Cristo’s Over The River – Love it or Hate it?

There has been much discussion around Cristo’s Over The River project that is currently in scoping.  Here is your opportunity to comment to CTU, and let us know how you feel about this.

CTU is currently compiling comments and recommendations based on a number of points, both specific to the actual impacts of the project, to the emotional feelings from our members.

I want to hear your voice on this project.  You are what make CTU tick – let us know where you land on this very visible and controversial project.


7 Responses to Cristo’s Over The River – Love it or Hate it?

  1. Kent Higgins says:

    As a conservationist, angler, retired fishing guide and TU life member … I am totally opposed to this effort of Christo to “create” art along the Arkansas River below Salida.
    First, my concerns encompass short term disturbance of the river bank habitat and vegetation due to placement of the 9,000+ anchors and obviously the crews putting in these anchors, putting up the materials, the viewing public, and taking down the fabric. The potential for fuel spills, chemical toxic to fish and wildlife, and polluting trash from everyone (construction materials and workers, plus visitors who do not care!). Who is going to restore the river bank habitat and vegetation back to what it was without the removal of the anchors – which is not the case?
    Second, the long term concerns I have encompass erosion issues associated with this river bank disturbance plus the iron, concrete, plastic/styrofoam pollution into the Arkansas.
    Third, as a Chaffee County property owner and angler of the Arkansas River, I oppose the overall disturbances involving the river as a fishing destination, the loss of revenues for the guide and fly shop services in Chaffee County, the added demands on public safety services (some volunteer) when the area is overrun by the visiting publics (remember US-50 is a single lane road in each direction through the canyon), plus the potential of limited river access (construction & traffic) while this one to two year effort takes place.
    Finally, If CTU can take a “NO” position on Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 which I see as having limited impacts on our mission – CTU can take a stand on Christo and the Arkansas River.
    Thank you – Kent Higgins

  2. James Schmiidt says:

    As a life time member in Trout Unlimited and beieving in protection, conservation and support of animal life regardless of in the water or use of the waters of the Arkansas River in Chaffee County or other locations,and to sustain that animal habitat and protect the enviroment, I believe this is a project will affect the area of the Big Horn Sheep Canyon for years during preparations and display and following years after it is dimanteled.

    The action to place more than 9,000 embeds to cable support systems to support such fabric is a huge impact on the enviroment to place these. Additionally the abandonment or even removal again creates additional and further impact affecting wildlife in both resident animals and fish, as with the waters themselves. Sediments and other wastes will cetainly affect the land and the water through storm runoff or natural disbursement through the air.

    Not to say the least the impact on the public access during assembly and removal with the short duration of display, and to what gain or postive value.

    The traffic, and the impact to local ecconomy will certainly be felt by many. Having ownership in the county of Chaffee, and being a wildlife and fishing person with vested interest to my county and the waters as with the services feel that this is highly intrusive without any postive gain.

    During the assembly traffic and access will be impaired along with errosions and sediments to the surroundings. The same will follow with the removal. There will also be an increase of hazards during the display that also can lead to hazards to wildlife, traffic and potentially water damage or enviroment from increased traffic.

    My position is in oposition to this project for all of the afore mentioned risks and potential hazards. Certainly Colorado Trout Unlimited needs to take a “Against” postion and support not allowing this project to move forward. I agree with Kent Higgins that a “NO” postion on Amendments 60 and 61 and Proposition 101 is the prudent choice for Colorado Trout Unlimited, we should stand firm and “AGAINST” Christo and protect the enviroment of the Chaffee Valley that holds the waters of the Arkansas river, one of the few freestone rivers left remaining with natural and sustaining Brown Trout, Cut Throat Trout and return of the Rainbow Trout!!


    Jim Schmidt

  3. Scott Lynch says:

    I strongly oppose the Cristo “art project” over the Arkansas River. A construction project that takes 2 years to complete and involves suspending materials over large stretches of a river cannot help but cause damage to the surrounding terrain, the wildlife and aquatic life of the area involved. Is the stroking of one man’s ego worth the risk involved? How can forcing this “art” on the sportsman, residents, and businesses in this area benefit anyone? Money you say. The 1400 page EIS clearly shows the potential hazards of environmental destruction far outweigh any monetary benefit or artists notoriety gained. Leave art in museums and gallery’s where one can make a choice to see it, don’t force it down the throats of those who don’t admire it or call it art.

  4. Joseph Snoy says:

    After reading the EIS and the six options, I have concerns regarding both the environmental and economic impact of the project. The size and duration of the construction/removal effort appears both too large and lengthy to be without substantial risk – the chance for environmental degradation is great. At first glance the economic impact to the area may appear “positive”, but as the EIS points out the fishing industry (fishing shops, guide services) will be negatively impacted. River access along US 50 will be disrupted for the entire duration of the construction period (up to 28 months). Customer surveys conducted by the fishing shop owners reveal that fishermen intend to avoid the area entirely. Therefore I “vote” against the project! If the project should be approved I hope it is the smallest option with the shortest construction duration. I intend to send these comments to BLM before the Sept 13th deadline along with a recommendation that the Christo organizers post a $20M bond as a contingency fund to resolve any post-event cleanup problems.
    Remember – comments are due to BLM by Sept 13th.

  5. Erik Heikkenen says:

    Proponents of Christo’s work argue the environmental impact of his previous work has been minimal to non-existent. Really? Visit the 1971 “Valley Curtain” project near Rifle, CO and see what he left behind…

  6. Kari says:

    May I have permission to copy this to my Face Book Page named Don’t Drape the Beauty?

  7. Jim Klug says:

    As TU members we should be concerned about the well being of other wildlife in addition to Trout. My feeling is that if the impact is moderate to significant to any of the species living in the project area, TU should be concerned enough to oppose the project. We, TU, provide hundreds if not thousands of volunteer man hours trying to preserve, protect and restore wildlife habitat through our various willow plantings, weed eliminations and stream clean ups. Why not stand by preservation and stop this project before we have to go in and restore the the habitat to its pre project state????? Let’s not stand by and watch 28 months of habitat destruction. Two weeks of so called art and ancillary perceived local financial benefit is not justified.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: