Fort Collins Weekly
May 2007
Last Tuesday, the City Council took up the issue of water. No, it wasn’t the expansion of the Halligan Reservoir. Rather, Council discussed the proposed Glade Reservoir, part of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Now, first and foremost, the Glade Reservoir project doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. Council will get an opportunity to offer input, but they never vote on the project. However, Glade will affect the flow of the Poudre River through Fort Collins, so the City Council is right to discuss this issue.
With the expansion of Halligan on the horizon, it was instructive to hear some of the arguments that are being made by groups such as the Save the Poudre Coalition and some of the strident anti-storage voices on Council.
The Glade Reservoir would be an off-stream reservoir, northwest of Fort Collins along Highway 287. Slightly larger than Horsetooth Reservoir, it would serve many of the cities and towns of Northern Colorado. Later this summer, the Army Corps of Engineers will be releasing their environmental impact statement (EIS) on Glade, addressing many of the concerns regarding the flow of the Poudre through Fort Collins. Nicole Seltzer of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District gave a preview of the report’s findings.
According to Seltzer, while the Glade Reservoir would divert some water from the Poudre, that diversion would happen during the peak flow months, primarily between April and July, with the majority in May and June. She gave an example using the current flow of 1,500 cubic feet per second, noting that a fully functional Glade Reservoir would only divert 100 cfs from the Poudre through town. Even more importantly, Seltzer noted that the flow of the Poudre is monitored closely at three different points. It is stipulated in the water rights that diversion can not happen when the flow rates of the river fall below a certain level.
Councilmembers David Roy, Kelly Ohlson and Ben Manvel were clearly opposed to the project. David Roy argued that it wasn’t important to expand water storage to protect our agricultural heritage, saying that “I believe it’s a heritage that will rapidly dwindle.” Ben Manvel seemed to be upset that Glade wouldn’t resolve the issue forever and that we would need even more storage in the future.
Kelly Ohlson started off by saying that “hopefully, it will never be built.” He addressed the mitigation projects of the Conservancy District with the comment that “I, for one, don’t think you can mitigate a murder.” And renewable energy such as ethanol which require irrigated agriculture? Ohlson’s response to ethanol was “I think it’s a complete environmental and financial disaster that ought to stop tomorrow,” labeling it a “corndoggle.”
Most telling, however, were the tactics of Gary Wockner of the Save the Poudre Coalition. Wockner set up his testimony by asking: “What happens when you take half of the water out of the river?” Who said anything about taking half the water out of the river? The Glade project would only divert water during peak flow, and even then it wouldn’t be taking anywhere near “half of the water.” In the late May example – as we approach the peak flow of June – the reservoir would divert just seven percent. That’s a far cry from “half,” and it doesn’t take into account the flow safeguards, mitigation, or the fact that diversion will not happen year-round.
The Save the Poudre Coalition is attempting to use the scare tactics of a dried-up river and a crippled ecosystem. According to the Conservancy District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and such study partners as the Division of Wildlife and the Environmental Protection Agency, that’s simply not the case.
The first recommendation of the Save the Poudre Coalition is for the city to collect data on the effect Glade will have on the Poudre, our economy and our community. The city manager and the Council rightfully agreed to do just that. Let’s just hope that the Save the Poudre Coalition listens to their findings. It sure doesn’t seem that they’re willing to listen to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Division of Wildlife or the Environmental Protection Agency.
May 2007
Last Tuesday, the City Council took up the issue of water. No, it wasn’t the expansion of the Halligan Reservoir. Rather, Council discussed the proposed Glade Reservoir, part of the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Now, first and foremost, the Glade Reservoir project doesn’t fall under the jurisdiction of Fort Collins. Council will get an opportunity to offer input, but they never vote on the project. However, Glade will affect the flow of the Poudre River through Fort Collins, so the City Council is right to discuss this issue.
With the expansion of Halligan on the horizon, it was instructive to hear some of the arguments that are being made by groups such as the Save the Poudre Coalition and some of the strident anti-storage voices on Council.
The Glade Reservoir would be an off-stream reservoir, northwest of Fort Collins along Highway 287. Slightly larger than Horsetooth Reservoir, it would serve many of the cities and towns of Northern Colorado. Later this summer, the Army Corps of Engineers will be releasing their environmental impact statement (EIS) on Glade, addressing many of the concerns regarding the flow of the Poudre through Fort Collins. Nicole Seltzer of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District gave a preview of the report’s findings.
According to Seltzer, while the Glade Reservoir would divert some water from the Poudre, that diversion would happen during the peak flow months, primarily between April and July, with the majority in May and June. She gave an example using the current flow of 1,500 cubic feet per second, noting that a fully functional Glade Reservoir would only divert 100 cfs from the Poudre through town. Even more importantly, Seltzer noted that the flow of the Poudre is monitored closely at three different points. It is stipulated in the water rights that diversion can not happen when the flow rates of the river fall below a certain level.
Councilmembers David Roy, Kelly Ohlson and Ben Manvel were clearly opposed to the project. David Roy argued that it wasn’t important to expand water storage to protect our agricultural heritage, saying that “I believe it’s a heritage that will rapidly dwindle.” Ben Manvel seemed to be upset that Glade wouldn’t resolve the issue forever and that we would need even more storage in the future.
Kelly Ohlson started off by saying that “hopefully, it will never be built.” He addressed the mitigation projects of the Conservancy District with the comment that “I, for one, don’t think you can mitigate a murder.” And renewable energy such as ethanol which require irrigated agriculture? Ohlson’s response to ethanol was “I think it’s a complete environmental and financial disaster that ought to stop tomorrow,” labeling it a “corndoggle.”
Most telling, however, were the tactics of Gary Wockner of the Save the Poudre Coalition. Wockner set up his testimony by asking: “What happens when you take half of the water out of the river?” Who said anything about taking half the water out of the river? The Glade project would only divert water during peak flow, and even then it wouldn’t be taking anywhere near “half of the water.” In the late May example – as we approach the peak flow of June – the reservoir would divert just seven percent. That’s a far cry from “half,” and it doesn’t take into account the flow safeguards, mitigation, or the fact that diversion will not happen year-round.
The Save the Poudre Coalition is attempting to use the scare tactics of a dried-up river and a crippled ecosystem. According to the Conservancy District, the Army Corps of Engineers, and such study partners as the Division of Wildlife and the Environmental Protection Agency, that’s simply not the case.
The first recommendation of the Save the Poudre Coalition is for the city to collect data on the effect Glade will have on the Poudre, our economy and our community. The city manager and the Council rightfully agreed to do just that. Let’s just hope that the Save the Poudre Coalition listens to their findings. It sure doesn’t seem that they’re willing to listen to the Army Corps of Engineers, the Division of Wildlife or the Environmental Protection Agency.
