Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
The plans to raise the water level of Chatfield have passed and the EIS is available. I think everyone that uses the reservoir or enjoys it in any way should read the info and take action. This proposal will in no way benefit the recreational value of chatfield. It is meant for developers to profit. We will lose a special part of sw denver forever and in an irreversible way. See the link and make your own judgements.
Remember once this goes into effect there will be multiple "no-flow" days on the south platte below chatfield. The lake will also be fluctuating approximately 17-19' in an above normal precipitation year. The ponds, the river, and the relatively stable water levels will be lost forever.
They will be removing most all submerged structures to prevent boating hazards. Also remember that chatfield was never built to be a water resource. The initial load could increase fishery productivity in the short run, but in the long run it may end up no differently than Dillon.
This is being done to help achieve the predicted water needs by the year 2050. In order to fulfill those needs we need upwards of 100,000 addition acre-feet of storage capacity. The changes to Chatfield will only fulfill 8.5% of those needs.

The EIS
http://www.savechatfield.org/documents/Chatfield_FWRMP_Final_2014_01_13.pdf

The petition

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-co-save-chatfield



Please keep this serious and open for debate.

Sincerely,

Carl
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Send me your address and I'll mail you a quarter to call someone who'll listen to you! I don't see anything wrong with the plan and think it will only help the fishery, plus it's Denver water and even you can't win against them. Suck it up and post a fishing report!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,718 Posts
Carl thanks for posting up the documents.

I'll be honest in that I don't have a position on the issue yet, and I use Chatfield often.

I''ll be sure to read the mitigation plan in the link you provided.

PD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,758 Posts
If you look into it, you'll see that this is going to really damage the fishing, not improve it. It sucks. :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
The fishing already sucks at shitfield. This state knows nothing about managing "warm water" fisheries. Go ahead, raise the level, throw in a million more 10" slimers and the masses will be happy.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
553 Posts
The fishing already sucks at shitfield. This state knows nothing about managing "warm water" fisheries. Go ahead, raise the level, throw in a million more 10" slimers and the masses will be happy.
Your right, giving up is easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,159 Posts
Fighting back makes you look like a clueless whiny moron.

Push the Dow to stock pike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,684 Posts
Atleast if they do raise the water level all those perch from the south pond will be in the main lake. Save those bucket biologist litterers the hassle LMAO


Honestly i dont know enough about it to have a real opinion at this point... i have done some reading and seems like the main downside is the habitat loss down south... and the mud ring around the lake on low water years(Majority of the time)

What are the main concerns??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,674 Posts
Hey there youngster. Its good that you are passionate and care. But you have to pick your battles. Better off spending your time trying to actually catch fish instead of just telling the tall tales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
the only entity that this will benefit is the Denver Water Board..
Chatfield was NEVER built to store water for public usage.
Chatfield was built as a FLOOD CONTROL reservoir...
While it will be nice to have "extra" water storage every 8 out of 10 years,
The negatives FAR outweigh the positives in this mess.. :'(
Sorry, but there are other ways to get water to the masses than Fk'n up an Urban playground
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,684 Posts
the only entity that this will benefit is the Denver Water Board..
Chatfield was NEVER built to store water for public usage.
Chatfield was built as a FLOOD CONTROL reservoir...
While it will be nice to have "extra" water storage every 8 out of 10 years,
The negatives FAR outweigh the positives in this mess.. :'(
Sorry, but there are other ways to get water to the masses than Fk'n up an Urban playground
And what are those negatives you speak of? What are the positives?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
You really have not done your reserach on how they plan to fill it.
This is going to bring lots of water to the south Platte on a more regular basis. Sure there will be lean years while they fill er up. After that the river will have more of a steady flow and the farmers and everyone up north will benefit from it. Including the fish in the platte river. You need to read more about why this needs to be done. Building another reservoir up stream is not a option that needs to be done with a dam that will do it all ready, make since to do it, saves millions in Tax dollars also.


The front range needs the water, you being worried about your fishing and having muddy shore lines and shade trees are selfish and one sided.

Dont worry it will be fine when it comes to us fisherman. Learn to adapt and overcome the challege.
Us, as fisherman dont have much to argue about on this matter. We dont have mush say so in it.

I think in this case they are making good use of something that is already in place and saving us millions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,777 Posts
And what are those negatives you speak of? What are the positives?
If You read the studies and reports you will see what what I speak of..
Expansive mud flats during times of (rapid) water drawdown.
Re-building the whole infrastructure...
Utilization of the "newly created water storage areas" ONLY 2 out of every 10 Years... IF EXTRA water is available...
Etc, etc...
You think They will keep the park open while this destruction comes about?
HELL NO!
They are looking at a 3 Year project for expansion... Thus, 3 Years with No public usage... most likely..

Here is a link with some good info... and the actual plan for expansion;
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/06/chatfield_state_park_changes.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,684 Posts
"Also remember that chatfield was never built to be a water resource."


Chatfield Reservoir and Dam were built in 1975 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) at the confluence of the South Platte River and Plum Creek, to provide flood protection for the greater metropolitan area. The reservoir currently has the ability to store 350,676 acre-feet (AF) of water.

A majority of that storage space is reserved for flood control, but the reservoir also provides storage space for conservation (a.k.a. “multipurpose”) water, which is used for municipal, industrial, agricultural and recreational uses, as well as for maintaining fisheries and wildlife habitat. The property around Chatfield Reservoir is leased from the Corps and managed by Colorado State Parks as one of Colorado’s major recreational destinations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,176 Posts
Of course we need the water storage...sooner rather than later. It's a no brainer.

Time would be better spent getting involved with the Rueter Hess project. They are currently reaching out ..trying to make funding and recreational water use decisions at this time. So far it looks as if no motorized boating is leading the charge..
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top