In December 2023, Herman’s Osage Studios LLC bought a parcel of land at 1305 North Osage St. for $2.1 million. Herman, a designer, saw an opportunity to rehabilitate a couple of junk-car-storing warehouses into an interactive attraction at the northern tip of the abandoned Burnham Yard railyard. The dream for the site — bringing an immersive tiki lounge to Denver — was strong enough to shrug off a couple of purchase inquiries by legal representatives connected to the Denver Broncos, in the midst of a massive land grab just down the street. But actually designing such physical plans in a dilapidated area, Herman said, has been “an absolute horrorfest” of legal issues and property damage.

“There were days where I was like, ‘I’ve made a huge mistake,'” Herman said.

The Broncos have now become the most visible entrepreneur to identify Burnham Yard as a ripe pocket for redevelopment, continuing to march forward with the railyard as their preferred site for a new stadium district in Denver. Beyond a finalized agreement to buy the railyard itself, property records compiled by The Denver Post show the Broncos have been tied to at least $186 million in land purchases in the surrounding area, with the expressed goal to build out a mixed-use district around a new stadium. For now, unlike Herman and its neighbors, the organization does not need to concern itself with potential break-ins.

The Broncos’ path to a successful stadium-anchored development at Burnham, though, is fraught with larger-scale hurdles surrounding their planned stadium opening in 2031 — stemming directly from the same reasons they keyed in on the site in the first place.

“I’m so skeptical,” Herman said, “that they’re going to pull it off in time.”

A simple building remodel took Herman a year and a half due to city processes. People have broken into his warehouses on multiple occasions, and stripped the copper wire from his air-conditioning units. He has bled money on damage control. And on one occasion, he walked into his primary building at North Osage to find his window shattered and a man without any clothes standing in the middle of the room.

Herman has stuck it out, one of several owners who have poured money into new development around the railyard in recent years. Directly east of Burnham, The Refractory — — has seen interest from potential businesses ranging from a jiu jitsu gym to an indoor golf facility, broker Russell Gruber said. Directly adjacent to Herman’s property, Memphis Orion and Adam Lerner are leading a $27 million development of a wellness center dubbed Coba Bathhouse; they saw a “giant wave” in the area, Orion said , and felt they could surf it. And the Broncos are the latest to hop on, because of such tantalizing development potential.

The modern era of stadium construction has popularized the “stadium district,” a mini-neighborhood that relies on mixed-use offerings around the stadium itself to generate revenue outside of gamedays. The Broncos are buying up over 150 acres around Burnham to build out that concept in Denver, similar to Kroenke Sports & Entertainment’s plans at Ball Arena. But such a large-scale development in an area primarily zoned for industrial use has inevitably entangled the Broncos in a web of lengthy city processes, community-benefits-agreement negotiations with the recently established Burnham Yard Community Action coalition, and soon-to-be-costly negotiations with private landowners and the public utility, Denver Water, that have yet to be resolved.

And that’s just the first wave, as both the organization and the city will need an immaculately phased development at Burnham to justify the investment there.

“While our current focus is on the community-benefits-agreement process, the long-term goal is for Burnham Yard to contribute to a connected, mixed-use community to the La Alma Lincoln Park and Baker neighborhoods,” Broncos president Damani Leech told The Post. “In terms of selecting the Burnham Yard site, we think it’s important for the Broncos to remain in Denver.

“Though a project of this scope on a former railyard presents some challenges, it aligns with our overall vision to create Denver’s next great neighborhood, the future home of the Denver Broncos and a year-round destination that delivers meaningful impact for the city.”

Why the Broncos ‘have to make the mixed-use district work’

Twenty miles south, a 440-acre expanse of open dirt spills out below the intersection of East Lincoln Avenue and Interstate 25 in Lone Tree, the site that was — and could still be — the Broncos’ Plan B.

Over the last two years, the organization has done its due diligence on the Lone Tree City Center, a massive planned mixed-use sprawl that Douglas County has openly campaigned for as a possible home for the Broncos.

Lone Tree has already approved a sub-area plan for the Lone Tree City Center, and the area is zoned for large mixed-use development. The city “prides itself on being business-friendly,” Mayor Melissa Harmon told The Post, and aims to provide “clear expectations, timely feedback and response, and always a predictable permitting process.” And the alignment with the Broncos — or any other catalyst developer — is obvious: the city would make sure the integration was as smooth as possible, Harmon pointed.

“They have our phone number, and we know — I joked with Damani (Leech), I said, ‘You still say preferred, you know,'” Harmon said, referring to the Broncos’ current positioning at Burnham.

“But in all honesty, of course, we always knew that Denver and Burnham Yards was their preferred and No. 1 site for many reasons,” she continued, “and it was really such an honor to be able to have the conversations, but also really get national attention for this piece of property.”

To Harmon’s point, the Walton-Penner ownership group selected Burnham over Lone Tree or Aurora specifically to keep the franchise in Denver. And the specific location makes sense, as several real estate and development experts told The Post, because of the immediate proximity to higher-population-density neighborhoods around Denver that can therefore attract tenants and foot traffic alike.

“Obviously, like, the Broncos chose to be here instead of going to some suburban location,” said Ryan Meeks, founder of Denver-based Bosk Urban Design. “And so 
 they have to make the mixed-use district work, right?”

The appeal of building a stadium district at the Ìęlies in built-in historical and industrial aesthetics that the Broncos have highlighted since their very first Large Development Review pre-submission in November 2025. The organization has repeatedly cited theÌęrefurbishment of the site’s locomotive shop as a key component of its initial design plans. In that vein, the Broncos are the largest piece of a greater transformation around Burnham; a slew of developers have bought warehouses to repurpose for non-industrial uses in recent years, commercial broker Gruber told The Post.

“It¶¶Òőap a more challenging site, in some ways,” Broncos owner Greg Penner told The Post in September. “But we think it creates an opportunity to create something special.”

Those challenges, though, are substantial in the short term. Penner said in late March that the Broncos want to have “all of (their) ducks lined up” before officially shedding the preferred-site label for a Burnham development.

That calls for progress on a legally binding community-benefits agreement with the recently finalized Burnham Yard Community Action coalition, for one. That calls for progress on negotiations with Denver Water around the utility’s relocation, which has been further complicated by community pushback against the utility’s plans for a potential facility on Lot M of the existing Empower Field stadium site.

And that calls for progress toward a resolution with SRM Concrete, which owns a large concrete plant smack-dab in the middle of the Broncos’ stadium district plans.

Most important of all are the dominoes that’ll fall once the city’s Department of Community Planning and Development completes a small-area plan for the site, which a source with knowledge of the process said should be finalized late in 2026 or early in 2027.

The Denver Urban Renewal Authority will only begin work on an urban-renewal plan at Burnham once that small-area plan is finished, DURA Interim Executive Director Bill Pruter told The Post. That urban-renewal plan will determineÌęwhetherÌętax-increment financing is approved for the Burnham development, which Pruter said he expects the Broncos will seek.

Penner and Denver’s brass have made clear the stadium itself won’t introduce any new taxes. But if the larger 150-acre site is approved for a TIF district by Denver’s City Council, the infrastructure around the stadium can be paid for in some capacity by borrowing against future growth in property taxes within that district — a form of tax break.

Essentially, the Broncos can wind up using the potential for a larger-scale stadium district at Burnham to actually pay for the stadium itself.

