It’s hard to believe, but flood mitigation efforts at CU South are still facing hurdles.

After initially approving the South Boulder Creek flood mitigation project in 2015, residents have since voted to move ahead with the plan — more than once. CU has agreed to transfer land to make it happen. Our climate has continued to warm — making extreme weather, such as rain, ever more common. And still, we have not gotten our much-needed flood mitigation.

The newest hurdle facing flood mitigation along the South Boulder Creek is a ridiculous lawsuit challenging the legality of the Boulder City Council approving a $66 million bond to fund the Flood Mitigation Project without bringing it to residents for a vote in an election.

Last month, the City Council approved the allocation of $66 million in bonds to fund the project, which aims to minimize damage in a major flood event. The bond proceeds will pay for the land acquisition and construction of flood prevention infrastructure on and near the CU South site, according to a city website. And the bonds will be paid for through a city stormwater and flood management fee, according to the city ordinance.

The lawsuit alleges that the increase in the stormwater fee through the ordinance is, in reality, a tax that the city is attempting to levy in violation of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

For former Boulder Mayor Sam Weaver and former councilmember Rachel Friend, who both spent years working on the CU South annexation negotiations and the flood mitigation plans, the lawsuit is just another frivolous attempt to delay a vital project.

Worse than that, the suit seems to ignore what should really be at the heart of this issue: public safety.

“The thing that jumped out at me as I read through the complaint was that they didn’t mention safety anywhere,” Weaver said in a phone interview. “This is about protecting people’s lives. We have to look at this as a public safety issue.”

And the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation project, Weaver and Friend stressed, is the best we could ask for, considering the myriad circumstances, including the most challenging of all: that U.S. 36 is already there (and we can’t exactly move it).

“We studied it and had experts run models, and none of them were going to be effective for stopping the flood that we wanted to,” Friend said. “There is no other option available, as much as people wish there was.”

Bob Yates, another former councilmember involved in the flood mitigation project, had a similar take.

“As a lawyer, I am confident that the lawsuit will fail,” Yates said in an email. “But the fact that the lawsuit was filed and is being pursued by a small number of litigation plaintiffs will have two detrimental effects on our community. First, and most importantly, the mere pendency of the lawsuit could delay the city from starting the life-saving South Boulder Creek flood mitigation work.”

Yates continued, “The second adverse impact of the ill-conceived lawsuit is an increase in costs, affecting all Boulder water utility customers. In addition to ever-increasing construction costs, a delay in issuing the flood mitigation project bonds may cause the city to have to accept a higher interest rate on the bonds, as bond prices shift in the market every day and appear to be rising.”

Generally speaking, we take no issue with citizen efforts to keep our government responsible. Ensuring our city follows the proper protocols in all elements of its business is an essential form of accountability.

But there is a stark difference between keeping our government in check and simply trying to obstruct its functioning. It’s hard not to feel that this lawsuit is anything other than just another gambit to forestall the inevitable (and the necessary) in the long war of attrition around CU South.

It may be true that the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation project is among the city’s most expensive, but the idea that it will only benefit some citizens is outlandish.

The most important flood mitigation efforts along the South Boulder Creek are those designed to keep U.S. 36 from overtopping. That highway is an essential emergency route. If another devastating flood were to hit Boulder, having U.S. 36 remain open will benefit the vast majority of our citizens.

The notion that Boulder’s citizenry hasn’t already voted on this flood mitigation project is also farcical. It is true that voters haven’t directly voted on this particular bond, but in both 2021 and 2022, voters approved the South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation project.

The merits of this lawsuit will be decided in court, but it is our hope that the case is swiftly dismissed so that our community can continue moving forward with this long overdue flood mitigation project.

Similarly, considering the ongoing economic upheaval from President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the longer this project is put off, the more likely it becomes that construction costs will increase.

In the meantime, it is worth remembering that we have built ourselves into this situation. The Boulder Valley was prone to flooding long before Boulder was ever a city. We have spent decades building and expanding throughout a high-risk area. Now, on top of that, our climate is continuing to change, making the likelihood of extreme weather greater and greater with each passing year.

So, we can either sit on our hands and continue bickering about how exactly to pay for this flood mitigation project, how much protection we need, and how to protect our open spaces, or we can press forward with the plan that our leaders and our voters have repeatedly approved.

We don’t have to agree on everything — and it is imperative to follow the proper processes, listen to stakeholders and proceed with equity at the forefront of decision-making — but in almost 12 years we have failed to greatly change our flood preparedness. We are, for the most part, right where we were in 2013.

Last time, lives were lost, and the scale of damage throughout our community was hard to comprehend, but we somehow managed to avoid a worst-case scenario. If we haven’t changed our circumstances, who is to say we will be so fortunate next time?

As we have said over and over, we say again: We can continue to delay flood mitigation, but we can’t delay the next flood.

— Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board