History of CU South

Vote YES to protect the floodplain and repeal the annexation of CU South. Repeal the bad deal!

Together we can change the history of CU South.

Deepe and Van Vleet family farms operate on the land. Most of it is used for cattle grazing. Lynn Van Vleet is shown here is an achival photo from the Carnegie Library for Local History.

Gravel mining by Flatiron Company begins in 1952 on Deepe farm, initially under a lease. Despite numerous objections, mining on the property continues until 1995.

Boulder has long understood the importance of the CU South property and sought to buy and protect it.

• 1972 - Boulder's City Greenbelt Committee unanimously resolves that "since this general area provides an entry way to the City…its general character should be that of open space. " Later in the year, it accepts mining of entire site provided the "land remains open space at virtually no cost to the public" after the mining is completed.
• 1973 - The City offers to buy the 167.4-acre Deepe farm and threatens to start condemnation action if the offer is rejected.
• 1974 - Flatiron Co. purchases the property before the City completes its negotiations with the Deepe family.
• 1975 - The City seeks open space easement over 300 acres. It fails in 1976 due to IRS rejection of Flatiron Co.'s proposed tax write-off as part of the deal.
• 1977 - Parts of the property are designated as Open Space in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
• 1978 - Parts of the Van Vleet farm are purchased by the Flatiron Co. for gravel mining and by the City for Open Space. This acquisition brings the Flatiron Co. property to 308 acres.
• 1981 - 220 acres of the property are identified as future open space in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan.
• 1988 - Open Space regulations are amended "to allow off-trail public access for passive recreational purposes." Neighbors start to use the land as informal open space.
• 1995 - Flatiron Co. requests annexation to City to build 78 luxury homes and a 100,000 sq. ft. Women of the West museum with huge parking lot and outdoor exhibit area.
• Boulder County rejects the proposal for the Women of the West Museum because the land is in the South Boulder Creek floodplain.

• May 1995 - CU and Flatiron Co. begin secret negotiations over purchase of the land. Flatirons Co. completes the graveling operation soon thereafter.
• 1996 - CU Regents approve purchase of the property and sign agreement with Flatiron Co. in April. They announce that CU has no specific plan for the land except to have room for future growth, with no development expected until 2020.  CU's "gift discount" to the seller, Flatirons, was disallowed by the IRS after the sale as an illegal tax deduction.  
• Oct. 15, 1996 - Boulder County reprimands CU for unauthorized increase of berm by 2-3 feet, which violates its use permit and increases potential flood hazard to residents downstream.
• Nov. 1996 - Ballot issue 205 to seek funds for the City to buy the property (along with another one in North Boulder) fails to pass.
• Nov. 1996 - CU officially purchases the property for $16.4 million of which $5.4M is a "gift/discount" from Flatiron Co. The Board of Regents cancels the Woman of the West Museum project on the property and offers to lease13.5 acres of the CU Research Park as an alternative site.
• 1996 - CU hires engineering consultant Love and Associates with the understanding that the "University would like to maximize development" at the property.
• 1997 - CU trucks hundreds of tons of fill dirt to the property from the NOAA/NIST excavation then spreads and "stockpiles" it. CU fills 3 small lakes, reducing the water-covered area from 30 acres to 4 acres. It also fills several wetlands and levels the property. Amidst the clearing and leveling the historic stone Deepe homestead which was to be preserved and protected mysteriously "fell over".
• The original Flatirons reclamation plan which included ponds, open space, and flood mitigation is "set aside" after CU uses its muscle with the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board. The Board votes to allow CU to substitute its own reclamation plan for the land, a plan desgined to maximize development.
• March 1998 - CU requests FEMA certification of the berm as a federally approved flood control structure. FEMA declines certification.
• 1999 - CU appeals to FEMA for certification again. It is denied again.
• 2000 - CU appeals to FEMA another time, still without success.
• Sept. 2000 - The Denver Post reports that "CU wants to relocate sports and recreation fields to the site it bought in 1996… and has maintained its right to fully develop the land for future growth."
• The reinforced berm is finally approved by FEMA after being misinterpreted as a "natural feature" .  The determination was made in Washington, DC by FEMA officials who had never been to the site and were shown photographs of the berm by CU. It is, of course, not a natural feature. 