“This is incredibly typical in stadium ancillary development,” said Geoffrey Propheter, a . “You build the stadium first, and then all the non-stadium stuff that you’re actually using to try to convince lawmakers to support this — all of this comes in years 10, 20, 30. And they all come with a promise.”

“The track record for delivering on these promises by teams in development,” Propheter said later, “is shaky. And that¶¶Òőap being super generous.”

Why the phasing and selection of district features matter

Fortunately for Denver, the Walton-Penner Group has built a considerable track record of delivering on its promises.

Look to Denver, for one, where Broncos owners Penner and Carrie Walton Penner have revitalized the NFL franchise and just invested significant capital into the Colorado Rockies. And look across the country to Bentonville, Arkansas, where has been transformed into a mini-metropolis at the Walton family’s investment.

Nelson Worldwide senior vice president Lamar Wakefield, an expert in mixed-use development who helped design The Battery stadium district in Atlanta, told The Post that he’s working on a current development in Bentonville for the Waltons.

“They really want to see a wide range of housing options,” Wakefield said. “And I was really pleased to hear that. They understand that if you can make it attainable, but the whole neighborhood itself has all these wide ranges — maybe that single mom with three kids raising them in that environment is a little bit different … so they embrace that. I was very impressed.”

The Broncos will likely focus, in the initial phase, on the stadium and surrounding infrastructure before a 2031 opening at Burnham, multiple experts in stadium-district development told The Post. Slow-playing other aspects of the district for too long, though, would do a “huge disservice,” nearby warehouse owner John Victor said, to both community and city investment in the development. And the Broncos will face the challenge of establishing a center of gravity where there isn’t one at Burnham — different from KSE’s task of developing a district around the nearby Ball Arena.

“That’s the secret sauce there,” said Matt Mahoney, KSE’s senior vice president of development, “when we’re talking about neighborhoods that just do not exist. I mean, both these properties — our property is a surface parking lot. We’re fortunate to actually have an arena already built.

“The Broncos have a much tougher, steeper hill to climb. Because they want to create a neighborhood, but they also have to build a new stadium at the same time of establishing a sense of place there.”

The organization’s initial infrastructure master plan outlines that the Broncos would complete vertical construction of an “entertainment zone” in time for the stadium’s 2031 opening. The key there is what mix of mixed-use development (housing, office, retail, dining, hospitality) the Broncos will prioritize within that specific zone. Wakefield, who helped design The Battery Atlanta — a gold standard of mixed-use stadium development that the Broncos’ brass toured while identifying stadium-district ideas — emphasized the initial importance of establishing residential units to build an on-site customer base.

Any dreams about the district’s makeup, though, will be clouded by the current Denver market. Ortiz said building hotels would be an initial priority. But hotel-occupancy rates in metro Denver still haven’t rebounded to pre-COVID-19 levels, . RC Myles, a broker with Denver-based Pinnacle Real Estate Advisors, said he anticipates the Burnham district won’t prioritize much office development, as office vacancies in downtown Denver .

“There’s so many missing pieces to this,” said Carrie Makarewicz, chair of CU Denver’s urban and regional planning department. “I mean, they’re moving forward in the typical style of a private developer — you acquire low-cost land in a strategic location, you build the revenue generators first, you tap into as much public funding you can get … and then you work on the immediate surroundings for your project, but you don’t take into consideration the city and regional demand for retail, apartments and entertainment.

“Like, we’re cannibalizing all of our districts around the city.”

Demand for multi-family housing in downtown Denver has steadily ticked up, though, according to . And Myles pointed to Cherry Creek, which has dropped retail vacancy rates below 2%, as an example of a local destination for offices, families and businesses alike. Multiple real-estate experts noted to The Post that there aren’t currently many options for dining or support retail in the extended Burnham area — identifying a potential development focus for the Broncos.

“Colorado needs a big high five right now,” Gruber said. “And I think the Penners are helping do it.”

The Broncos, though, have yet to truly cement their investment in Burnham Yard, let alone a phased approach for an amorphous stadium district. And time is ticking, now a full nine months after their initial preferred-site announcement.

“If they can pull it off — I mean, dude, I guess money talks,” Herman said. “And they got plenty of that.”

In the wee hours of June 3, he got up every hour to check the livestream of workers laying the final layer of roller-compacted concrete on the dam, a major milestone more than two decades in the making. At 3 a.m., workers — completing the main structure of what is now Colorado’s tallest dam and finishing a long-held plan by Denver Water to expand Gross Reservoir.

Martin, the program manager for the dam project, had worked for 12 years on the $600 million effort to replace the old Gross Dam with one that is 131 feet taller, tripling the reservoir’s storage. Crews still have some finishing work remaining, he said, but the major work to raise the dam is now complete.

“Denver Water was not intent on building the tallest dam in Colorado,” Martin said later that morning, standing atop the now-470-foot dam that towers above South Boulder Creek. “This was about water security.”

But it remains unclear whether Denver Water will ever be able to fill theÌęreservoir to its new full capacity as a yearslong court battle lumbers on between the utility and environmentalists.

Months of mediation between the parties have failed. Denver Water is now asking a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court judge’s 2025 order barring the utility from filling the expanded reservoir and ordering the yearslong federal permitting process to be redone. A panel of three judges for the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear arguments in the case on July 31 in Santa Fe.

U.S. District Court Judge Christine Arguello in 2024 found that federal regulators violated environmental protection laws when they failed to properly analyze the environmental impact of the project or consider reasonable alternatives to the dam expansion that would be less harmful. She later issued the order against filling the reservoir.

Environmental groups argued in court, and in their filings, that regulators failed to evaluate how siphoning more water from the drought-stricken Colorado River would impact the basin as a whole. And the groups charged that they failed to weigh other project options that wouldn’t require the clear-cutting of a half-million trees or risk damage to wetlands.

The case has drawn the attention of other Front Range water providers, lawyers from across the county and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — all of which have filed briefs in the appeals case.

“This case has reverberated across the country and the Colorado River Basin,” said Gary Wockner, the executive director of , one of the environmental groups pursuing the case. “Everyone’s watching to see what the outcome is here.”

In their legal filings, Denver Water leaders argued that Arguello erred in her decision, which put “decades of work and this critical water supply project in jeopardy,” the utility’s attorneys wrote in their brief to the appeals court. The attorneys urged the appeals court to intercede and “prevent yet another public infrastructure project from being held hostage by litigation.”

Martin, fresh off a breakfast burrito party celebrating the dam’s completion,Ìęremained adamant that the reservoir would eventually be filled.

“We will put more water in it,” he said.

Considering climate change

While the dam structure itself is complete, at least a year of work remains to fully finish the project, Martin said. Construction crews must finish the spillway and place the final topper foot of concrete on the completed dam structure. Divers will place a gate between the reservoir’s water and the dam’s intake tubes.

But the crews on site will diminish in the coming months, from up to 500 workers a day to closer to 100. On the morning of June 3, crane operators already worked to remove from the dam crest the heavy machinery that was necessary to build the main structure.

“It has been 20 long, hard years to move through, but Denver Water has been committed to providing more resilient water supplies to our community,” Martin said.

Denver Water began the permitting process for the Gross Reservoir expansion in 2002 and started construction in 2022. The planned expansion of the reservoir outside Nederland will increase the reservoir’s capacity from 42,000 acre-feet to 120,000 acre-feet — enough additional water for about 156,000 households’ annual use.

The expansion will also provide more storage in the utility’s northern fork of its supply network, which Denver Water leaders have said is critical if the larger southern supply system is impacted by fire, mudslides or drought.

Federal litigation over the project had already begun when construction crews started their work. In 2024, when Arguello ruled the project permitting did not comply with federal law, the dam was half finished and hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent.

The panel of appeals court judges will evaluate soon whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers followed federal environmental protection laws when issuing permits for the dam expansion and whether Arguello’s order blocking the filling of the reservoir was reasonable.

One of the key tensions in the legal arguments is whether the Corps of Engineers should have evaluated how climate change will impact the Colorado River, from which the reservoir draws most of its water. The water is transported through the Moffat Tunnel from Grand County, under the Continental Divide and into the South Boulder Creek drainage near Rollinsville.

Opponents of the dam — and the lower court judge — argued that the federal agency should have analyzed whether there would be sufficient water for Denver Water to bring across the Continental Divide to warrant the expansion of the reservoir. And if so, they argued that the agency should have weighed how taking that water would impact the rest of the basin downstream of the diversion.

Denver Water’s attorneys, in their filings to the appeals court, have argued that federal law requires an analysis of how a project impacts the environment, not how climate change could impact a project.

They also wrote that forcing the Corps of Engineers to now consider alternatives to raising the dam height is a moot point, since the dam is already complete and there are no other feasible alternatives at this point.

Allowing a project to stand because construction continued while its legality was being questioned would set a dangerous precedent, Wockner said. The environmental groups suing over the project are simply asking Denver Water to follow the law, he said.

“This is just plain ol’ law enforcement,” he said.

Outside interest

The yearslong case has drawn the interest of other Colorado local governments and water suppliers.

A slew of Front Range water providers — Aurora Water, the South Metro Water Supply Authority and Pueblo’s water board — weighed in, supporting Denver Water. The organizations, which provide water to more than 800,000 people, said the district court judge erred in her decision and that her error “introduces uncertainty and legally-unjustified burdens into the federal permitting process” for the groups’ water infrastructure projects.

The cities of Boulder and Lafayette also filed a brief urging the court to allow the reservoir to be filled. They inked a deal with Denver Water that would allow them to store water in the reservoir that can be released to support the ecosystem of South Boulder Creek.

Denver Water leaders for years have said that, along with the plan for creek releases, they mitigated the environmental damage from the dam project with stream restoration on the headwaters of the Colorado River. They also transferred 500 acres of land near the Indian Peaks Wilderness to the U.S. Forest Service to compensate for the acres that would be drowned by the expanded body of water.

Others urged the appeals court to uphold Arguello’s ruling.

A brief filed by 26 former employees of the Environmental Protection Agency — many of whom worked for the federal agency for decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations — supported Arguello’s decision, stating that the Corps of Engineers failed to consider other less-damaging alternatives to the reservoir expansion.

“This process matters because it could be exploited by applicants in future cases unrelated to Denver Water’s proposal,” the former employees wrote in their brief.

Another filing by 10 natural resources law professors — including several from the University of Denver and the University of Colorado — supported environmentalists’ argument that the federal permitting process ignored how drawing more water for the reservoir would impact the Colorado River Basin.

“The Colorado River cannot support additional withdrawals of this magnitude,” especially where the diversion takes the water over the Continental Divide and out of the river basin, their brief states.

Both Denver Water and Wockner point to this year’s historic drought as evidence for their arguments.

This year’s drought is exactly when the expanded reservoir is needed most, Martin said. The extra water that could be stored in the reservoir would bolster the utility’s supplies for its 1.5 million customers across metro Denver. If it’s allowed to fill up, the expanded Gross Reservoir will increase Denver Water’s total storage by 11% and storage in the north system by 146%.

“In the future when this happens, we’re going to have more flexibility and more resilience,” Martin said.

But that drought has also pushed the larger Colorado River system close to a crash, Wockner said. Federal water managers have sent water down from one reservoir in an emergency action to keep the level of one of the basin’s largest reservoirs, Lake Powell, from falling so low it cannot pass water through its hydropower system.

Diverting more water from the basin to the Front Range will only worsen that crisis, Wockner said.

“It is the worst time in history to be overturning a climate case on the Colorado River,” he said.

And for that to happen, they need to reach agreements with landowners and finalize the purchase of all the property in the planned stadium’s footprint.

But one of the most critical and complex negotiations, with Denver Water, has hit a potential snag over whether a hotly contested 5-acre parking lot in Sun Valley — which now serves as supplemental parking for season ticket holders at Empower Field, the Broncos’ current home — should be part of the deal.

The plot of land, called Lot M, is in the middle of a key corridor that neighbors want to see changed from an industrial hotspot to a cozier, more pedestrian-friendly community.

Denver Water officials hope to move part of the utility’s operations there as they make room for the new stadium on its campus next to Burnham Yard. They have identified Lot M as a prime location for Denver Water’s central emergency response facility if the Broncos’ plans for Burnham Yard come to fruition.

But residents of the surrounding area have complained for years that the nearby cloverleaf interchange for Colfax Avenue and Federal Boulevard divides the community and creates unsafe conditions for pedestrians and drivers.

In recent weeks, opponents and supporters of the Lot M plans have kicked off a series of back-and-forth letters to the city over whether Denver Water should be able to take over the property.

The complication is symbolic of a larger theme: While the Burnham Yard deal may seem to some like it¶¶Òőap all but finalized, there are still dozens of steps before the Broncos can put shovels in the ground.

Everything that¶¶Òőap happened so far has been like the setup of a — an overly complicated system that incorporates things like domino cascades, marbles rolling on a track and rubberband-powered levers to complete a task.

The Broncos, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s office, Denver Water and community groups have all begun placing the figurative dominoes, toy race cars and pulley system that will make up the process to build the stadium.

But no one has tipped the “start trigger” yet by making key final decisions.

While there’s some disagreement among close observers of the project about when exactly that chain reaction must begin to meet the 2031 deadline, the consensus is that major decisions need to be made in roughly the next two months.

“The timing of everything is constantly on my mind,” said Denver City Councilwoman Jamie Torres, whose district includes both Empower Field and Burnham Yard. “The complexity of this is just hitting everybody in the face.”

The Broncos must relocate several components of Denver Water’s sprawling campus, much of which sits on the site of the future stadium; begin negotiating with the surrounding residents for a community benefits agreement; win various approvals from the often-skeptical council; finalize the purchase of the bulk of Burnham Yard from CDOT; and still acquire another critical plot of .

Before construction can start, a crew will also have to clean up the area through environmental remediation. Team officials will likely seek tax-increment financing for the project, too.

While the overall task isn’t impossible, it becomes more difficult with each passing week, sources familiar with the negotiations say. The team announced Burnham Yard as its “preferred site” for the future stadium in September.

Dispute over parking lot

Resolving the fight over Lot M is just one of the challenges ahead.

In a May 11 letter to Johnston, the council and Denver planning director Brad Buchanan, dozens of advocacy and community groups urged the city to reject plans to use the site for Denver Water infrastructure.

The group called the Colfax and Federal interchange a “physical and symbolic barrier” that must be addressed.

