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.