BOULDER’S WATERWORKS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

116 Many of the residents along the existing pipeline route testified that the alignment should be moved away from their property, so that the majority of the route lay in Sugarloaf Road. City staff, led by Ned Williams and Bob Harberg, valiantly made a case for the benefits of using the existing alignment, which stayed out of Sugarloaf Road and had served well since 1906. The City pointed out the difficulties of construction in a narrow heavily trafficked mountain road. Unfortunately, the residents who lived along Sugarloaf Road and those who drove the road did not appear at the hearings to provide the Commissioners with their point of view. The Boulder County Commissioners issued a decision on Lakewood Pipeline in early 2000. But the Commissioners selected a pipeline alignment different than the one approved by the Forest Service. Over the City’s objections, the Commissioners chose to move much of the Lakewood Pipeline out of its historic alignment and into Sugarloaf Road. Discussions were reopened to modify the previous Forest Service decision to conform with the Commissioners’ action. The Forest Service performed new studies and issued a revised decision approving the Lakewood Pipeline reconstruction in 2001. The Commissioners also required the City to install three fire hydrants on the Lakewood Pipeline for use by fire districts near the pipeline route, above Boulder’s Blue Line. Voters approved the hydrants at a November 2000 election. The upper mile of Lakewood Pipeline in Cold Springs Road along the original alignment was completed with little fanfare in 2000. Although there had been little comment from Sugarloaf residents during the County Commissioner hearings, that soon changed when they learned that one lane of their mountain road would have to be closed from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and both lanes would need to be closed, for safety reasons, for up to 20 minutes during rock blasting activities. Beginning in the summer of 2002, the reconstruction project disrupted the lives of 600 Sugarloaf residents. Since Sugarloaf Road is their only route down the mountain to Boulder, daytime drivers, for months, had to drive west to the Peak to Peak Highway, then detour through Nederland. Clint Talbott’s December 19, 2002 Daily Camera column, “Take this pipe and shove it,” reflected the frustrations of many of the residents. The City modified the County-approved Traffic Control Plan several times to try to improve conditions for residents (and held the contractor to strict compliance with the 20-minute limit on complete closures), but it was no comfort to the residents that the Commissioners’ decision had made the City, staff, consultants, contractors and Council miserable, as well. Making matters worse, the contractor had used pipe manufactured with sub-standard welds and cracked interior lining for installation of four-and-one-half miles of the newly buried pipe in Sugarloaf Road. The City was reluctant to accept the faulty pipe, but residents’ anger had reached the boiling point when faced with the possibility that part of the pipeline might have to be dug up and replaced once again. 206 By March 2004, however, the pipeline had withstood several high-pressure tests––good news for the City and residents alike. 207 The City filed a lawsuit against the contractor and
the pipe manufacturer for enough money to install additional pipe breakage alarms, do more frequent pipe inspections, reline the pipeline more often and possibly replace the pipeline decades earlier than its expected 100-year life. In 2006, the second attempt at mediation resulted in a settlement agreement, which the Council approved four days later. The agreement provided the City with approximately $15 million from the contractor and pipe manufacturer to set aside for the future needs of Lakewood Pipeline. Ned Williams, Bob Harberg, Sue Ellen Harrison, June Busse, and Carol Ellinghouse, along with many other City staff members, had devoted years of their careers to seeing Lakewood Pipeline rebuilt. They now believed that the saga of the Lakewood Pipeline easement was ended with the completion of the reconstruction in 2004. But, it was not. In 2004, the Forest Service informed the City it wanted to reopen the 2001 easement agreement because of the substandard pipe. The new Forest Service proposed easement agreement contained insurance and liability provisions like the ones that the City had rejected in 2001, as well as new vague easement suspension language. After much new negotiation, City and Forest Service staff came to agreement on language to present to City Council in 2009. However, the Council had apparently decided it had reached a limit with the Forest Service demands and declined to approve the new terms of the easement, establishing the City view that the 2001 easement agreement is