Steve Pomerance

Boulder just added a web page where the city states that it will start building the dam/floodwall for South Boulder Creek in October. No surprise to me, the projected cost went up another $10 million to $76.5 million since last year. (And that’s after spending something like $13 million on multiple re-designs to deal with issues that any intelligent person should have seen early on.) Just to list off some of the many problems that this “downstream” design still faces: The half-mile-long concrete wall along U.S. 36 requires a drainage system to get groundwater under U.S. 36 so as to avoid killing off threatened species on both sides; this will require significant ongoing maintenance to keep from being jammed up with dirt, etc. The detention pond at the north end of CU South property will require a liner, so that it doesn’t fill from high groundwater levels in that area. And the liner requires a drain, so it can empty and isn’t filled by pre-flood rains.  The road into CU South ...

On July 1, the City of Boulder filed a motion in the lawsuit brought in early April by Boulder citizens regarding the bonding of the South Boulder Creek flood control dam. The City’s motion claims that the citizens’ lawsuit is “frivolous” and asks them to pay over $46,000 in attorneys’ fees. When I heard about this, I inquired of the city attorney, the mayor and councilmembers. The city attorney only said she “authorized the filing of the motion.” But councilmembers either didn’t respond or refused to even say whether they had discussed this with her. Apparently, no one wants to own what seems a blatant attempt to suppress citizens’ dissent. The fundamental legal issues in the citizens’ original lawsuit are clear, and in my opinion, the exact opposite of “frivolous.” Can the City charge fees based on the “impervious surface area” of people’s lots within the City to pay for this dam, when the floodwater being controlled comes (almost) totally from outside the city? Can the City pass the...

In Sunday’s Camera, I noticed the huge disparity in information content between the City and County meetings announcements. The City’s had only four column-inches, versus the County, which had 20 column-inches. The City’s had date, time and name of board or commission, but zero content as to what the meeting was about. The County’s, in contrast, were very detailed. Then I noticed a line in the City’s ad, in small print, saying that an asterisk indicates that the complete agenda is in the Public Notice part of the classifieds. Three of the six boards’ names had asterisks, so I went to the Public Notice section and looked. But there was only one agenda; two were missing. One of the two missing ones was Open Space, so I went online and, after some searching, found that meeting’s agenda outline, but the individual items had no content. I dug further but was frustrated by a notice that I needed to allow cookies, but provided no way to allow them. My second try, using a different set of page...

I was surprised by a recent move in our Legislature by some Democrats who are pursuing House Joint Resolution 25-1023. This resolution, if passed by both houses, would initiate a lawsuit in state court to invalidate Article X, Section 20, of our state constitution, commonly known as TABOR. Their objective apparently is to disempower our ability to vote on state-level tax increases, a power that we voted for ourselves over three decades ago. They want to do this without having to put it on the ballot so we get the final say. The politicians’ position is based on the U.S. Constitution’s Article IV, the “Guarantee Clause,” which requires that states have “a Republican Form of Government.” Their argument is that this does not include “direct democracy,” like citizen-sponsored initiatives. Although the resolution specifically targets TABOR, this could end up being applied to other direct democracy votes, because the arguments would be the same. My first research was to look at which states ...

Flooding in Boulder will get worse as climate change increases storm intensity and frequency. Thus, making good decisions about flood protection is critical; they should be based on facts, not speculation or defensiveness about past decisions. The assertion being made that the dam and floodwall currently proposed for South Boulder Creek will be “lifesaving” is a good sound bite. But it is not supported by the facts: No one died in South Boulder during the 2013 floods; the only deaths in or near the city were two people descending a flooded road in the North Boulder foothills. U.S. 36 is frequently closed by snowstorms and will flood anyway in storms larger than the dam is designed for. Boulder Community Hospital is accessible by many other routes. And the city can purchase a few high-water 4WD vehicles for emergency evacuations by first responders. The City’s 2014 flood survey shows that the proposed dam and floodwall will only address a fraction of the flooding damage in South Boulder...

A few weeks ago, the council authorized “by emergency” a $66 million dollar bond issue to cover (some of) the remaining costs of its attempts to protect downstream properties when South Boulder Creek floods again. SBC has had major floods in the past, including in 1893, 1934 and 1969. The City has a map of what buildings would and would not be “protected” by the proposed Phase 1 dam from a “100-year” flood. It shows that, in spite of the dam, a huge number of buildings will still be vulnerable to SBC flooding. Buildings/Removed Buildings in the S. Boulder Creek 100yr Floodplain proposed Project. (Photo credit / The City of Boulder) The Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects that are supposed to protect these buildings are not yet defined nor are there cost numbers, that I can find. Additionally, there is flooding from other sources, like Viele Channel and Anderson Ditch, that the dam won’t control at all. Also, I’ve been told that the City has none of the necessary regulatory body approvals for ...

