Opinion: Finally a real start to South Boulder Creek flood planning


The Open Space Board of Trustees finally did what the City Council and the Water Resources Advisory Board have failed to do. The OSBT conditioned the use of open space for flood control on city staff taking a serious look at upstream options. This could potentially avoid both a view-blocking dam along U.S. Highway 36 as well as destruction of important wildlife habitat. This examination of a broader range of options is long overdue.
Also, thanks to council member Mark Wallach for raising two big equity issues – which creeks should get the flood control money to maximize the benefit/cost ratio, and who should pays for the University of Colorado Boulder’s expansion agenda, CU or Boulder citizens. That these questions still exist exposes the fact that this process was mismanaged from the beginning.
South Boulder Creek was one of multiple tributaries that flooded in 2013. It’s the biggest, but others, including Bear Canyon Creek, Bluebell Creek, and Skunk Creek, also had very significant damage, in total or in the fraction of properties affected. Why, after almost seven years, is there is no plan that comprehensively addresses all these drainages?
With climate change, the probability of floods larger than the 100-year or 500-year planning models has gone way up, so realistically we could see another big one in the next few decades. How is our government supposed to make intelligent decisions about where to spend our money if we don’t have detailed plans, cost/benefit analyses, etc., so that comparative evaluations can be done? If it’s your house that gets flooded, it doesn’t matter which creek you’re near, you get just as wet.
The current planning for South Boulder Creek started with the political assumption that Boulder had give CU what it wanted so CU would allow its land to be used.  And that included tens of millions of dollars of Boulder’s money to protect large portions of this land from flooding, a commitment by the city to pay for any flood damage, and many other big dollar items. For example, the current plan includes charging us flood utility fees to pay for filling 1.3 million cubic yards of the “gravel pit” that was mined out before CU bought the land so CU can have more space out of the flood plain on which to build.
Aside from the irony of re-filling a defunct gravel pit, there is a real question as to whether this money should come from Boulder citizens, and whether the council can impose a fee to extract it. This gigantic backfill project and other CU-demanded improvements are not necessary for flood control, so there is a real possibility that a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights lawsuit, claiming this is a tax and not a fee, could be successful. Who ends up on the hook then? To me, it makes more sense to preempt this uncertainty and let the voters decide if they really want to pay for CU’s expansion.
The South Boulder Creek flood planning effort was not appropriately conceived in many ways. It should have started with scoping the physical issues (topography, flood probabilities, protected habitat, etc.) instead of starting with the politics that led to giving CU total control up front.
In addition, the range of options evaluated was way too limited. Knowledgeable citizens with professional experience were relegated to writing emails, instead of being included. Government agencies with strong interests were ignored, at least until recently. Council members and lead staff should build on the opportunity offered by the OSBT’s requirement for a full examination of upstream options, and re-start this project properly.
That way the end result will likely take less time, be far better, and will certainly have more buy in. And if CU has to give something up, so be it.
On another matter, I want to respond to Mark McIntyre’s “shoot the messenger” guest opinion of some days ago on his “direct election of mayor” initiative. The petitioners could very easily have written their initiative to create eight council seats plus the mayor, but they created only seven, eight in total, with the mayor.
And, no, Charter Section 5 cannot create council seats where none exist. It only allows filling of vacancies in existing seats, like when Jill Grano resigned last year. As to big money elections, while individual contributions are limited to $100, there is no limit to overall spending, only the voluntary limit that is required to obtain matching funds.


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