The County Commissioners have released their statement on why they rejected Thornton's application. Read it here.
Read recent news articles including a 4/11/19 article stating Thornton plans to sue Larimer County and our April 13 press release. Thornton will NOT take advantage of the City of Greeley's offer to share their 72" pipeline, and state they are not open to pursuing a Poudre River Alternative. Instead, they plan to sue the County.
The areas along Douglas Road and County Rd 56 are rich and diverse in their people, nature and wildlife. Click below to see the area in Larimer County that's most impacted by Thornton's proposed pipeline. FYI, it takes a few seconds to load but it's worth it!
Check out Save the Poudre's video on Thornton's Pipeline. Director Gary Wockner, PhD, give a great explanation
The working group completed their meetings and Thornton submitted a new application with an alternate route favoring Option C --the northern route along Cty Rd 56, which was denied Feb. 11, 2019.
The working group was prevented from reaching a consensus, but the ranking of benefits and impacts by both the working group and those who attended the 11/15 community meeting showed that the Poudre Alternative was the favored route by a long stretch.
No Pipe Dream still wants the river route and we are continuing to advocate for that. Our lawyer presented during public testimony on Jan. 28 and made a difference in the vote. No pipeline is ideal for all LC citizens!
March 18, 2019
Brief Summary of Feb 11 Hearing Outcome
Commissioner Donnelly named the significant impact on private property owners as a part of his decision to deny. Commissioner Kafalas focused on several Land Use violations, but ultimately called for a more synergistic plan, stating Thornton did not present all reasonable alternatives. Commissioner Johnson gave voice to the 300 citizens who came to 7 hearings over the year, and 1000s of emails, stating it was much more than a NIMBY reaction.
Click the link above to watch the entire hearing live.
"Thornton evaluated a Poudre River Alternative during its initial scoping process and found that the alternative would save the City up to $150 million in pipeline construction costs by avoiding approximately 26 miles of pipeline."
"Thornton argues that Colorado water law prohibits the Board from adopting the Poudre River Alternative. More specifically, Thornton argues that the Board may not adopt the Poudre River Alternative because it would:
· require an unlawful change in the point of withdrawal of its water shares from the Poudre River; and,
· unlawfully diminish water quality when compared to Thornton’s desired point of withdrawal;
· unlawfully diminish water quantity as the water flows down the River.
Thornton’s arguments do not have factual and/or legal support. Instead, both the facts and Colorado water law would allow Thornton to implement the Poudre River Alternative.
Thornton can legally convey its water shares down the Poudre River and can withdraw that water “at any point desired.” Since the Poudre River Alternative is conceptually authorized by Colorado water law, it is both reasonable and legally available to Thornton."
"Colorado law authorizes this Board to regulate the Thornton Water Project, including requiring an alternate point of withdrawal from the Poudre River. "
"Thornton argues that it has a legal right to water quality at the LCC head gate and or at WSSC #4. Thornton has no legal right to the water quality at either of these locations. First, Thornton did not purchase all of its water shares at the location of the LCC head gate or WSSC#4. It purchased most of its water shares with degraded water quality from farms measurably downstream along the LCC. Second, Colorado water law does not guarantee a degree of water quality when purchasing water shares. ....
Thornton is at most entitled only the degree of water quality delivered to the farms it purchased."
"Thornton has not proven that any water loss resulting from the Poudre River Alternative would be unreasonable when compared to the water loss historically experienced when its water shares flowed in the canal to farms in eastern Larimer and Weld Counties."
" Thornton has proposed a set of benefits to Larimer County if its Supplement #3 is approved (County Road 56 route). However, many of the proposed “benefits” are actions Thornton already planned to implement. In the December 2018 hearing, the Board noted that the benefits package proposed by Thornton was woefully inadequate."
"Ideally, the Board would prefer to issue a 1041 permit that complies with all Land Use Code requirements, minimizes adverse impacts to the County, and confers meaningful and enforceable benefits to the County. Unfortunately, Thornton has failed to present such a 1041 application and may leave the Board with no other option but to deny the 1041 permit application."
TO READ OUR LAWYER'S FULL COMMENT LETTER, EMAIL NO PIPE DREAM AT NOPIPEDREAMFTC@GMAIL.COM AND REQUEST A LINK TO HIS REPORT.
No Pipe Dream Needs Funds!
Can you Help?
We use your money wisely; won’t you consider giving to continue our efforts? Our lawyer will be involved in providing direction to working group members and writing a rebuttal in the future, if needed.
WE NEED FUNDS to keep our lawyer involved in our next steps. Please give what you can!!
Where Your Dollars Go
81% Lawyer fees
13% hired experts (hydrologists)
4% yard signs
Use our GoFundMe account to donate to help pay our legal fees to keep the Poudre River flowing.
Any river is really the summation of the whole valley. To think of it as nothing but water is to ignore the greater part.
(Hal Borland, This Hill, This Valley)
Address: P.O. Box 2465, Fort Collins, CO 80522 · Copyright © 2018 Stop Thornton's Pipe Dream - All Rights Reserved · Photo on Home page courtesy of Tim O’Hara Photography Inc.
Make checks out to No Pipe Dream.
This site is provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. Before relying on material on this site users should independently verify the accuracy, completeness and relevance for their purposes and obtain any appropriate professional advice.
Site material may include opinions, recommendations or other content from third parties that do not necessarily reflect our views. Links to other Web sites are included for the user’s convenience and do not constitute an endorsement of the material on those sites, or any associated product or service.