Erosion leaves area ripe for storm’s destruction

Erosion along creek beds, neglected by the city as it focused on finding money to hire more police officers and widen roads, has become an expensive and potentially deadly hazard.

Officials who deal with the system say that a huge storm could bring a reckoning.

“If we don’t address things in the creek, we could suffer flooding . . . people could suffer injuries,” said Ken Sampley, the city’s storm water engineering manager. “We’re also very concerned about the infrastructure and the investments we’ve made.”

Colorado Springs faces a nearly $300 million backlog in fixing storm drains and channels.

The city will spend just $725,000 on maintenance of the system this year. In the past 21 years, it has put $62 million toward drainage repairs and upkeep — $23 million less than it will spend on the Police Department in 2005.

Most people don’t understand what the storm water drainage system does, never mind the dangers its failure could pose. A recent survey found that 48 percent of respondents couldn’t define storm water, Sampley said.

The storm water drainage system captures rain that falls on buildings and pavement. Drains in curbs and detention ponds near devel- opments direct the water toward underground channels or creeks.

These channels then deposit the water in Fountain Creek, where it is carried south to the Arkansas River. Working correctly, it flows downstream and goes unnoticed.

When it’s overwhelmed, it’s anything but unnoticed.

In April 1999, storm runoff wiped out homes and bridges, caused $30 million in damage and turned El Paso County into a federal disaster area. An overloaded Fountain Creek then rumbled south into the Arkansas River and dislocated 350 families when it flooded La Junta.

Some residents thought the flooding would have been enough to spur the City Council to fix eroded stream banks. Instead, officials concentrated on passing tax increases first for public safety and then for road improvements.

Storm water maintenance and repair had been funded at a rate of several million dollars a year under the city’s half-cent sales tax, which expired in 1997. The maintenance budget then dropped sharply, and only emergency repairs were allocated.

Competing for the minimal funding are routine maintenance, federally mandated requirements to conduct public education and inspect runoff measures at construction sites, and big projects.

Sand Creek, with its easily eroded soil, has problems throughout the city. An abandoned railroad bridge collapsed into it last year when water washed away its base, and city crews have scrambled to strengthen a bridge base near Chelton Road.

Elsewhere, a concrete creek wall on northern Monument Creek has collapsed into the creek and the Rampart Creek channel is in tatters. Residents could be affected if the Rampart Creek wall falls in; there are town homes within 10 to 15 feet of the channel, Sampley said.

Farther south in El Paso County, a portion of Old Pueblo Road near Fountain is barricaded because its western lane has collapsed into Fountain Creek.

Then there is the rising flow in Fountain Creek.

Some Pueblo-area leaders say higher water levels increase sedimentation and the amount of dirty water used for agriculture. These arguments have helped stall federal approval of a new water pipeline from Pueblo Reservoir; opponents argue it will return even more water down Fountain Creek.

A number of cities and agencies are conducting a study to determine how to help the Fountain Creek watershed deal with increasing flows. That is expected to be finished in 2007 and is likely to force some sort of action on storm water control.

Most leaders, however, don’t want to wait that long. Colorado Springs city staffers have been investigating how to pay for storm water repairs for more than a year.

Their tentative answer is to create a storm water drainage enterprise, a mechanism by which the government could collect fees from property owners and use them for repairs. El Paso County, which has an estimated $100 million backlog, is interested in being involved.

City Council members considered the enterprise in 1997 but dropped the idea when they became convinced that residents didn’t know enough about it to support it.

The Citizens Transportation Advisory Board recommended its creation recently after looking at drainage and deciding that a new source of funding is needed to deal with it.

No one has devised a formula for the enterprise yet, but it probably would involve a fee per acre of property that can’t absorb rain, assessed on a utility bill or property-tax bill.

Cities such as Pueblo and Woodland Park implemented a similar fee, though some officials feel it would be more appropriate to put it to a vote. Either way, there will be opponents.

County Commissioner Douglas Bruce called the idea “a tax on the rain.” Unlike utility charges for water or electricity that are based on how much of a product a customer uses, residents will have no choice on how much they would pay for this fee, he said.

Limited-growth activist Dave Gardner also questioned whether all citizens should foot the bill for repairs before developers are made to pay more. After all, buildings and paved surfaces cause storm water problems, he said.

“It’s probably going to be unavoidable that everyone is going to have to ante up,” Gardner said.

“But as we expanded the town into each new subdivision, it would have been smart to assess the costs needed for storm water drainage.”

Transportation advisory board member Anne Oatman Gardner said that bashing growth won’t help prevent flooding.

The city budget, which has paid for road maintenance and other costs of growth, hasn’t helped storm water drainage, she said.

City and county elected officials are planning to discuss the enterprise idea at a June 21 meeting.

Most officials say a decision can’t be put off this time as it was in 1997. If it is, the system will continue to deteriorate and put roads and homes in danger, they say.

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0184 or sealover@gazette.com