“Introducing a new industrial use on Lot M at this critical moment would be a significant step backward. It would preempt ongoing planning, constrain future redevelopment options, and jeopardize a once-in-a-generation opportunity to realize the community’s vision for this area,” according to the letter.

The group cited several city planning documents, including the and the for the area around Empower Field. Those plans suggest that the interchange should be removed or redesigned. The federal government provided a $2.4 million grant to begin developing a plan to do just that.

But after over a year of analyzing possible sites, Denver Water identified Lot M as its best option for relocating its emergency response facility. The building must be centrally located with easy access to Interstate 25, Interstate 70 and the Sixth Avenue Freeway so that emergency services can be deployed quickly, Denver Water CEO Alan Salazar wrote in a May 26 letter to Torres.

Salazar added that Denver Water never wanted to leave its campus of over 100 years, but that its leaders were working to help make the Burnham Yard stadium a reality “to support the economic prosperity of the largest community we serve.”

“At the same time, we must scrupulously protect all Denver Water ratepayers by avoiding any public subsidy for private development consistent with the Denver Charter,” he wrote in the letter.

The Broncos, which have an agreement to cover Denver Water’s relocation costs, agreed to provide most of the acreage necessary to replace the parts of its campus that the utility will move to the Elyria-Swansea neighborhood, on a property near East 40th Avenue and Clayton Street.

That construction, which hasn’t begun yet, is behind schedule after originally being set to start in May. Denver Water’s Administration Building will remain in place on the northern part of its current campus.

In a statement provided to The Denver Post, Broncos spokesman Patrick Smyth said the team is working to ensure a “smooth transition” for Denver Water and the broader community.

“We continue to have productive conversations with Denver Water about its plans to relocate part of its operation to Lot M,” he said.

CDOT says Denver Water plan won’t interfere

In its own letter on Thursday, CDOT weighed in on the Lot M controversy, saying that its officials believe the goals of improving the area could still be met even if Denver Water builds a new emergency response facility on the property.

“We want to make clear that the Lot M property would not interfere with possible changes further to the west at the interchange itself,” says the letter from Jessica Myklebust, the transportation director for the region.

CDOT will also refocus the study funded by the $2.4 million federal grant to consider the area without Empower Field, assuming that the Broncos build their stadium in Burnham Yard and the city tears down the old one.

“While we understand the urgency many feel to address the longstanding frustrations with the cloverleaf interchange, we cannot ignore the strong possibility of changes to the Stadium District in the near future, and we look forward to complementary study processes that avoid the inefficiencies of duplicative taxpayer expense,” the letter says.

The council would likely have to approve any deal to give Denver Water the Lot M property. The Metropolitan Football Stadium District owns the current stadium’s land but the city has the right to acquire it before any other developers.

A recent meeting between city officials and the community groups ended with a shared agreement that no one wants the disagreement over Lot M to result in the Broncos rescinding their plans to build a new stadium at Burnham Yard, said Dan Shah, the executive director of the West Colfax Business Improvement District and the signatory of the community letter.

“It¶¶Òőap hard for me to believe that the entirety of that (Broncos) development — of that relocation to Burnham Yard — is contingent on this particular site being accommodating of the lay-down. That¶¶Òőap a little bit hard to believe,” he said.

Shah said he hoped officials would find an alternative site for the facility.

“We’re looking forward to exploring other locations and their pros and cons in Denver,” he said. “In the next weeks, I expect those things to happen.”

Staff writer Luca Evans contributed to this story.

The agreement to purchase the 58.5-acre parcel for $45.8 million has been in place in general terms since the Broncos named Burnham Yard as the team’s preferred site for a new stadium in September. The finalization of the deal, which comes in the form of an option to purchase, is an anticipated step in the process and was signed May 21, according to the memorandum between the two parties.

“We are pleased to finalize a formal agreement with CDOT to purchase the Burnham Yard site with a closing expected this fall,” Broncos chief communications officer Patrick Smyth said in a statement provided to The Denver Post. “As this remains the preferred site, we remain optimistic that our collaboration with the city, state and community will keep everything on track for 2031.”

The deal was originally set to close earlier this month, but now is slated to close this fall.

“This is an eight-figure real estate transaction, and that’s not going to be as simple as selling your parents’ house,” CDOT communications director Matt Inzeo told The Post.

The agreement gives a limited liability corporation associated with the Broncos the right of first refusal to purchase the former railyard from CDOT and ensures the state cannot sell the land to anybody but the football club.

The option must be exercised by June 30, 2027, which is after the time the Broncos hope to have shovels in the ground as they begin Phase 1A of their stadium and district plan.

The state originally purchased Burnham Yard in 2021 for $50 million with an eye toward some form of public-private development project, but plans to use some of the land for transportation-related purposes, including to facilitate an Interstate 25 expansion, fizzled.

Broncos owner and CEO Greg Penner first toured the property in February 2023, Penner told The Post last year, and “we fell in love with it almost right away.”

The $45,810,000 purchase price covers the remaining principal on the original loan taken by the to purchase the yard.

Earlier this year, Penner made it clear that all stakeholders involved had a lot of work to do in order to keep an “ambitious” timeline of playing in the new stadium for the 2031 season on track.

“It¶¶Òőap an ambitious timeline that we have,” Penner said at that time. “And we won’t be able to accomplish our goals in terms of timing and getting in there just by ourselves. So it¶¶Òőap not just something the Broncos are driving. We’ve got to have a lot of support from partners and others that are involved with the site.”

In September, the Broncos announced conceptual agreements to purchase the railyard and 25 acres of Denver Water property, and by that time had also completed a host of private real estate purchases in the area.

Going forward, though, there are still several complicated matters unresolved regarding the totality of the planned 150-acre development area. The largest is the partial relocation of Denver Water’s operations to several parcels in different parts of the city.

The Broncos are also still working through other potential private real estate transactions, including an approximately 10-acre parcel in the middle of the northern portion of the proposed project that is owned by SRM Concrete.

Denver Post staff writer Jessica Alvarado Gamez contributed to this report.

The utility has set up a “” page for people to of any usage that’s outside of those limits.

asks for the date and time of the watering, along with the waster’s address. The person filling out the form can also select what kind of waste they witnessed and include a photo of it.

Someone violates the restrictions if they:

• Water outdoors between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
• Water outside of their assigned two days per week (those with addresses ending in even numbers can water on Sundays and Thursdays, and addresses ending with odd numbers can water on Wednesdays and Saturdays)
• Have water pooling in gutters, streets or alleys
• Spray water onto concrete or asphalt
• Have a leaky sprinkler system for more than 10 days
• Water during rain or high winds
• Wash their vehicle with a hose that doesn’t have an automatic shut-off valve

Those who wish to report residential water waste can also call Denver Water at 303-893-2444. To report water waste at a park, residents can call 311.

The Denver Board of Water Commissioners enacted the restrictions in March because of the state’s drought status. The goal of the restrictions is to limit average customer water usage by 20%. The utility also established water budgets for its larger customers.

Re: “Vet found stability building home; now city wants land,” May 3 news story, and “Denver Water to drain Antero Reservoir,” April 21 news story

Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman can’t feel good that his city is about to ruin the life of Josh Kimbrough, who suffered brain injuries and trauma during his Army deployment. But he now needs to step up and change the narrative.

