EDITORIAL: Will Gross Dam finally get to do its job? ⁠27%

By The Gazette Editorial Board⁠89%

8/6/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Bandwagon, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 555 faulty-reasoning hits from 598 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠27% (20,947 of 28,475 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.60% of the article peer group.

A 471-foot-high dam stands finished in Boulder County, yet a court order has prevented it from holding additional water. 
That’s even though the dam’s builders long ago secured the required permits. 
Now, as The Gazette’s news affiliate Colorado Politics reports, the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is casting doubt on whether the trial court that issued the injunction had properly decided the case. 
It turns out the trial judge might have just been punishing Denver Water for proceeding with the project — which was duly permitted by multiple government agencies. 
The case stems from a lawsuit filed by activists with Save the Colorado, the Sierra Club, WildEarth Guardians and other environmental groups. 
They claimed that permits issued to Denver Water by the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers for raising the existing dam’s height and expanding the reservoir it created violated the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. 
Denver Water supplies water to 1.5 million people in the Denver metro area — 25% of the state’s population. 
It had secured the Army Corps’ permission alongside a license modification from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, since Gross Dam generates clean hydropower, and a land-use permit from Boulder County. 
All three entities signed off on the project, which had the blessing of the state’s political establishment and, for a while, even environmentalists. 
Denver Water had every reason to proceed with the 23-year project until enviro-lawyers interfered, exploiting provisions of federal law passed long ago. 
In U.S. 
District Court Senior Judge Christine Arguello, they found a willing ear. 
Arguello’s October 2024 ruling held that the Army Corps wrongfully eliminated alternatives that avoided disturbing wetlands and improperly combined two distinct goals in violation of the Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act. 
She later modified her order to account for dam safety, permitting construction to proceed raising the dam’s height. 
But her order still barred the reservoir’s expansion — mooting the dam project’s purpose. 
At the time, Denver Water called the decision “irrational.” 
Last week, during oral argument before the 10th Circuit court, three appellate judges seemed to take a similar view. 
“The district court, it seemed, punished the other side for continuing their construction,” said Chief Judge Jerome Holmes. 
The plaintiffs denied that it was punitive because “there was nothing requiring them to move forward.” 
“Why wouldn’t they? 
There was nothing stopping them,” Judge Nancy Moritz interjected. 
“And yet, the court seemed to be punishing them for that.” 
Moritz wondered how the Corps could weigh reasonable alternatives now that the dam is built. 
“There’s only one,” she said. 
“The Corps’ job is done,” added Judge Timothy Tymkovich. 
“I just don’t see what’s left.” 
If Arguello’s ruling stands, the much-needed expansion of Gross Reservoir won’t be the only casualty. 
It also will be the projects that come after. 
That’s why Aurora, the South Metro Water Supply Authority and even Pueblo Water took Denver Water’s side in court filings. 
Arguello’s standard would force builders to “second-guess the decision-making of the federal permitting agency entitled to deference lest the project proponent proceed with construction under a ‘questionably valid permit,’” their attorneys wrote. 
Colorado’s water supply is genuinely tight. 
Demand isn’t going away. 
Gross is 53% full against a 95% historical average. 
The expansion is meant to store more water for a growing metro area. 
Ratepayers are paying for it. 
The 10th Circuit has yet to rule. 
But its questions suggest the judges recognize obstruction when they see it — and that Coloradans are footing the bill. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.6%Denver Gazette: 2.0%Confirmation Bias13.5%This article: 1.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 0.7%Anchoring Bias1.5%This article: 1.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 1.5%Availability Heuristic1.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.4%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%The Gazette Editorial Board: 16.8%Denver Gazette: 5.1%Framing Effect15.4%This article: 1.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.2%Denver Gazette: 1.1%Loss Aversion1.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.5%Denver Gazette: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.8%Denver Gazette: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 7.3%Denver Gazette: 3.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.6%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.5%Denver Gazette: 0.9%Ad Hominem5.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%The Gazette Editorial Board: 6.7%Denver Gazette: 1.9%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.1%Denver Gazette: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 2.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.3%Denver Gazette: 0.8%Slippery Slope2.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.3%The Gazette Editorial Board: 3.9%Denver Gazette: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.3%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.2%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.0%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Bandwagon7.2%This article: 4.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 6.3%Denver Gazette: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 4.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.0%Denver Gazette: 0.5%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 1.8%Denver Gazette: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.7%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.4%Denver Gazette: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.3%Denver Gazette: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.4%The Gazette Editorial Board: 2.0%Denver Gazette: 1.3%Unattributed Quote5.4%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.2%Denver Gazette: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.5%The Gazette Editorial Board: 21.8%Denver Gazette: 5.1%Biased Writer Voice11.5%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 4.8%Denver Gazette: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.0%Denver Gazette: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 8.6%Denver Gazette: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Gazette Editorial Board: 0.5%Denver Gazette: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

598 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers11%attributed speech531writer words
Selected voice

Jerome Holmes

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words27% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Jerome Holmes: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Jerome Holmes: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.