. Hope it all works out-


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Osseous said:


> I think it's a great idea- and I do support it. I was just wondering about the mindset of the kayakers having to deal with a constant flotilla or rafters in their features. Hope it all works out-


It might be necessary to post a sign "Rafters have Right of Way Through Play Park" (so we don't get a bunch of dirty looks).


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

KSC said:


> I don't think it's an issue. The rate of launches is not that high there and easy for people in the park to move over and let someone pass. I'll bet the rate of through traffic in Golden or Steamboat is about 10x greater.[/QUOTE
> Do you have any data to support this. ? I was under the impression that upstream of launch 1 was the original plan. Sounds like a horrible idea to put it between the launches. What will the construction impacts be for this season? I hope others will think about the project and make a decision instead of rubber stamping the less of to evils as others have tried to sell you on. Remember to email to the BLM I did.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

There is no issue whatsoever with having a wave downstream of launch one. Getting out of the way for downstream traffic is very easy, and its done on sooooo many rivers.... its not an issue. If you have ever surfed play waves on a river like the Ocoee or the Arkansas with non-stop commerical rafts, private rafts, and kayakers, you know its easily done. 

I've been at pumphouse a lot after gore runs, and I have never seen that much traffic. On the ocoee I have surfed when rafts were coming through every minute. That means 10 seconds of waiting for the raft, and 50 seconds of surfing and you still surf til your arms are toast.

Long and short... regardless of how much traffic is at pumphouse, a wave downstream of launch one will not be a problem. It will probably be fun for rafters to get a splash on the way down, and if you don't want to run the wave, launch downstream.


----------



## jmack (Jun 3, 2004)

Originally Posted by Osseous 
"I think it's a great idea- and I do support it. I was just wondering about the mindset of the kayakers having to deal with a constant flotilla or rafters in their features. Hope it all works out-"



FrankC said:


> It might be necessary to post a sign "Rafters have Right of Way Through Play Park" (so we don't get a bunch of dirty looks).


You seriously want a sign put up so that you don't get "dirty looks"? 

The mindset of kayakers about moving out of the way of rafters is that it does not bother us because we don't complain about every tiny little inconvenience.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

jmack said:


> Originally Posted by Osseous
> "I think it's a great idea- and I do support it. I was just wondering about the mindset of the kayakers having to deal with a constant flotilla or rafters in their features. Hope it all works out-"
> 
> 
> ...


If you're not going to complain about every tiny little inconvenience get the fuck off the internet. Others have whinging to do.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

I've never been to Pumphouse on a busy rafting day, but I have spent many days in the BV playpark that has four features just downstream of the commercial put in for full day trips. While conflicting traffic is a valid concern to bring up, I don't see it as an issue at BV so I can't imagine why it would be an issue at Pumphouse where there are fewer users. Maybe it's a split between private versus commercial rafters mindsets, but I'm pretty sure every kayaker knows rafts have the right of way, even if your surfing in a man made park.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

jmack said:


> Originally Posted by Osseous
> "I think it's a great idea- and I do support it. I was just wondering about the mindset of the kayakers having to deal with a constant flotilla or rafters in their features. Hope it all works out-"
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, I have come across more than a few kayakers in my day who curse rafts for interupting their surf. Not cool. Then there is the issue of inexperience rafters panicing because they don't realize the surfer will dart out of the way at the last second. I've been kayaking and rafting for at least 20 years so I see both sides of the story.

BTW - Pumphouse is ground zero for stupidity (eg: picnicing and sunbathing on an active boat launch) so maybe some more signage would help.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> There is no issue whatsoever with having a wave downstream of launch one. Getting out of the way for downstream traffic is very easy, and its done on sooooo many rivers.... its not an issue. If you have ever surfed play waves on a river like the Ocoee or the Arkansas with non-stop commerical rafts, private rafts, and kayakers, you know its easily done. I've been at pumphouse a lot after gore runs, and I have never seen that much traffic. On the ocoee I have surfed when rafts were coming through every minute. That means 10 seconds of waiting for the raft, and 50 seconds of surfing and you still surf til your arms are toast. Long and short... regardless of how much traffic is at pumphouse, a wave downstream of launch one will not be a problem. It will probably be fun for rafters to get a splash on the way down, and if you don't want to run the wave, launch downstream.






Maybe your right and there will be no , fishing issues , construction issues , over crowding issue But I think I'm right and it makes more sense to put it above the put in as originally planned. I would encourage others to investigate on there own and submit comments based on facts not lies ie "it has good flow all summer " "it not that busy at pumphouse" "it's not as busy as the c hole in Steamboat" what a joke. let's see these statements backed up with user days statistics and flow charts that are not based on a 50 year average that is no longer valid with the current climate changes IMO. I don't think myself or any other kayakers will struggle to let the rafts and drift boats pass but why not put the park above the put in for people that will not use it and provide more time to surf for those that will enjoy it ? I feel that you and others just want it done. I feel the issue is that it should be done right or not done at all as another dysfunctional play park will impede the construction of others in the future. I hope they get it worked out 50 yards upstream of the pumphouse launch 1.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Heres an idea. Instead of relying on those narrow concrete ramps, how about expanding the launch areas with some nice big gravel beaches for the non trailer crowd? We shouldn't be competing with the trailers to get on the river. That area above the launch 1 parking lot would be perfect for this.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Or, how about everyone just share beer and work with each other a bit. I mean, if 5,432,087 sailors and boaters can get it straight and not kill each other daily at boat ramps around the country, I bet a bunch of laid back rafters and kayakers can do it just as well.

Course, you dare not leave your beer unattended around a Kayaker, that is unless you're tired of hauling it around.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I think the reasons not to do it above launch one are as follows
-one plan of doing it upstream at the end of the 4wd road would require a new road, and more expense, and also cut out all pumphouse folks
-Putting the playpark just upstream of launch one does not have the gradient to make the wave
-Putting the park upstream of launch one means rafters that want to run the feature can't.

I was surprised when I first saw a proposal to put the feature above pumphouse, and I personally think pumphouse is THE PERFECT location, but to each his own.


----------