In 2001 an Independent Review Panel of international flood experts organized by Prof. Gilbert White recommended against development in the floodplain. The report was adopted by City Council but its recommendations were never acted upon.

The 2001 Independent Review Panel report (which the City and CU ignored) recommended:

• The benefits and cost of all floodplain functions should be considered in solutions to flood problems including flood conveyance, natural and beneficial functions such as riparian habitat, open space and aesthetics, and recreation.
• Flood issues should be addressed from the perspective of the entire contributing watershed, and the problem solving should be done on an overall basis for various portions of one large floodplain, recognizing that different reaches may deserve different action. In particular, consideration must be given to the possible effects of upstream land use on stream flows and posible mitigation measures for downstream areas.
• A full range of floodplain management tools should be used to address flooding problems and assessing the effectiveness of these tools should be done regarding individual buildings and reaches for floods up to the 500-year frequency.

In May 2006 CU conferred Gilbert White with an honorary degree at their commencement exercises. The Regents acknowledged Prof. White's contributions on  many fronts including his persistence on behalf of all Boulder residents at risk from severe flooding.

Starting on September 11, 2013, a slow-moving cold front stalled over Colorado. In Boulder,  9.08 inches was recorded September 12 and up to 17 inches of rain recorded by September 15. This amount of rainfall is comparable to Boulder County's average annual precipitation.

Every major drainage in Boulder experienced some level of flooding. 

According to the City's analysis of flood damage, the South Boulder Creek drainage was responsible for 15.8% of the total damage in the City in 2013. Most of the damage in the South Boulder Creek drainage was caused by sewer and flood drain backups (46%) not the main drainageway (3.6%).

The proposed flood mitigation project at CU South only addresses a tiny faction of the total flood damage in the City of Boulder from the 2013 flood.

Save South Boulder formed in late 2015 when South Boulder residents Helen Burnside, Amy Siemel, and Jenny Natapow first saw CU’s flyers posted at CU-South, announcing its proposed campus development plans.   Knowing that the area was directly in the middle of the South Boulder Creek Floodplain, and also being daily users of the space for hiking, walking and recreating with their children, they were appalled that the property would turn into yet another development, with attendant loss of wild space, habitat and native species. 

Since its founding, Save South Boulder has worked for seven years to convince the City to follow the principles proposed by Prof. Gilbert White and the experts on the 2001 Indpendent Review Panel. Save South Boulder has consistently advocated for consideration of higher levels of flood protection, best practices and natural forms of flood  mitigation, and a less costly and less one-sided annexation agreement with CU. 

The City's flood mitigation plans require CU's cooperation and some of its land. CU needs water and sewer service to develop at CU South and only agreed to cooperate with flood mitigation in exchange for annexation and provision of these services.

A good neighbor would readily cooperate with flood mitigation in the interest of public safety. CU has done the opposite and forced annexation as a pre-condition for cooperating on flood mitigation. 

Not only did CU demand annexation, they also imposed limitations on the size of the flood mitigation project that could be built. Boulder could have a 500-year flood mitigation project but for CU's demands.

Boulder citizens and City Council hoped to get 500-year flood mitigation on South Boulder Creek. On May 20, 2019, in spite of the urgent need for flood control, CU sent a letter to the city stating:

“We are writing to you today to provide notice that the university, as the landowner, does not agree to Variant I 500. We are informing the city that any further expenditure for the development of preliminary designs for Variant I 500 should cease.”

The City eventually caved in to CU's demands and current plans call for 100-year flood mitigation, far less than what experts have recommended for years.

To satisfy CU's demands, on June 16, 2020, the Boulder City Council voted to reject the previously approved $35 million Variant 1 500-year flood protection plan and move forward with a  $66 million 100-year flood protection plan (referenced below), which includes a mile-long floodwall and dam with a cut-off wall to bedrock that will impede groundwater flows, extensive earthfill to refill a portion of the gravel pit to elevate it above the level of a 500-year flood, and other specifics.

