Opinion: CU South flood plan is full of holes

 I’ve been studying the flood situation again, and it is becoming increasingly clear to me that (1) the proposed “100-year” detention pond for South Boulder Creek will not stop the areas that flooded in 2013 from being inundated again, and (2) the related Annexation Agreement that allows massive development on CU South is full of holes and should be repealed.

Let’s be straight about the 2013 flood. Much of Southeast Boulder is a floodplain, created by South Boulder Creek, Viele Channel and other local flows. Given climate change and the resulting stronger storms, even if a storm centers on the Eldorado Springs area and drains into South Boulder Creek, it is a virtual certainty that this “100-year” pond will overtop with some frequency; so the downstream area will be flooded anyway. But if the storm centers a few miles further north over Southwest Boulder, water will come down Viele Channel, completely missing the detention pond. Then the water will do just what it did in 2013 — run uncontrolled through the U.S. 36 and Table Mesa intersection and flood much of the same area.

CU has refused to let Boulder build a pond big enough to handle a “500-year” event, even though CU gets 500-year protection for all its CU South development. (By the way, regarding the claims by some that CDOT won’t let Boulder build a 500-year pond, open record requests have yielded no documents saying anything like that.)

Interestingly, after the 2013 flood, the Frasier Meadows retirement community, where many people were pushing the city for faster action, built berms, walls and flood gates around many parts of their property. The great advantage of such improvements is that they block water irrespective of its source. Some quick calculations suggest that far more structures might be protected using this approach for less money than by the inadequate pond. And the pond still has numerous uncertainties regarding receiving the necessary permits, legal agreement that the city’s flood fees can be used for this, and political consent to potentially putting off other city-wide flood work for decades.

Additionally, much of the 2013 damage was not from direct flooding, but from sewers and basement floor drain backups. The city is finally starting to re-line sewers. It should set up a large-scale program for homeowners to lower the cost of installing backflow preventers since they have a very high level of certainty of actually preventing damage. And an early warning system would ensure that people are not surprised as in 2013. As a reminder — the only deaths in 2013 were on a road west of North Boulder, not in Southeast Boulder.

To build this inadequate pond on CU’s property, the city council signed an Annexation Agreement with CU (negotiated in 23 arguably illegal closed-door meetings) that would allow CU’s development on the site to be almost the size of downtown Boulder. Bizarrely, this agreement could be changed by a bare majority of a future city council to further increase the amount of development, eliminate the height limit, end requirements for traffic mitigation and even change the zoning to commercial to allow CU to sell the property for a windfall, all without citizen approval.

As to the traffic issue, the Annexation Agreement is, once again, full of holes. The agreement is structured so that CU cannot proceed to the next “phase” of development unless the traffic limits are maintained, but the “phases” are determined by CU. The amount CU must spend for mitigation ($5 minimum per trip) does not rise with inflation. So, by the time this mitigation is required, it is virtually certain that CU’s EcoPass program, which all students and staff get anyway, will meet the agreement’s requirement. So, expect traffic to increase without any real limit.

Finally, there is no guarantee that the city’s design for the pond will pass muster. The pond relies on unproven systems to pass groundwater through the floodwall’s impervious foundation to maintain valuable wetlands on the downstream side of U.S. 36. It also relies on a huge concrete-lined pit excavated below groundwater level to increase the pond’s capacity. This pit will also have to be maintained indefinitely, otherwise it will fill with groundwater and silt and be useless.

Of course, in the process, many of the irreplaceable natural areas in the floodplain will be gone, and we will all be the poorer. That is why almost 6,000 citizens signed a referendum giving us a chance this November to tell the council that this annexation needs to be rethought right from the beginning.

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 the new co
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