FLOOD03268 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

flood waters downstream. The Corps argued that the channelization project was specifically authorized by Congress, , and said the scope of the project could only be changed through new legislation. The Corps, the nearby town of Colum- bine Valley, and the state flood control agency were not convinced that the non- structu~al alternative could provide a level of flood protection comparable to that of proposed channelization. ' Local citizens' and City of Littleton representatives undertook a campaign to build public support for city acquisition of the site. They eventually gained the support of both Denver newspapers, the Reader's Digest, and virtually every local environmental group. To finance the land acquisition, citizens initiated and passed a $400,000 bond issue in 1971. This money was match eo by an open space acquisition grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and supplemented by a: grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Project supporters and the Colorado ~elegation lobbied vigorously to change , the legislative directive for the project. Congress finally agreed, specifically authorizing the 'Littleton proposal in Section 88 of the Water Reso'urces Development Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-251). The Act authorized federal partidpation '\vith local interests in the. acquisition of lands . . . for flood control purposes in lieu of . ~ . the authorized channel improvements." Additionally, Section 73 of this Act required'that non- structural alternatives be considered in all future flood protection projects. The pr,oject was originally directed toward flood protection. Objectives were later expanded to include fish and wildlife habitat, and environmental education. Gravel extraction, and subsequent reclamation, also contributed to the development of the park. J,NNOVATIVE ASPECTS Funding Under the authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, the Corps of Engineers provided $750,000 to buy the Littleton floodplain, . the amount saved by not channelizing ,the river. When first propose? by the 15 City of Littleton, Corps of Engineers funding for a non-structural flood control alternative was a revolu- tionary idea. Through Littleton's efforts, however" the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 required that this approach be considered in all future Corps flood protection planning. The Act also provides 'a formula for determining the relative local/federal funding shares if a non-structural option 'is selected. Gravel Excavation and Reclamation Part of South Platte Park was estab- lished on the site of a gravel quarry. Cooperation of the operator, Cooley Gravel Company, was critical to the " city's acquisition of th'e park. The gravel company owned nearly five hundred acres of the site, and held a state gravel excavation permit; thus the pre-excavation value of the land was greater than'Littleton could afford. Littleton and Cooley reached an agreement by which Cooley would mine the site, remove its processing plant and reclaim the area. The City of Littleton would then purchase the