Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The city of Montrose, CO is developing a river master plan for the Uncompahgre River through Montrose. There is an important meeting Monday evening, July 26 at 5:30 pm at the Montrose Pavilion. The city is seeking input on future development in and around the river. Part of that could be a whitewater park on the Uncompahgre River. The city is serious enough about this possibility that they have contacted Scott Shipley, Olympian and designer of the Ocoee River Olympic Whitewater Course, to possibly do a feasability study for a course on the Uncompahgre.

We need people to contact the city of Montrose and express their interest in a whitewater park either at the meeting or online. Below is a link to the city's online form to offer your input and an article describing the process. For this to go forward we need as many responses as possible that express interest in developing a whitewater park.

Montrose, CO - Official Website

The Watch Newspapers - Public Input Sought on Uncompahgre River Corridor Master Plan

This is not about the M wave or development on the South Canal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
195 Posts
Actually, Rick McLaughlin (McLaughlin Whitewater) and John Anderson designed the Olympic course on the Ocoee. Scott (S2ODesign) designed the USNWC in Charlotte. Both are solid engineers that do great work, IMHO.

Good luck - hope it goes! More states need to do the GOCO thing - great program!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
It would be soo great to see a park in Montrose! Will try to write in and say I'll drive from CB to paddle there when its warm there and cold here. Good luck moving the process along with the inclusion of a park.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
would be great to see, but is there enough water the uncompahgre in montrose for a park? are there plans to put some sort of park in on the canal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for the correction on Scott Shipley's information. Sorry, I blew that one. Regardless, he is a well regarded whitewater park designer that has designed parks all over the country. Also concerning the South Canal, one potential upside iof a hydro project is that that there may wind up being more water in the canal more of the year and that means more water in the Uncompahgre River too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
Thanks for the links to the hydro project on the canal Meng. I think that is a great idea to make power there on the canal. But what about the M Wave? Is that project going to impact the M Wave? We should try to make that not happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Also concerning the South Canal, one potential upside iof a hydro project is that that there may wind up being more water in the canal more of the year and that means more water in the Uncompahgre River too.
That would be a nice perk for boaters!

The main upside would be locally generated renewable energy and the creation of a good project that uses existing infrastructure, has few negative enviro/social impacts and is likely economically feasible because it's near existing transmission. Development in the South Canal would be a positive step in Montrose's energy security, safeguarding electric rates for DMEA members all while reducing GHG emissions. Plus the site is not at the actual M-Wave drop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Thanks for the links to the hydro project on the canal Meng. I think that is a great idea to make power there on the canal. But what about the M Wave? Is that project going to impact the M Wave? We should try to make that not happen.
The proposed generation site is not at the M-Wave site, it's upstream. During Esca season, I asked Hotze what he thought about the project and he does not think there will be an impact to the feature. My one concern is that access could get more difficult and enforcement of no trespassing stipulations might become more heavily enforced....but this is just an unfounded 'worst case' concern at this point. I think the reality is that paddlers have no legal grounds to protest anything going on in the SOuth Canal for recreation or acess reasons because the canal, the water and the surrounding land is all privately owned. My hope is that the project goes through (setting a good example for others to follow) and does not impact the limited amount of paddling that goes on there.....for access not to get shut off, our best best is probably just to lay low and not advertise that a kayaking interest even exists really (if they - energy developers - know about it, they will need to address it. If not, it can be business as usual). I guess I am the one talking about it here so maybe I should just shut up.
Hope that provides some clarity.....
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top