To help heal, Josh needs peace of mind, and he’s found it on the land he purchased in South Park, where he’s built a cabin for his family of four. But Aurora needs water, and has targeted his land for a large new reservoir. The city initially had another site, but believed this one is better because it will have one, not three, dams and be easier to operate.

Not good enough, Mr. Mayor. Better to incur a little more financial pain and spread it among all your water customers than stay the course and focus immeasurable physical pain and mental anguish on an injured veteran you would normally step up to protect.

Jeffrey Stroh, Denver

Aurora proposes flooding a large area of South Park for its planned Wild Horse Reservoir, while Denver Water drains Antero Reservoir because it does not have enough water in its system to keep it full during this drought.

Take a look at a map of South Park. The planned Wild Horse Reservoir is within spitting distance of Antero. The irony is delicious while also sad. I know Denver and Aurora have different water agencies, rights and responsibilities. Couldn’t something be negotiated so that yet another parcel of wonderful Colorado landscape is not inundated with water that might soon not be flowing if this drought continues?

I am not an expert on water law and the like, nor am I a fan of AI. But it couldn’t hurt Denver and Aurora to just ask their respective AIs: “Isn’t there an alternative to more dams and flooding in South Park?” Just ask for alternatives, please.

Martin Linnet, Golden

So let me get this straight. Aurora Water wants to spend $1 billion to create a new large, shallow reservoir — just a few miles as the crow flies — from Antero Reservoir, another large, shallow reservoir that is about to be drained, to avoid the massive evaporation that occurs with large, shallow reservoirs. This proposal seems laughable and lacking anything resembling science or research.

Wouldn’t it be more effective if Aurora eliminated all of the thirsty grasses and lawn areas that are merely ornamental? We need parks and similar shared recreation areas with grass, but I’ve seen plenty of subdivisions with lush grassy areas (like those between streets and sidewalks) that serve only an aesthetic purpose.

Randy Thompson, Salida

Did the Supreme Court decision gut the Voting Rights Act?

Re: “SCOTUS just neutered the Voting Rights Act,” May 3 commentary

Americans don’t like gerrymandering. Period. Irrespective of whether it’s a racial or political rationale.

Sunday’s opinion piece from Noah Feldman on the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding Louisiana v. Callais, while predictably liberal, is surprisingly loud and histrionic given his usual pragmatism. While he probably didn’t write the headline, the decision hardly “neuters” the Voters Rights Act from 1965. Nor does it “gut” it, as Chuck Schumer babbled after the 2013 SCOTUS ruling on Shelby County v. Holder. Feldman claims the ruling serves to “eliminate Black Democratic members of Congress.” It does no such thing.

Since Shelby, both houses of Congress, mirroring the rest of society, have become far more racially mixed, with about versus only 45 in the 2011-13.

The VRA was neither neutered nor gutted. Nor were Black members “eliminated.” Rather, Black representation ballooned.

The recent decision merely reaffirms and restates that carving up districts based on race is illegal. Jim Crow died a too slow death, but most assuredly remains deceased today.

Employing the “the sky is falling” strategy when making an argument doesn’t make it more credible. It merely signals resignation.

Jon Pitt, Golden

I read with great interest Noah Feldman’s column in the Perspective section. He echoed every point I have been thinking about this with this new 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.

First, they started with overturning Roe vs. Wade after all three new justices agreed during their confirmation hearings that it was settled law. Then they gutted the Voting Rights Act, which was one of the cornerstones of our democracy.

We are returning to the Jim Crow era in this country as the rest of the democracies around the world continue moving forward, and we continue moving backward.

Shame on the Supreme Court. It is no wonder their approval ratings are at an all-time low.

It is a sad day for our country and one more step towards Christian Nationalism. Hungary sent the world a message, but apparently our country wasn’t listening.

David Shaw, Highlands Ranch

CHSAA needs to address youth sports loophole

Re: “CHSAA cracks down on high school recruiting,” May 3 editorial

I have coached youth football for 25 seasons and have witnessed multiple high school coaches directly ask middle school-aged players to “come play for them.” When I step in to protect my player, I’m often asked: “Why do you care?” My response is that it’s the student who usually pays the price for recruiting violations.

I agree that these two rule modifications are a good first step. But the middle school issue isn’t so cut and dry. When teams age out of youth football (8th grade), it’s the parents who start the conversation about which school their son should attend. They weigh factors like team success, playing time, the possibility of making varsity, the position they are likely to play, and whether the school will prepare them for college football.

As I understand the rules, an incoming freshman is not subject to “athletically motivated transfers.” High school coaches are aware of this and do what they can to try to influence students to attend their school. They do this through camps and by being involved in youth sports, either directly or by hiring youth coaches as assistants.

In the winter after his 8th-grade season, my nephew was invited to play for a “Colorado All-Star” team in a tournament where coaches from four different high schools were on staff. I witnessed two of them tell my nephew to come to their school, saying, “I have a spot for you.”

It used to be that high school coaches were prohibited from coaching youth sports. CHSAA should close this loophole by either reinstating the youth sports prohibition or acknowledging that they are OK with it.

Larry A Gombos, Littleton

Insurance companies could serve us better by cutting advertising

Every year, the top insurance companies spend billions on advertising and marketing. For example, , Progressive spent nearly $3.5B, State Farm $1.11B, Geico nearly $1.4B, and Allstate $1.87B. That¶¶Òőap nearly $7.8 billion, not counting Liberty Mutual, USAA, Farmers, American Family, Nationwide, Travelers and others?

With global warming, devastating fires are burning up our forests, farmlands, the plains, and even parts of cities. In December 2021, the devastated Boulder County, laying waste to more than 6,000 acres and incinerating more than 1,000 homes and seven commercial buildings at a projected cost ofÌę$1 billion, making it Colorado’s most destructive fire in terms of property loss.

If the insurance companies used just 1% to buy firefighting aircraft instead of making millionaire celebrities even richer, how many planes could be bought to protect our homes? How many homes could have been saved, thus saving the insurance company millions?ÌęMore planes in the air, less destruction, and the insurance companies save money. They could then pass the savings on to you.

Imagine seeing a plane flying over to save you and your loved one’s property with the logo of the insurance company on the side. Would you switch to that company? I would!

Randy Moyle, Westminster

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

— Fred Waiss, Prairie du Chien, Wis.

Hey Fred, thanks for reading, as always, and thanks getting us going from the confluence of the Mississippi and the Wisconsin.

It¶¶Òőap a fascinating question and the true answer is that there’s no clear answer yet, but city officials — particularly Mayor Mike Johnston — are really excited about the possibilities. In fact, when I talked to Johnston back in September as the Broncos finalized Burnham Yard as their preferred site for a new stadium, the mayor was equally excited to talk about the future of the current Empower Field site. He called it, “a once-in-a-century opportunity.”

“When will you ever get 80 acres of central Denver back, that the city owns, to be able to completely redevelop with community voice?” Johnston said then. “That¶¶Òőap unheard of. It¶¶Òőap just such a critical place where it¶¶Òőap deeply engaged in Sun Valley and the identity of West Denver. It¶¶Òőap also the connection to downtown. You can imagine how you could live right there on the old Mile High site and you could walk right under the bridge and you’re at the Auroria campus or you’re at Ball Arena or downtown.

“It¶¶Òőap going to be an incredible opportunity for the West side of Denver.”

