1997-09-04_REVISION - M1981302 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Michael B. Long : • September 2, 1997 ' Page 2 Gross Reservoir. Recent floods have demonstrated that meteorological events significantly greater than supposed "500-year floods" can and do occur. Because millions of tons of gravel have been removed from the site, land on the protected side of the levee is significantly lower than the level of creek. If the levee were breached either from a flood greater than the design flood, poor maintenance, blockage of highway underpasses and culverts, or one of many other factors— resultant flooding would be disastrous. Furthermore, if the levee were to breech at the southern end of the property, it would channel floodwaters to the exact location where you do not want them to go. Plain common sense and sound engineering judgement should discourage the use of long earthen levees and the development of properties located in graveled out streambeds at the foot of major Front Range basins. Unfortunately good common sense and judgement are compromised by the efforts of individuals who stand to gain millions by removing land from a floodplain and selling it to the state as a developable parcel. Special Condition "F" listed in the Executive Summary for the purchase of the property by CU states: "In the event Sellers are unable to obtain approval of the reclamation plan revisions in the form agreed to and/or fails to obtain certification of the berm by FEMA, the Sellers are obligated to make a payment to the University in the amount of $800,000. If upon remapping of the flood plain applicable to the Property, the portions of the Property in the 100-year flood plain inside the berm exceed 45 acres, the Sellers are obligated to make an additional payment to the University in the amount of$20,000 for each excess acre in the flood plain." It is difficult to comprehend why CU is working so actively for approval of a technical revision that will result in the university's having to pay several million dollars more for the right to develop the flood prone areas of the site. This is especially perplexing after the University has stated again and again that it has no plans to develop the property for 30 to 50 years. If CU truly does not intend to develop the flood prone areas of the site with uses prohibited in floodplains, there would be no justification for the university's paying millions in additional funds to legally remove those areas from the floodplain. Unfortunately, it looks as if today's taxpayers are paying millions of dollars to set tomorrow's taxpayers up for the same type of disaster that recently struck CSU. VW truly yours Ben binder, .E., 006SM . cc: Senator Elsie Lacy, Chairwoman,JBC Representative Tony Grampsas, Vice-Chairman,JBC Mr. Ed Bowditch, Staffmember,IBC fMr. James Lochhead,Executive Director,DNR Mr. Ron Cattany,Deputy Director,DNR Ms. Christine Johnson,Chair,CCHE Mr. Chips Barry, Denver Water Department Dr. Gilbert White