South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation/CU South

I vote for Option 1. Let's get moving on protection for the citizens and taxpayers of Boulder.

Please move forward with variant 1 100year as quickly as possible. Human lives are at risk and there is no excuse to delay this project further after nearly 17 years of study.

I vote for Option 1 with the hope work can begin soon.

Please support and vote for variant 1/100 year design.Please do not waste any more money on further study. So. Boulder residents are past due for floor protection.

Please move forward with variant 1/100 year design NOW! Waste no more money.

Please follow your staff's recommendation for the Variant 1/100 yr. design. We who were directly and catastrophically impacted by the 2013 flooding from South Boulder Creek, and who have been fighting for 6 1/2 years to make progress on flood mitigation support the 100 yr. standard. This option was available years ago (and it was less expensive back then), yet here we sit. We want to have the security that other properties in Boulder enjoy out of the mapped FEMA high hazard flood zone. The 200/500 options are too expensive and difficult if not impossible to be permitted by federal and state agencies. This has been an exercise of "go get a rock" (no, wrong size, no wrong color, no...). There are 3000+ of us in the same boat (pun intended), in harm's way and we needed a solution yesterday.

I definitely support Variant 1, 100 year flood protection, because it has the least environmental impacts, the lowest cost, and the greatest probability of permitting feasibility through the various regulatory agencies.

I live in the Tantra Park neighborhood west of CU South. My family uses the CU south space almost daily. I urge Council to approve the Variant 1/100-yr. flood plan so my fellow Boulderites to the north of Table Mesa are safe. I am not concerned about hypothetical decreases to my property value, flooding in my neighborhood, increased traffic, or my continued ability to enjoy this space. I am concerned about the thousands of lives at risk from the City's continued inaction, including wasting additional time "studying" alternative plans. This project has been studied for 17 years. We need action.

Please stop avoiding flood mitigation.

Considering the threat to human life from the next flood, there is simply no excuse for not moving ahead as rapidly as possible with the fully-vetted (17 years of study should be plenty), feasible and relatively affordable Variant 1. Please don’t run around in circles while risking my life. Unlike previous Councils, it’s time to take action, select the sanest solution, and protect public safety with a sense of urgency.

Considering it was a miracle that no lives were lost in 2013, we should all be embarrassed that it's taken this long to come up with a design. Option 1, 100-yr will provide the best protection, align with all the other flood protection options in the City (e.g. 100-yr, NOT 500), is the least expensive, AND has the smallest footprint. Please move forward with a solution! This will require YEARS to complete - we're gambling lives between now & then.

I support Variant 1, 100 year flood protection, which was found to have the least environmental impacts, the lowest cost, and the greatest probability of permitting feasibility through the various regulatory agencies. The cost of this version is projected to be $66M. Other alternatives, a 200-year and a 500-year, are estimated at $93M and $96M, minimally a $27M difference. Please consider the cost impact to the city and to the residents in these days of financial uncertainty. Also, please consider equity...is it fair to have anything more than 100-year in this flood plain when other areas of the city will be protected to much lower levels? Most importantly, please consider the urgency of making a decision to move this to a level in which we can understand the details of engineering and cost factors. We need to protect our residents from the next flood,

I am a resident of the Frasier Retirement Community, and lived through the 2013 flood. I never want to relive that horrible experience. Please proceed with the Variant 1, 100 Year plan. It is reasonable, doable, and necessary. and hurry - if the major snowfall of just a few weeks ago had been rain, it might already be too late.

1) CU plans should have little influence on the design: Brick and mortar universities are obsolete and coronavirus is just emphasizing this point. It is simply antisocial behavior, and indeed simply irrational behavior, for them to insist on developing this land for academic and housing uses.
2) CU should be compensated for the land, swapping with non-flood land in north boulder being a good option for this. The City could then use this land for open space and/or recreational activities compatible with being in a floodplain.
3) It's short-sighted to implement a 100-year plan because it might shave a couple of years off the process. We need at least a 500 year plan, though IMHO that should include removing many of the *existing* structures along south boulder creek, many of which where damaged and then rebuilt in the exact same configuration after the 2013 event.
4) Using the 36 bridge as a flood control structure seems risky to me, and CDOT could reasonably disallow it. A concrete-shielded earth dam should be constructed upstream of that instead to regulate flow and provide temporary impoundment of floodwaters (i.e., just move and reinforce that monstrous levy already on the property).

I support the city’s Variant 1, 100-year plan to protect the citizens of Boulder and I do not support an unprecedented 500-year plan or further upstream analysis that would add unnecessary risks, delays, environmental damage and costs.

I think the city should maximize public safety and design for 200-500 year flood conditions

Since this is the only design with any chance of being built, DO IT. It is now longer since the flood than it took to win WWII, it is way past time for action.