It, of course, will not be an incredible opportunity any time in the very near future. In fact, the city website says the planning process to develop a vision for what happens at the old Mile High site is set to kick off in “late 2027.” Then, if everything proceeds on time at Burnham Yard and the project moves forward, the Broncos wouldn’t start playing there until the 2031 season. Once the lease runs out after the 2030 season, then the city would take over control of Empower Field.

In general, though, there is a wide range of possibilities for what happens to the land, and part of what makes it unique is that the city owns it. There will almost undoubtedly be some community uses, such as parks, open space, and public facilities. But, in Johnston’s telling, the city’s stewardship of the land also means the potential for more affordable housing or creative development projects.

“If it¶¶Òőap all owned by a private developer, we’re begging them to do a little more affordability here and a little more affordability there,” Johnston said back in September. “When we own the land, the people get to set all the terms for what happens there. That¶¶Òőap unheard of. There’s not a place where we could afford to acquire that much land to be competing with private developers who would jack up the prices.

“This is a real game-changer for West Denver to have these two neighborhoods that will be places that are both incredibly exciting and attractive and can stay affordable. That¶¶Òőap the big win for the city.”

There could also be some Denver Water presence in the area, given that the utility submitted a concept plan that includes using the current Lot M at Empower Field as part of its partial relocation from the Burnham Yard area.

So, the short answer to your question, Fred, is that there aren’t concrete answers or fleshed-out ideas yet. But it¶¶Òőap something the mayor and city officials are already excited about the possibility of.

How does this current Broncos roster compare to last year’s team at this same point of the offseason? Better? Worse? Same?

— Ed Helinski, Auburn, N.Y.

Hey Ed, thanks for writing in.

With the caveat that we haven’t seen this group on the field and won’t in any meaningful way for a while, it looks like a better roster to me. There are certainly positions where you’re not quite sure exactly who fills a spot — John Franklin-Myers’ on the defensive line and P.J. Locke as a third safety, for example — but there are also upgrades and development to take into consideration.

At this stage of the offseason last year, J.K. Dobbins hadn’t yet signed. We didn’t know if Troy Franklin would take a Year 2 leap or what contributions Denver’s offense would get from rookies like Pat Bryant and RJ Harvey.

This spring, you retain the vast majority of contributors from last year’s team and add a fresh draft class to the mix. Oh, right, and also the mega spring trade for receiver Jaylen Waddle.

There are always twists and turns through training camp, and injuries always crop up, but this is going to be a really tough 53-man roster to make. Start with the quarterback and a crop of All-Pros and work your way through the depth chart. As a first-blush starting point, it¶¶Òőap difficult to find more than maybe 8-10 spots up for grabs.

Hey Parker, my big question for you is: Have the Broncos done enough this offseason to win the AFC West again? While we were the best team last year, we had a lot of close calls. I love that we traded for Jaylen Waddle because he’s going to open up our offense, but we still need a strong No. 1 tight end. We need an answer at ILB to counter opposing tight ends. We need a better running game (J.K. Dobbins is good, but he’s fragile).

Tell me why this team will do well next year.

— Mike, Denver

Hey Mike, thanks for writing in and good question. The Broncos won the AFC West by three games a year ago and head into training camp feeling like they’ve got a roster that’s deeper and more talented than last year’s. Not a complete list, obviously, but you can look at the starting group and say they essentially lost John Franklin-Myers and gained Jaylen Waddle. They added a draft class that may not be asked to produce a ton right away, but running back Jonah Coleman and tight end Justin Joly have a chance to help solidify the depth chart right away and maybe push for time depending on how veterans who have dealt with injuries in their careers — J.K. Dobbins and Evan Engram, respectively — hold up through the fall.

The Broncos are widely considered to have few major areas of concern, assuming quarterback Bo Nix is fully healthy when training camp begins. They’re peppered near the top of outlets’ post-draft NFL power rankings (No. 3 on ESPN and The Athletic, as a couple of examples). However, the betting odds tell a little bit of a different story at this point. DraftKings, for example, has a tight AFC West race brewing but puts Kansas City (+160) and the Los Angeles Chargers (+190) ahead of Denver (+220) to win the division. BetMGM pegs the Chiefs’ and Chargers’ win totals at 10.5 and the Broncos’ at 9.5.

Part of that is Denver’s schedule being far more challenging than it has been in recent years. They’ve got 10 games against 2025 playoff teams and that, of course, does not include a pair against division-rival Kansas City. The Chiefs’ prospects in 2026 look a lot different, of course, if QB Patrick Mahomes (ACL), is on the field from Week 1 rather than missing the first few weeks. The Chargers won 11 games last year despite a slew of injuries, including to their terrific pair of starting tackles. Losing defensive coordinator Jesse Minter is a big blow, but gaining Mike McDaniel as offensive coordinator is big, too.

The regular season always takes its toll, but sign me up for a stretch run where all three teams are right in it. That sounds like fun.

I feel like if Bo Nix didn’t break his ankle after the Bills game, we would’ve beaten the Pats and gone to the Super Bowl. Do you think the Broncos would’ve been able to beat Seattle? I think we’d put up a better fight than the Pats did.

— Tim, Golden

Hey Tim, thanks for writing. One of the most popular questions of the offseason and my answer is, I think, similar to what a lot of others would say. I do think the Broncos would have beaten New England and played in the Super Bowl. I don’t think anybody was beating Seattle. Would it have been more competitive than the game we all saw? Yeah, probably.

Alas, we’ll never know for sure.

Hey Parker, do you think Bo Nix will use his legs earlier in the season as he did in his rookie year, or will they try to make him more of a pocket passer in Year 3?

— David M., Denver

Hey David, thanks for writing in and good question.

The Broncos coaches and Bo Nix all believe that he can play and win from the pocket, but it¶¶Òőap also clear when you watch him play that his legs are a big part of what makes him special. I’d be really surprised if Nix used the fractured ankle and two subsequent operations as a reason for being less aggressive running. If he were limited in some way, that’d be another story, but at this point, there’s no indication that would be the case by the time September rolls around.

More than the ankle, some of how Nix plays and the kind of running situations he’s put in will depend on whether we see any substantial change in offensive approach with offensive coordinator Davis Webb taking over as Denver’s primary play-caller. Will he be interested in dialing up the usage of the designed quarterback run game? Will he want Nix in the pocket more frequently? Obviously, head coach Sean Payton is still going to have a heavy influence on game plan design, but if Webb is calling all or most of the plays, it wouldn’t be surprising to see Nix’s usage — and the roles of other offensive skill players — change at least a little bit.

In the best-case scenario, the neighborhood’s current residents and businesses will flourish. Sports fans and concertgoers will pass through the area respectfully on their way to events, learning about the community’s history and immersing themselves in the local culture and arts. They will shop at the nearby stores and restaurants. They won’t litter.

But in an alternate reality — one that has played out elsewhere — the future could look much bleaker. In that scenario, growing property tax bills and rent prices will force the current residents to move out. National chains will replace local businesses. Traffic will overload the streets.

And someday in the not-too-distant future, strangers will wander through the neighborhood with no idea of the people who once lived there.

“Our history has been that when massive development comes into a community, the memories evaporate,” said Tony Garcia, who grew up near Lincoln Park. “And everybody who came in here after that, it just doesn’t matter anymore.”

In the coming months, a group of community advocates, including Garcia, will work with the team’s ownership to try to find as many ways as possible to avoid the latter and aim as close as they can for that other, happier scenario.

