Go Back   Mountain Buzz > Whitewater Boating > Whitewater Kayaking

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-20-2008   #11
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,302
Originally Posted by yetigonecrazy View Post
^ i agree completely.

I think the funniest thing about the entire Western Slope diversion complex is the "movers and shakers" on the Front Range come up all the crazy, grand ideas for diversions, hundreds of new and different proposals every year, but somehow, in all of those proposals over the past forty years, not once has there been a proposal that says: "Stop watering your lawn so much". Or never one that says "Let's NOT build a bunch of new golf courses".

Its always take, take, take, never a "let's see what we can do by ourselves."
You're off on this. Denver Water has led a very strong marketing campaign with the focus on conservation. Probably one of my favorite and IMO best put-together campaign in the city (and I'm a marketing major). There are signs on the buses, newsletters and flyers, yard signs in all of the zero-scaped yards in my neighborhood, and billboards explaining when it is okay to water.

Further, many of the newer developments in urban areas are being built with zero-scapes, or small yards with a trade off for shared parks with limited and/or gray watering.

That said Denver is a very attractive place to live. Just take a look at all of the license plates that say New Orleans on them. Even if the city continues to conserve water, the amount of growth leads to far more demand than that saved by proper conservation. Until the Front Range (and Colorado in general... think Pagosa Springs, the Ark Valley, GJ, Montrose) stop growing then the demand for water will only increase and the supply won't change.

Although there are plenty of water-wasting sprawl and suburban type developments that keep there lawns way to green in an arid area without trees (Commerce City and Parker), the water isn't being taken from the west slope solely to make green yards. It's taken for people to drink and use inside of there houses. I agree with Basil that water used for peoples needs trump recreation, and unfortunately the environment by the average american. You can stop the diversions by having people move to the west slope, but it won't stop the demand for more than what is available.

But to actually answer the question... 1. I'm against the diversion and hugely against making Gross Res larger. USB is the best hard-man's V+ run on the Front Range. Shortening the length of whitewater and potentially burying RIMBY would suck (there's another post on this). LSB doesn't compare in quality and Eldo is too manky, so even with an extended season on these it still wouldn't be worth it. Not to mention the environmental impact on the forest around Gross, or the longer paddle out.

3. The alternative is to do nothing. Stop supplying more water than what already comes to the front range, and stop all non-zero-scaping developments, and developments away from city centers. Further encourage urban development and urban renewal programs backed by public transit as an alternative to public sprawl. No new lawns.

4. Kayaking doesn't do shit for the local economy. Locals rarely kayak SBC, out of towners almost never kayak it, and there isn't much of an economy up there to start with. It's all dependent on the FR.

Kyle McCutchen
Cutch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2008   #12
Boulder, Colorado
Paddling Since: 0000
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2
thanks a lot for your opinions they helped a bunch. except MikeG

wade@watershed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2008   #13
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 646
why do the western slope rivers need to be pumped over the mountain just so folks in Greely can have extra green lawns?
Lot's of people take this view. But, the water is for farmers and of the water that is used for people (urban use), Front Range people use less per person than West Slope people.

I agree that more can be and should be done with conservation. I wish the West Slope would join in.
basil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2008   #14
The next zone, .
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,200
So the farmers that are using the water do not live on the front range?? Water over the pass is water over the pass how your peers in the FR CHOOSE to divide up this water is the responsibility of all on the FR...

Funny how all the city folk love to blame the farmer many who have had the rights to that water for generations. They are the evil water user not the new transplant from the mid west who buys a house in the ever expanding blue grass fields of highlands ranch.

I would like to see our generation push for in basin use only. Only grow as big as your basin can support. Only historical water could cross the divide, no new projects. If the FR wants to grow at this astonishing rate they could buy the water from the farmers and if you pay enough they will sell it. Then grow as big as is possible with the water you just bought. Once this water runs out build some dams or stop growing.. Simple... And a way to slow growth to a reasonable rate..

It is nice that some in the FR choose to conserve but as we all have seen over the past 100 years a quality marketing campaign by Denver water to make some feel better for conserving a small ammount of water is not the anwser. It will not solve the problem.... All it does is make FR water users feel that if they conserve a little bit then they have the "right" to take more w.slope water....... I dont buy it..

In basin use only will never happen.. Front range water has the money and power to do what they choose and unfortunatly what they choose and what the people of the FR go along with is a assult on WS water..
Jahve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2008   #15
Caspian's Avatar
Englewood, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1978
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 882
A few points -

First, yes, the farmers do use more water. But I'm pretty sure the growth in usage is not coming from the farmers, but from the suburbs.

Second, for those ripping on Denver conservation efforts...During the 2002 drought, Denver worked hard to reduce consumption, and was able to get is usage down the level it needed to without having the area run out of water. They have a great track record with conservation. (Whether the general usage of water on the FR is at necessary and proper level as a matter of course is a different issue.)

Third, it is patently wrong that they never propose to conserve water rather than build a new reservoir or whatever. The Gross project specifically includes a conservation component of 16K acre-feet to meet the projected need - the reservoir alone doesn't meet that projection. And based on Denver's previous success in that area, I would be surprised if they don't meet it or get pretty close.

Finally, the expansion project didn't come from nowhere:

"Part of the deal when Two Forks Dam was stopped was that the parties had to develop other sources to get the water that would not be produced from TFD, and would do so within 20 years. Alternatives to the Two Forks Dam continue to be considered, including the expansion of Gross Reservoir."

Does it suck? Of course it does, but it is way better than the Two Forks Dam by most folk's reckoning. Is it the least of all possible evils? Maybe, maybe not - but that is what the public comment period is for - suggesting alternative solutions. There have been other options under consideration, and if you submit comments, you can argue for one of those.

As for whether whether RIMBY would be underwater, the current spillway is at an elevation of 7282 feet. The new one would be at 7400 feet, extending the Reservoir about mile up into USB. You can see where this is by finding the where this contour line intersects with the creek on a topo map. Maybe someone who knows the run well can find that and tell us all conclusively whether the expansion would bury good boating?
Join up, suckas.

"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
- Soren Kierkegaard
Caspian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2008   #16
SE, Tennessee
Paddling Since: 1991
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
I looked at the FERC site and saw only that the application had been submitted. Smallie, do you know if comments have been accepted already?

FERC: eLibrary
Click General Search, then enter p-2035 in the docket field to view the comments
smallie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2008   #17
caspermike's Avatar
Bozeman, Montana
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,507
Originally Posted by yetigonecrazy View Post

Its always take, take, take, never a "let's see what we can do by ourselves."
Thats colorado.

caspermike 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
Gross enlargement -- potential reservoir expansion to drown part of USB ACC Whitewater Kayaking 10 09-03-2008 04:43 AM
Falls at Tarryall Resevoir teamamericawp Whitewater Kayaking 1 08-22-2006 08:40 AM
SBC - Below Gross IkayakNboard Whitewater Kayaking 2 05-18-2006 12:18 PM
resevoir breach telegurl Whitewater Kayaking 5 12-15-2005 07:40 PM
Paonia Resevoir Spillway uriah Whitewater Kayaking 2 07-15-2005 08:55 AM

» Classified Ads
2016 Dagger Axiom 9.0 (LG)

posted by atom

2016 Dagger Axiom 9.0 Used a handful of times. Great...


posted by ShamanRx

Brand New never used 2016 XXL Crux. Has relief zipper and...

Wavesport Diesel 65 Kayak

posted by weddell

Wavesport Diesel 65 kayak. In excellent condition, no oil...

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 05:23 AM.

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