Background - 59 acres on Denver Federal Center’s NW corner were contaminated with toxins for 85 years (starting in World War II when it was a munitions factory). For nearly a century, it was a landfill for disposal of all sorts of toxins. Due to poor record-keeping, no one knows what was buried there.

 About a decade ago, the government determined the site was contaminated and did a partial cleanup by removing the topsoil layer and replacing it with new clean soil to form a “cap” to seal in the toxins below.

 The government claims it is safe so long as the “cap” isn’t penetrated. The new owner (a Texas developer) promises to be careful but best intentions aside, we can’t guarantee that constructing 2,000+ apartments (in buildings up to 180 feet high) will not disturb the contaminants. Although the developer promises to dig “safe” corridors for water, sewer, and utility pipelines, those trenches and high-rise foundations will penetrate the cap and disturb the wastes stored below.

 The majority of GMWSD board directors are afraid there may be leaks during construction that might contaminate the groundwater. If the water table is compromised, toxins might leach into neighborhoods downhill from the DFC.

 Other than the developer’s profit motive, there is no urgency to start digging. However there is reason to take the time necessary to do the right thing. If we rush ahead, there is a chance of making mistakes and endangering public safety.

 Despite proponents’ claims that GMWSD is “required” to provide developers with any service they request, this proposal may create a new legal precedent with serious consequences. GMWSD has never had to provide service on land that is environmentally compromised and potentially dangerous.

 The political establishment wants to help the developer by declaring the site “blighted” so it can qualify for tax incentives. To qualify for urban renewal benefits, the owner will claim the site is unsanitary/unsafe, conditions exist that endanger life, there is environmental contamination, and there are health, safety, or welfare factors that require high levels of municipal services.

 The developer also wants to create a metro district, which would allow it to qualify for bond money to finance its project and the power to tax future residents.

 While there are hired guns who claim it might be possible to mitigate the dangers, everyone acknowledges we don’t know what will be discovered once bulldozers start moving dirt. Due to all the unknowns, any development will be taking a chance, and GMWSD doesn’t want to enable a LOVE CANAL-type environmental disaster.

 If it is adequately tested and figured out, then the project might take place. But if we are hasty and jump without looking, in the future GMWSD might end up in costly litigation when the courts try to figure out who all will be required to help pay for the damages.

One suggester noted there was a similar story on Next-door several years ago when the City was first considering buying the site:

Having been general counsel for multiple environmental remediation firms over the years, I resorted to obtaining and reviewing a copy of the Phase I environmental assessment for this property, a former munitions manufacturing site in WWII. As legal advisor to a firm integrally involved in the decommissioning of the Rocky Flats Superfund site, I appreciate the potential limits of such assessments and this one was no different. In spite of the City spending over $500,000 for this study, the firm characterizing the property was not able to provide City Council with any guarantee that there were not more, or unknown, contaminants:  “…the limited nature of [the firms] scope of work precluded the firm from providing any warranty or guarantee regarding the presence or absence of possible Hazardous Material that could potentially affect the Study Area…”  Sites such as Rocky Flats and the DFC, operated by the Federal government for many years under a cloak of secrecy, have a greater likelihood for historical record keeping that is problematic. Consequently, such facilities often have historical information gaps that make property assessment more difficult, and potentially less precise. This was certainly the case at Rocky Flats, where contaminants were randomly found in areas not previously thought to contain them, in spite of the exhaustive nature of the site characterization.

Although the Fed Center is certainly not another Rocky Flats, both were subject to conducting secret activities on behalf of the Defense Department in furtherance of crucial war/military efforts. However, it is pertinent to note the Federal government characterized as a "superfund site" certain portions of the Fed Center due to its prior munitions  manufacturing practices. The feds then remediated this small portion of the property which they characterized as fully remediated and capped. However, that particular portion of the property is de minimis as a percentage of the entire acreage of the property owned by the developer in this case. Above you can see the problems created for the initial Phase I environmental analysis due to the size  and previous use of this property. 

As a long-time resident of Lakewood, a taxpayer and voter, it is my personal opinion that those parties whom we elect to function as our representatives  do not have a mandate from the voters to unilaterally undertake risky developments such as this one being proposed without first having engaged in exhaustive due diligence on behalf of their constituents and for the benefit of their administrative agencies. Based upon the foregoing, I urge the Green Mountain water board to NOT just "give the developer what it wants" with regard to this particular, and environmentally unique, property. 

Exhaustive analysis AND proactive planning with regard to the nature and circumstance of any services in this regard should go a long way in mitigating the inherent risks associated with Fed Center development.