When the process is over, both sides hope to agree to a legally binding “community benefits agreement,” commonly referred to as a CBA.

, developers typically agree to take on various projects intended to offset the impact of a development and help the surrounding area, such as by building affordable housing, creating youth programs and commissioning local artists for new work. The agreements can take months or even years to complete.

The CBA coalition for the Broncos stadium, which is called Burnham Yard Community Action, plans to announce Tuesday which organizations will be involved in the negotiations and what values the group will prioritize in the talks. In an interview with The Denver Post ahead of that announcement, coalition members described their hopes and fears for the process and gave an early look at their starting point for discussions.

It¶¶Òőap not yet clear when the coalition will begin its negotiations with the team. It says the meetings won’t begin until the team’s owners provide more details on their planned development. A source with knowledge of the discussions around the negotiations said an initial meeting is expected to happen this month.

“We’re aware that the owners will need to pencil their numbers. They need to make sure this works for them. But we’re penciling, too,” said Gloria Leyba, a fourth-generation resident of the neighborhood and member of the coalition. “This is a community that has paid and paid and paid. And we’re going to come out even now.”

The coalition says this will be the first legally binding CBA negotiated by an NFL team with a community group, rather than with a government entity.

Other city neighborhoods containing major developments, like Elyria-Swansea’s National Western Center and Auraria’s redevelopment around Ball Arena, have also recently undergone CBA processes.

In a statement, Broncos President Damani Leech said the organization is looking forward to beginning the negotiations “with a shared sense of urgency and cooperation.”

“Throughout our history, the Broncos have invested deeply in our community through meaningful programs, partnerships and impact benefitting current and future generations,” he wrote in a statement provided through a team spokesperson. “That approach will continue to guide our organization as we engage thoughtfully and collaboratively with (the coalition).”

Denver City Councilwoman Jamie Torres, who represents the neighborhood, said she expected the CBA conversations to be different than some of the previous ones.

“This is a pretty unique place, so I think there are going to be things included in this agreement that maybe we’ve never seen before,” she said.

What will the CBA coalition ask for?

La Alma-Lincoln Park, founded in the 1880s, is located near the center of the city, southwest of downtown. The neighborhood, just north of Baker, is bordered by the South Platte River to the west, Speer Boulevard to the east, and Colfax and Sixth avenues to the north and south.

It¶¶Òőap a predominantly Hispanic community and has one of the largest concentrations of Denver homes built before 1890, and it’s also home to the Art District on Santa Fe. In 2021, the city honoring the Chicano movement.

“We refer to this area as ‘el corazĂłn de la ciudad’ — the heart of the city. It has been since its inception,” said Garcia, who is also the executive artistic director of Su Teatro Cultural and Performing Arts Center. “What happens in this neighborhood reflects on everything else in the city.”

It¶¶Òőap too early to know exactly which requests Burnham Yard Community Action might propose under the CBA. But the coalition, which is made up of 16 entities, has released a list of values it will carry into the negotiations.

The group has six main values: equity, housing, youth and education, economic empowerment, quality of life, and the arts, according to the list provided to The Post.

Within each of those values, there are more specific ideas for possible projects, including building housing affordability, expanding childcare options and creating opportunities for local artists.

The group also wants to prevent residents from being displaced,Ìębuild “long-lasting community wealth,” promote small businesses and support youth education.

Overall, its members want their community and its history to be celebrated and preserved — and, where possible, improved. They want their children and grandchildren to be able to grow up in the community where they’re from.

“As I work my way through my 70s, I understand that the biggest gifts that we can give to the generations to come is memory,” Garcia said.

In the interview with The Post, representatives of the group declined to go into further detail on some of the listed values, includingÌę “supporting reparations for communities that have been historically harmed.”

Many voices, and much work remains

The coalition consists ofÌę16 organizations ranging from housing advocacy groups and nonprofits to arts districts and neighborhood groups. It includes neighborhood organizations for Baker, Sun Valley, La Alma and La Alma-Lincoln Park. Two trade unions are also included in the list.

The Art District on Santa Fe, the Denver Housing Authority, and Denver Indian Health and Family Services are also members.

Former Councilwoman Robin Kniech is a consultant and spokesperson for the group.

Meanwhile, the Broncos still have many steps ahead before construction crews can break ground on the stadium and other development the team is planning for Burnham Yard. The team plans to dedicate most of the site’s acreage to a future entertainment district, including mixed-use developments, open space, a park and a tailgate area.

The team’s owners still must finalize their acquisition of the 58-acre parcel, including by relocating much of Denver Water’s campus elsewhere. Environmental cleanup crews will then have to prepare the land for construction.

The council also must approve a small area plan, a rezoning request, a development agreement and any requests for tax-increment financing. The Denver Urban Renewal Authority is now studying the site to determine whether that financing tool can be used.

In the past, the council has waited to approve many of those requests until after a CBA is finalized with the community.

Torres, the councilwoman, said she expected that to happen again for the Burnham Yard negotiations.

“We could still be moving things through the process while the CBA is underway, but when we get to a final vote, we’ve got to know that the community feels okay with this,” she said.

It¶¶Òőap an aggressive timeline for the stadium to be finished by the team’s target of the 2031 season, which comes shortly after the Broncos’ lease expires at Empower Field at the end of the 2030 season. Broncos officials have said construction crews would need to begin work around this time next year in order to meet that deadline.

Low snow in the Colorado mountains during the exceptionally warm winter has led to below-average flows in the streams and rivers that supply metro Denver – around 18% of the norm this week in the Colorado River Basin and 2% of the norm in the South Platte River Basin, according to measurements.

“The precipitation amounts, especially across metro Denver, are not that impressive. It really didn’t do much at all to put a dent in the drought. We would need a prolonged period of well-above-average precipitation to have relief,” meteorologist Zach Hiris said.Ìę“We’ve got way too much ground to make up before we start thinking about relief or lifting those water restrictions.”

Even with the quarter-inch of rain that fell on metro Denver since Sunday, Denver Water reservoirs remained mostly less than 80% full. Denver Water officials have imposed two-day-a-week yard watering restrictions for the 1.5 million residents it supplies in Denver and surrounding suburbs in an effort to reduce use by 20% — necessary to avoid more severe restrictions this summer.

“We implemented drought restrictions because we needed to, and it is incredibly unlikely we will be able to lift them at any point this year,” Denver Water’s supply manager Nathan Elder said Friday. “We’re not on the edge of drought where a couple of storms can pull us out.

“The damage to our water resources has already been done,” he said. “Rain helps, of course, as the more it rains, the less people water, and rain helps keep our reservoirs from getting lower. Unfortunately, rain does not add significant amounts of water to reservoirs in the same way snowmelt runoff does.”

And , with its storage reservoirs 57% full, will continue to direct the city’s six “water monitor” officers to enforce their mandatory two-day-a-week restrictions. They’ve issued many warnings so far, Aurora Water spokeswoman Kirby Shedlowski said.Ìę“It¶¶Òőap in the hundreds.” Tickets for households that repeatedly violate the rule range from $125 up to $500.

“Our water comes from snowpack and the snowpack melting out of those mountains. The snowpack is so low this year that we just aren’t seeing the same water yields that we used to,” Shedlowski said. “We may be getting some rain down here. That helps with putting moisture into the soil. We would need to see a significant amount of rain to see any changes in water storage.”

