Opinion: The curse of the Boulder Valley


In 1858, Chief Niwot, Boulder’s first real environmentalist (that we know about), told the European settlers the area was cursed: “People seeing the beauty of this valley will want to stay, and their staying will be the undoing of the beauty.”
We are seeing Chief Niwot’s curse play out. The arguments for more and more, whether based on the specious need for continual growth and change or on the magical logic that more people means less total impact, drown out what should be obvious — there are fundamental constraints on how many people and jobs can be jammed into the Boulder Valley and still have it be a desirable place.
Growth plus climate change have made our water supply much less secure. Boulder has three water sources: the Arapahoe Glacier area via the Lakewood Pipeline, the Middle Boulder Creek drainage via Barker Reservoir, and the Colorado River via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT). Under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, the Lower Basin states (CA, AZ, NV) are entitled to the first 7.5 million acre feet per year on a 10-year average, and the Upper Basin gets what’s left. In the years prior to the Compact’s signing, runoff exceeded 15 million Acre-feet. So
it looked like the Upper Basin was getting a good deal by receiving more than half the total.
But with climate change-induced drought, the Upper Basin states (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico) will take the full brunt of the inadequate runoff, once they run out of credits for over-deliveries. The compact’s structure creates this multiplier effect — the Lower Basin gets a guaranteed amount, so all deficits come out of the Upper Basin’s share.
Colorado’s share of this deficit is assessed first against those holding Colorado River junior water rights, further focusing the negative impact. C-BT’s water rights are relatively junior. And without its C-BT water, Boulder would have very serious shortages almost every year.
Colorado water expert James Eklund presented this reality in the April 19 Denver Post when discussing the current water dispute with Arizona. “The states have a long history of cooperating on ways to conserve the waterway, Eklund said, and the Upper Basin states want that to continue. He said they can’t afford to wait, because another dry winter could trigger mandatory cutbacks for water users under the rules governing the river.”

Transportation is another area where we need to face reality. In brief, congestion is not a linear function of traffic. Up to a point, an intersection can handle increased traffic without causing much slowing or delay. But as soon as the intersection reaches capacity, cars start to stack up, delays increase exponentially, emissions climb, and people take risks, which is why the “yellow arrow turn” has become such an issue. Accident prevention is useful, but it’s really addressing a symptom, not a cause.
Traffic congestion affects other aspects of our life: Businesses have a harder time operating, and people shop elsewhere, reducing sales tax revenues. A number of people have told me that they now shop in Superior because it’s easier to get to. This exacerbates the drop in sales tax due to online shopping and other cities becoming more competitive.
Even attempting to deal with congestion will require radical changes, like shifting funding from sales tax to parking charges to subsidize car pools, van pools, ride sharing services, and delivery services, as well as fund O&M. These services would reduce overall traffic, and the fees would provide a disincentive to driving.
In addition, the city would have to put in place appropriate development impact fees and exactions based on a (long overdue) transportation master plan that would actually prevent traffic increases. And almost certainly, the city would have to fund transportation specialists to consult with employers, just as we do with energy efficiency improvements, to help design location-specific programs to reduce commuting traffic.
Finally, we have to face up to these realities in our city planning. This will mean shifting from piecemeal site reviews that allow pretty much whatever wherever to doing truly sustainable planning that comprehensively addresses our constraints. This will require keeping the building height moratorium, redesigning the site review process, and focusing on the long term. We need to recognize our limitations and live within them.
Singer Joni Mitchell really captured the essence of Chief Niwot’s concerns in her 1970 song “Big Yellow Taxi:”
“Don’t it always seem to go
“That you don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone?
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.”

That says it all.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of t...
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further...
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ...
Read more