In my last column, I provided some information that was inaccurate. Unfortunately, the real information is worse. I had said that the proposed South Boulder Creek dam along U.S. 36 and Table Mesa Drive would “protect” around 600 structures for a cost of around $90 million.  The 1/25/24 council memo states that 600 structures are in that floodplain and that the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Project will protect only 260 of them from a 100-year flood. If 260 structures are “protected,” then that leaves 340 “unprotected.” Redoing the math, the $90,000,000 estimated cost figure I used divided by 260 structures is almost $350,000 per structure, over a third of a million dollars! I immediately communicated this much larger number to the City Council, figuring that the shock might stir some serious rethinking. I did not receive a single reply. I also made a request under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) for “the most recent detailed updated cost estimate for the project” (along...

I spend a lot of my time hiking and scrambling in the mountains. I find it immensely rewarding to focus on where I put my feet and hands, and look at the scenery, landscape and geology, which is more-or-less like it was before humans over-occupied the planet. And I think that the risks, however slight, add to the experience of being just a small piece of nature. Coming back down to our current political reality in Boulder is always a shock. But being in the mountains gives me some perspective — at least I hope it does. My observation is that although big decisions may engender strong feelings, they do not have to be so highly polarizing as they are now. Fundamentally, having the full set of real facts and proper analysis kept in the public view has always reduced controversy, narrowed the set of realistic options and made it more difficult to take extreme positions. I offer the CU South controversy as case in point. In my opinion, the problem started with the lack of consistent awarene...

  Last Friday, I participated in a debate with former Mayor Sam Weaver about the CU South annexation referendum ballot measure. The Boulder Rotary Club sponsored it at their regular meeting at the Jewish Community Commons. The first thing on the screen, before the debate even started, was the ballot title, “Shall Ordinance 8483, regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?” The announcer cleared up the confusion resulting from this oblique wording by explaining to the audience that a “yes” vote supported repealing the annexation itself, and not some peripheral issue. I thought that this was incredibly thoughtful of the Rotary Club. The council should acknowledge having put a confusing title on the ballot and publicly clarify what the ballot measure means at their meetings. A few issues emerged in the debate that I thought deserve some quick comments. The statement that a “500-year” detention pond is “not feasible” is really a statement about CU’s unwillingness to provide ...

  The decisions around how best to protect Boulderites from flood damage and risks are complex, given our location at the base of steep foothills. I was the lead council member in the late ‘80s for Boulder’s first efforts on flood protection and have followed the CU South process closely, so I’m familiar with the issues. And information circulating now is, to a large extent, misleading and biased. First, the flood protection provided by the proposed “100-year” detention pond on South Boulder Creek is inadequate and incomplete. The fundamental problem is that, in a large storm like we had in 2013, water flows into SE Boulder (much of which is a floodplain) from multiple sources — South Boulder Creek (SBC) from Eldorado Canyon, Viele Channel from Viele Lake area near Shanahan Ridge, and multiple local drainages. And we can expect more “atmospheric rivers” as the climate warms. So, some flooding is inevitable. The proposed flood detention “pond” only addresses one source — SBC. Fl...

  A completely unnecessary dispute is occurring over the ballot language for the referendum vote on the CU South annexation. The referendum’s committee of petitioners think that the city’s language does not adequately identify exactly what is up for a vote. Thus, a voter who is not familiar with the situation will not know if a YES vote or a NO vote will reject the annexation, or neither. As a result, the petitioners have proposed alternative language to clarify this matter. But most of the city council is defending the staff’s proposed language as necessary and adequate. The staff proposal is, “Should Ordinance 8483 regarding the annexation of CU South, be repealed?” The petitioners’ counterproposal is, “Should Ordinance 8483, which annexes the land known as CU South and sets the terms thereof, be repealed?” The obvious problem with the staff’s language is the word “regarding.” Unless the voter knows that 8483 is the ordinance that actually annexes CU South, he/she would wonder ...

  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 — ...

I’m part of a group of citizens helping Boulder city staff on the master plan for stormwater and flood protection work for Boulder’s waterways, other than South Boulder Creek. Just last week, we had some interesting discussions about whether we should focus more on how to prioritize the many projects that would cost in total hundreds of millions of dollars, or focus more on increasing the near-term funding for these projects to reduce the need to prioritize by doing more projects concurrently rather than sequentially. To give this some scale, current funding is approximately $7 million annually. City staff predicts that it may take more than 50 years to complete the work, and that upping funding to $11 million per year would allow completion in around 30 to 35 years. The total cost is estimated at roughly $350 million for about 30 projects. Per the 2014 Flood Impact Survey of those drainages impacted by the 2013 flood, damage was over $176 million in 2014 dollars, about $215 mill...

Boulder is in a unique position. We are the most flood-prone city in Colorado, right up against the mountains and with multiple creeks running through town. At the same time, we are reliant on water supplies that are very susceptible to climate change. And the 100-year-old Colorado River Compact will multiply that effect on our Western Slope water coming via the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. I want to address the flood issue now, and discuss water in an upcoming column. I’ve been serving for many months now on the city’s Community Working Group focused on stormwater and flood control issues. To cut to the chase, the problem we have is that the Boulder City Council has not provided direction to come forward with a list of specific, actionable items to reduce damage and safety risks from future floods. Additionally, there is no City Council commitment to fund what is needed in our lifetimes. The staff’s informal comment has been that to do what is necessary for all our drain...