binding. Lakewood Hydro Plant Prior to the reconstruction of the Lakewood Pipeline, energy from the falling water was dissipated by its high velocity, as well as by a pressure reducing valve at the Betasso Water Treatment Plant. The Pipeline’s reconstruction as a fully-pressurized pipe made it possible to use the pressure to drive a turbine and generator at a new hydroelectric plant––the Lakewood Hydro. Construction of the Lakewood Hydro Plant was started in 2003. Once the Lakewood Pipeline reconstruction had been completed, in 2004, this newest of the hydro plants was put into service. It’s located in the same building as the Betasso Hydro Plant, on the grounds of the Betasso Water Treatment Plant. Plant In Service Treated/Raw Penstock Lakewood 2004 Raw 24” – 9.8 miles long (from an elevation of 8,180 feet at Lakewood Reservoir to 6,340 feet at the Betasso Water Treatment Plant) 117
Page 1 and 2:
BOULDER’S WATERWORKS PAST & PRESE
Page 3 and 4:
BOULDER’S WATERWORKS -- PAST & PR
Page 5 and 6:
• Water System Security Improveme
Page 7 and 8:
INTRODUCTION The story of Boulder
Page 9 and 10:
SETTLEMENT& DITCHES Boulder City To
Page 11 and 12:
1859, they dug small ditches from B
Page 13 and 14:
“Shovel diplomacy,” however, di
Page 15 and 16:
state senator. In January 1873, the
Page 17 and 18:
PUBLIC WATERWORKS & PROBLEMS • 18
Page 19 and 20:
Above, the Town of Boulder Reservoi
Page 21 and 22:
BOULDER’S EARLY WATERWORKS PRESEN
Page 23 and 24:
Ditch laterals paralleled 12th Stre
Page 25 and 26:
A few weeks later, the City Council
Page 27 and 28:
Silver Lake Ditch had five wooden f
Page 29 and 30:
NEED FOR NEW RESERVOIRS • 1891, O
Page 31 and 32:
Continued population growth in Boul
Page 33 and 34:
In Boulder, laborers replaced pipes
Page 35 and 36:
INTO THE 20TH CENTURY Discovery of
Page 37 and 38:
In 1904, glacier hikers even includ
Page 39 and 40:
The Maxwells also made a similar pr
Page 41 and 42:
LAKEWOOD, LAKEWOOD RESERVOIR & TUNS
Page 43 and 44:
In addition, the City acquired ease
Page 45 and 46:
The Act that conveyed the first gra
Page 47 and 48:
BOULDER HYDRO SYSTEM, 1910 The twen
Page 49 and 50:
The dam was photographed on April 1
Page 51 and 52:
producing 5,000 kilowatts (KW) of p
Page 53 and 54:
On August 4, 1910, a ceremony was h
Page 55 and 56:
This drawing of the original two ge
Page 57 and 58:
ADDITIONAL WATERSHED DEVELOPMENTS A
Page 59 and 60:
Silver Lake Pipeline In the years p
Page 61 and 62:
pieces, are we justified in denying
Page 63 and 64:
The WPA built much of Boulder’s w
Page 65 and 66:
mission lines which, in places, has
Page 67 and 68:
older clay tile pipe on the pipelin
Page 69 and 70:
NEW WATER SUPPLIES & GROWTH, 1950s-
Page 71 and 72: One of the surge chambers for the p
Page 73 and 74: At this time, Boulder was beginning
Page 75 and 76: The City entered into an agreement
Page 77 and 78: Beginning in 1947, CBT Project wate
Page 79 and 80: The next water rights used to fill
Page 81 and 82: Atmospheric Research’s proposed b
Page 83 and 84: BETASSO WATER TREATMENT PLANT, 1964
Page 85 and 86: A new raw water pipeline was constr
Page 87 and 88: In 1976, the Betasso Water Treatmen
Page 89 and 90: 83
Page 91 and 92: BOULDER RESERVOIR WATER TREATMENT P
Page 93 and 94: Throughout the 1970s, employees of
Page 95 and 96: WATER AND POWER FOR THE FUTURE, 198
Page 97 and 98: In 1989, roller-compacted concrete
Page 99 and 100: pressure zone into the lower zone.
Page 101 and 102: costs would rise to $999,000. Hartm
Page 103 and 104: DEVELOPMENTS IN THE 1990s From the
Page 105 and 106: Reconstruction of Silver Lake Pipel
Page 107 and 108: water shortages should occur. The c
Page 109 and 110: Water Treatment Plant improvements
Page 111 and 112: The dispute escalated when the City
Page 113 and 114: TWENTY-FIRST-CENTURY PROGRESS As th
Page 115 and 116: Meanwhile, the City wanted to gain
Page 117 and 118: Repair of the Barker Gravity Line F
Page 119 and 120: Lakewood Pipeline reconstruction Bu
Page 121: struction of the Lakewood Pipeline
Page 125 and 126: sions, City staff surprised themsel
Page 127 and 128: Dealing with Drought In April 2002,
Page 129 and 130: PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE Boulder is
Page 131 and 132: Boulder Feeder Canal, and that was
Page 133 and 134: Problem 3 - Discharging water back
Page 135 and 136: Above, a new generator and turbine,
Page 137 and 138: The Feeder Canal would require repa
Page 139 and 140: APPENDIX Recent Water Utilities Wor
Page 141 and 142: ENDNOTES 1 The word “Arapaho” c
Page 143 and 144: 35 Daily Camera, October 20, 1891.
Page 145 and 146: 71 Deed between The Cashier Mining
Page 147 and 148: Supply, April 2009, pages 3-10. 104
Page 149 and 150: 135 Preliminary Design Memorandum,
Page 151 and 152: 167 The Windy Gap Project, Municipa
Page 153 and 154: 198 City of Boulder Utilities Repor
Page 155 and 156: 149
show all

BOULDER’S WATERWORKS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?