Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-19-2008   #31
Longmont, Colorado
Paddling Since: 98
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
Originally Posted by RiverGirl84 View Post
P.S. Did we all forget that the Poudre is the ONLY designated "wild and scenic" river in Colorado?
Unfortunately itís only a certain stretch upstream of this project. We canít rely on this to stop this project.

GPP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #32
Bend, Oregon
Paddling Since: 1993
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by jenneral View Post
.... Put yourself in the shoes of a farmer who has spent the last ten years of drought fighting for water to try to make it and maybe even make a profit this year on his crops now that prices are high for alfalfa, corn, wheat, etc. All these crops are dependent on water. .
This is an interesting perspective. Agriculture accounts for between 80% to 90% of the water used in Colorado, depending on whose figures you use. Every farmer is completely aware of water rights as well. If they tried to set up a water-intensive farming operation with junior water rights, its no different than building a new housing development without knowing where the water is coming from. That being said, the whole water rights system is broken. One farmer with senior water rights can be incredibly inefficient with their usage because there is no incentive to conserve and the next guy might get no water at all that year. There are many proven techniques (look at Israel as a model) for efficient dry land farming but there is little incentive to use them in the U.S. We all need to conserve our water and develop in a sustainable way for each ecosystem, including farmers. We could easily account for increased development (if that is inevitable) by fairly simple conservation measures at the home, manufacturing, and especially agricultural levels.
As we fight against this dam, we should also be looking farther down the road and trying to revamp CO water allocation laws.

Vaya Con Rios!

MikeG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #33
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15
What is really going on here?

Let me start by saying, I am by default against the dam, but in peparation for the battle we are up against, heres some points that are going to be made in favor, this is what they are promising and why, please feel free to set me right if I am misunderstanding this: the Poudre is already augmented by the Laramie tunnel some 20+%(?), ie; it is bigger than it should be anyway. This water is already owned by someone out there. The water quality issues if they do exist, will be trumped by water rights unfortunately. So the EIS is worth it's weight in sputum no matter what it says, as the law will favor water rights over water quality. ("Environmental health" always takes a back seat to "Public Health " this is why the Environment comes last in the Department of Public Health.... and Environment...CDPHE... in Denver). The Poudre below the dam, they say, will have more water and colder trout water the rest of the year, which may make it a nicer place for recreation. It will also dilute the sewage effluent that completely replaces the Poudre when it hits Fort Collins, perhaps making it a nicer river. Lastly for the kayaker, the possibility of an in town year play park may be dangled like a carrot in front of you, can you resist it? Lastly, if there are no laws to stop the city of Greely from turning the POudre jet black last week with ash from their reservoir, and there are no laws preventing Fort Collins from replacing the entire river w/ sewage effluent, what laws will stop this dam from going through, when what they are promising is water quality improvements? Anyway how about some suggestions about WHY to stop it, and then HOW, instead of this incessant throat slitting that I always see on here? Thanks...
kozmonot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #34
Longmont, Colorado
Paddling Since: 98
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
Now we are getting somewhere.

To address a couple of your pointís Iíll direct you to the executive summary. While itís not the full 700 page EIS it can actually be read and understood in a reasonable amount of time.

This document addressed the kayak park in saying that flows will be affected during average years which will affect the length of the season during May and June. It also goes on to say that during low water years the course would become unusable based on minimum flow requirements. Iím still yet to find out what those minimum requirements are. In addition it clearly states that flows will be reduced from the mouth of the canyon all the way to the South Platt. I didnít see anywhere that flows would increase or that water quality would increase except for where they state that the Filter plant run could see increased flow late in the year due to water being brought in from the C-BT (~80CFS) and dumped into the Poudre at the filter plant.

And I did find where they state that the water will be directed using existing structures beyond the mouth of the canyon (i.e the canal that comes off just after the filter plant run). They do state though that water could be pulled from another diversion 5 miles up stream though it does not sound like that is the main intent.

The biggest battle here is that they already own the land and they already own the water. They could pull it at any time, they just donít have anywhere to put it right now. Basically we are arguing that they have to leave something that is legally theirs in the river and not use it for their benefit.
GPP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #35
Force's Avatar
Bham, Washington
Paddling Since: 1997
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 463
GP33 you are making progress. However just becuase Northern owns the water right and the land does not mean they can build the dam regardless. They are however allowed to continue to try and develop/utilize their water right. For people who weren't around when the mainstem dam was proposed this is the same water right they were trying to use then and will continue to use when the Glade Res project is rejected (I'm a glass half full kind of guy).