In 2019 Save South Boulder joined with PLAN-Boulder County to seek a vote of the people regarding the CU South annexation. Citizens asked that City Council require CU follow the same steps for annexation proposals which the City has always required of landowners. Instead, CU’s annexation proposal demanded exemption from these requirements, including that a site plan for development be provided, along with attendant costs for the site development, assessment of impacts on adjacent neighborhoods, an environmental impact study, and a requirement that residents nearby the proposed annexation be consulted.

Multiple signature gathering campaigns from citizens resulted in the successful placement of Measure 302 on the 2021 ballot, as well as a second successful campaign to place a referendum to repeal the annexation agreement on the ballot for the upcoming November 2022 election.

Measure 302 would have required that a vote be held on annexation, that CU follow the normal information disclosure rules required by property owners wanting to be annexed, and that flood mitigation be implemented first, before any services be provided to the CU South property. 

In September 2021, less than two months before the November election, the Boulder City Council passed CU’s annexation agreement, saying they had to act because flood mitigation constituted  an “emergency”. Despite the pandemic, there was no flood-related emergency that justified Council's action. The flood that spurred this entire effort occurred 8 years prior. Further, Council failed to define what any other emergencies justified their action,  despite that such a definition is required by the City Charter.

The City and CU then falsely argued that their vote rendered moot Ballot Measure 302  and its required vote on CU South. They also falsely suggested the vote would delay flood mitigation. Measure 302 received 43% support and failed to pass. 

The annexation agreement itself was improperly negotiated on behalf of the City by former Mayor Sam Weaver and Council Member Rachel Friend through a series of more than 15 off-the-record meetings with CU. Typically such negotiations are carried out by city staff to provide more bargaining leverage. Weaver’s and Friend’s actions violated sunshine laws and norms of transparency, avoided public input and oversight, and with respect to protecting the City’s interests,  did a terrible job.

The final agreement is a one-sided bad deal in which CU ends up with a billion-dollar property, and Boulder rate payers pay for almost everything associated with annexation. The costs that the City (e.g. Boulder citizens) are now obligated to absorb as part of this annexation include all costs associated with water treatment, moving the tennis courts, removing the berm, buying more land from CU, paying for earthfill, and impact fees that normally are paid by annexees but which have been waived for CU, including costs to the City for increased fire and police protection.

Did they at least negotiate a lot of affordable housing? No. The percentage of land allocated for affordable housing is far smaller than what would be required under a typical annexation in Boulder.

The agreement allows CU to construct 750,000 square feet of non-residential buildings - enough for 3,000 students and employees, but only 1,100 residential dwelling units. The agreement in fact allows for 2.5 million square feet of total development at CU South. This only makes the City’s jobs/population balance worse. It is not a housing solution.

Weak negotiations put Boulder citizens on the hook for most of the expenses of this annexation, which could result in CU selling the property for a tidy profit, should it decide not to build a third campus. It's a very bad deal for Boulder.

In October 2021, within 30 days of city council's September 21 action to approve the annexation, volunteers submitted more than 6,000 signatures requesting a referendum to repeal that annexation agreement. The clerk certified the signatures and the referendum was placed on the November 2022 ballot.

Under normal circumstances a successful referendum petition would result in a "halt" on all work on a project. However, because the CU South annexation was approved as an "emergency" ordinance, work was allowed to proceed even as the referendum vote approaches.

There were more than 33,000 students enrolled at CU in Spring 2022. CU refuses to cap enrollment at the Boulder campus, and the student population has grown beyond past forecasts.

CU plans another 2.5 million square feet of development at CU South with jobs and campus space for 3,000, but only 1,100 housing units - many of them to be designated as market rate single-family dwellings. CU offers only endless expansion without real housing solutions, but expects Boulder voters to pay most of the associated expenses.

Due to global supply chain issues, increased materials costs, and labor shortages, costs for infrastructure projects across the country have increased much faster than anticipated. 

The price of a foot of water pipe in Tucson, Arizona: up 19%. The cost of a ton of asphalt in a small Massachusetts town: up 37%. The estimate to build a new airport terminal in Des Moines, Iowa: 69% higher, with a several year delay.

CU South is no exception. Latest estimates put the cost of the flood mitigation project at $63 million, but these estimates were developed years ago and the City does not intend to release a more current cost estimate before the election.