Looking ahead, NWS forecasters predicted weekend temperatures warming to around 70 degrees, with possible afternoon rain Monday through Wednesday. “It’ll be a similar pattern to what we saw this week. The mountains will probably see a little bit of snow,” Hiris said.

Until mid-May, rain is likely to fall on Front Range cities, he said. “Beyond that, it looks as if we will get into warmer spring and summerlike patterns.”

That’s why — low-water landscaping that uses native plants to conserve resources and restore natural ecosystems — is more important than ever.

Just don’t call it that anymore.

“People came to equate xeriscaping with places like Arizona and lots of rocks and heat islands,” said Bea Stratton, Denver Water’s landscape transformation program manager. “We wanted to shift that mentality.”

Denver Water may have coined the term xeriscaping in the 1980s, but employees stopped using it in 2024 in favor of ColoradoScaping. That state-specific branding makes room for plants that are mostly (but not 100%) drought-tolerant, and for yards that sport colorful flowers, shrubs and adapted to Colorado’s climate — as opposed to the decidedly scrubby, gravelly aesthetic associated with the term xeriscaping.

“You can still do pocket lawns with mixtures of native and low-water items,” said Abby Rupsa, principle designer and owner of , a Federal Heights landscaping company. “But you can do it a very beautiful way versus it being this harsh, barren landscape. And truth be told, we absolutely need that vegetative coverage in Colorado as opposed to just having hardscaping.”

How-to guides for ColoradoScaping have evolved with the terminology, Stratton said, in order to embrace recommendations, for example, that low-water vegetation should cover about half of your yard. That helps cut down on the heat islands that form when there’s no plant life, she said — and the need is greater than it once was.

Prolonged bouts of warm weather across the Colorado River basin are projected to reduce the amount of water delivered during the spring 2026 runoff to just a third of normal, according to federal forecasters. And half of the supply used by Denver Water’s 1.5 million customers comes from the Colorado River.

“Denver is essentially a high plains desert,” said Ian Schillinger-Brokaw, urban ecology project manager for Denver Parks & Recreation. He oversees the restoration of city-owned plots that were planted with thirsty Kentucky bluegrass into native ecosystems that require far less water and maintenance while enhancing natural beauty.

“For people moving here from the East Coast, it might be really comforting to see turf grass,” he said. “But from an ecological standpoint, it’s a missed opportunity to bring wildness and variety into the city.”

Nancy Leavitt, an environmental planner with Denver Water, to describe this type of water-wise landscaping. She combined “landscape” and the Greek word “xeros,” which means dry, to create the term, according to Denver Water. (It’s not “zero-scaping,” as some have called it.)

ColoradoScaping is meant to combat the image of a beige, gravel-cacti expanse. But whatever it’s called, some people still don’t even know it’s an option, Stratton said. Like Denver Parks & Recreation, Denver Water partners with diverse cities, residents and homebuilders. Its staff educates and provides resources to homeowners who could cut their water bills in half by swapping Kentucky bluegrass with prairie meadow grasses (see more ideas at ). That includes a one-time, for lawn replacement.

Last year alone, Denver Water transformed 1 million square feet of landscape, Stratton said. In one instance, Denver Water and Denver Parks & Recreation partnered in a 2023 program that began replanting a quartet of wide, grassy medians along Quebec Street, just south of Interstate 70 near Denver’s Central Park neighborhood, with .

That has led to water savings of more than 8.5 million gallons annually, and looks even prettier while benefiting local wildlife and insects, said Schillinger-Brokaw, who led the project. Similar projects are taking place in Cherry Creek and Montbello.

The vegetation includes bursts of purple and yellow that bloom May through September. Schillinger-Brokaw has been visiting the Quebec site for three years, but it was only this spring that he saw a kestrel (or small hawk) there for the first time.

“If you look at a lot of Denver’s public parks, there’s this monoculture with only two or three different species being represented in grass and trees,” he said. “We want to turn that into 20 species.”

The same can apply to your home yard and garden, he said, considering that the smaller scale will yield faster results. Plants often need two to three years to get fully established, so they’ll still require some water. That also means being careful if you’re designing everything around gravel, rocks or boulders, as those can absorb heat and create urban heat islands — or pockets of high temperatures where vegetation won’t grow.

What else to keep mind? The experts have some ideas.

You’ll save money

ColoradoScaping is about conservation, but also your wallet. that customers who ColoradoScape use 60% less water, which is particularly helpful when drought restrictions come into play, as they will again this summer in the metro area. Denver Water’s current definition of “efficient” is using 12 gallons of water per square foot of landscape, which itself can often be cut in half with drought-resistant plants.

They also estimate that ColoradoScaping can increase property values by 10% to 15% by adding resilience and subtracting maintenance. (Turf grass, for example, usually requires not just lots of water, but mowing, herbicides and fertilizers.) Getting started isn’t free, as there are always upfront costs. But it’s still cheaper than a Midwest or East Coast-style yard.

You’ll help nature

ColoradoScaping with native plants gives insects, birds and other animals cooler, layered environments as compared with short, exposed, single-species turf grass (go ahead, call it biodiversity).

“These plants aren’t meant to be hyper-controlled,” Rupsa said. ” If you’ve got hyssop (a flowering, herbaceous sub-shrub), it might need to lay over on rock if it gets too big. But that¶¶Òőap OK because it might shade something else that needs a little shelter or coverage.”

It’s Colorado-adapted

Get the best of the plains and high desert vegetation by mixing fetching varieties that play well together. Trade bluegrass for the much better-adapted Karl Foerster grasses. Mix yucca or lavender into your succulents, or sprinkle wildflowers and sunflowers into the mix for later-season blooms. If something dies, it won’t immediately stand out in your yard — as opposed to a brown hedgerow or crispy patch of grass.

Yards can be treated like a green roof, or a naturally planted rooftop that collects runoff and reduces heat reflection while cutting down on heating and cooling costs. It’s particularly helpful for slopes prone to erosion. Sedum groundcover and/or succulents can turn it into a green, mat-like surface that better retains water and soil, and that can better attract vital pollinators.

It’s highly flexible

As noted, new plantings can take a little time to get established, so they will need upfront care. But it’s still less resource-intensive than moist-climate plantings. You can do as much or as little as you want in terms of square footage, and at the smaller scale, results will appear faster, according to . You can keep your existing trees, but be careful not to damage the root zone around them when removing turf.

“It won’t look like the Amazon jungle right off the bat,” Schillinger-Brokaw said. “It’s OK to allow plants a year or two to grow in. Just like angsty teenagers, they can be temperamental.”

It’s not just for exposed residential yards. Denver Water offers tips and guides for narrow strips of land, extra-dry and shady areas and truly low-water environments that require heavy duty plantings.

Attitudes are changing

Many new home developments and HOAs that once required a certain percentage of a yard to include turf grass are now relaxing and looking at alternatives. Denver Water signed a memo of understanding with various municipalities and utilities throughout the Colorado River Basin to reduce its “non-functional turf grass” areas by 30%, or about 75 million square feet.

They also apply for grants to (currently working in Lafayette) but also field requests and fund an increasing number of projects in all corners of the city, both residential and commercial.

“It’s definitely become more common since the pandemic, which really revamped people’s ideas of how to develop their homes outside,” Rupsa said. “So if you’re going to change, you might as well do it the right way.”