As part of the federal NEPA EIS regulations they have document want the project impacts will be and then mitigate for those impacts for the project to be approved. The draft EIS does not include any substantial mitigation for the impacts that will occur beyond an adaptive managment approach which is basically a wait and see what the impacts will be and then try and fix them after they occur approach. This is entirely unnacceptable and one of the biggest issues in the DEIS.

For all of those continuing to comment to the Corps remember comments that are most effective address specific short comings of the DEIS with regards to the NEPA process and reg's and technical approach taken in the supporting documents. Simply saying you're opposed to the project becuase we should be conserving water, limiting growth, etc is not effective at this stage in the process.
The high side of good - Daniel D
Force is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #36
Longmont, Colorado
Paddling Since: 98
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 328
Thank you, my original point exactly. A fact based argument will go much further than emotions. However since the demand for water will continue to grow we need to also be able to provide alternative solutions.

Simply because they own the land and water doesn’t mean it’s a lost cause, it just makes it that much more of a battle.

There’s some good info the executive summary about water usage per day per person for the communities who will be involved with this as well as stats on current draw from the river.

The big question I have been unable to find is a firm answer on exactly how much additional draw there will be and what the minim flows referenced will be. I seem to come across conflicting information everywhere I look. If anyone has this info please share it.
GPP33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #37
Force's Avatar
Bham, Washington
Paddling Since: 1997
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 463
All documentation can be found on the Corps webpage. Their is a hydrology discussion in the full DEIS.

There is also a lot of good information in the technical reports,

GP33, your question about where to find info illustrates why everyone opposed to the project should request extending the 90 day review to 180 days to ensure the public has enough time to review the amount of information and provide intelligent on the project and its impacts.
The high side of good - Daniel D
Force is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008   #38
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2

Kudos! You have provided an extensive wealth of evidence against the creation of Glade Reservoir. If you need any additional information to support opposition to the project, I would be happy to help research and provide additional information for those in need of further convincing. This has been an ongoing battle for years which, as you mentioned, has been consistently shot down by solid environmental impact evidence (remember: the endangered Prebbles Meadow Jumping Mouse, for instance - pardon my spelling) in previous project proposal attempts.

The opposition to the project lies not only in the possibility of a 'taking,' which has been one of the strongest and most effective arguments used in by many interest groups (e.g., American Whitewater, Sierra Club, Friends of the Poudre) in similar environmental cases. The negative impact to other beneficial economic uses of the water (e.g., recreation, property value) and to the overall quality of life (e.g., aesthetics, clean water, etc.) should also be considered as valid arguments.

It's time to stand up for what you believe in... don't let urban sprawl and unsustainable uses of water continue in the same direction as they have since the Water Appropriations Doctrine and the Big Thompson Project.

It's time for some change. Without water, what do we (and the ecosystem) have left?

Thanks, Evan, for your words.
JFP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2008   #39
Durango, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1990
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by GPP33 View Post
Unfortunately itís only a certain stretch upstream of this project. We canít rely on this to stop this project.
For me, at least, it doesn't matter. This is something that should encourage us to save the whole river. Not just that stretch. I do agree though, unfortunately, it is not enough to stop that project.

RiverGirl84 is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SAVE US brettb The Eddy 1 05-26-2008 11:25 AM
Just in the off chance.... skibuminwyo Whitewater Kayaking 0 05-19-2008 10:45 PM
LAST CHANCE!!! and Camping too.... erdvm1 Whitewater Kayaking 4 05-26-2007 02:13 PM
Please Help Save the Ashlu River....Last Chance ShaneRobinson Whitewater Kayaking 3 01-04-2005 01:47 AM
Did We Miss Our Chance? MaryJane Whitewater Kayaking 4 06-13-2004 10:18 AM

» Classified Ads
Jackson Karma Large

posted by Mmcquillen

2016 L Karma, used for 1/2 a season. Bought it new in July...

Pyranha Burn 3 Small R/G/W

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Gear Sale

posted by tskoe23

Selling off a few things that I'm no longer using. 1....

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.