Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the Bosque does not need to be left alone, it needs a ridiculous amount of human intervention to restore it to anywhere close to what it should naturally be. i.e. the ongoing and intensive removal of invasive trees, the planting of native species and some kind of engineered system for periodically flooding, via dam releases, at least part of the flood plain which would involve the building of dozens of miles of levies. Otherwise, it will just continue to its inexorable march towards being a weed-choked tinder-box of a drain.
In my opinion, the Bosque is the most significant ruined 'natural' area in the whole middle Rio Grande Valley only exceeded by the over-grazed former grasslands.
Agreed that it needs help, but I think that the implication was that it doesn't need to be covered in concrete.
Look to the Los Angeles River, the Salt and Gila rivers through Phoenix.
That is the future of the Rio Grande.
Those were poor choices made by others, it doesn't need to happen here. Even if it is inevitable, we can hold it off as long as possible and not just say, "oh, well, it's going to happen sooner or later." The point is, doing the same stupid things as others just because you think you're supposed to is a terrible idea and just makes you a conformist.
... doing the same stupid things as others just because you think
you're supposed to is a terrible idea and just makes you a conformist.
You use the word "you" as if you are talking to me and not referring to the city, in general.
I think water rates are way too low and billing systems discourage conservation.
People think that their lawn is OK, but "people" in general should conserve.
My water bill just went up again. The rate per 1,000 gallons just went
from $3.06 to $3.16, but my fixed fee went from $16.51 to $16.84.
The fixed fee increase of 33 cents is the same as the cost to waste over 5,000 gallons.
My water use for the month was 2,870 gallons which cost me an average
of $9.03 per 1,000 gallons. If you include sewer, it cost $17.22/1,000.
Had my wife and I used the Albuquerque average of about 165 gallons/month, our consumption would
have been 9,240, but our average cost per gallon would have dropped to 7.53/1,000. This is ludicrous.
I don't have statistics for the city as a whole, but in Sandia Heights, the 2nd quartile has monthly
consumption of from 5,500 to 8,500 and the 3rd quartile has a consumption of 9,500 to 15,000
gallons per month. Cost per 1,000 gallons for that quartile from $7.41 to $5.98. Again, ludicrous.
The household using 5x more water than mine pays less than 1/3rd per gallon.
People try to defend this billing system by saying that there are fixed costs that must be
accounted for, but if the goal is conservation, then if you use zero gallons ( ie on vacation,
your bill should be zero ) and you should pay for each gallon and that cost should have the
fixed costs built in along with a strong disincentive to use more.
There are 40 customers ( 2.5% ) who use more than 45k gallons/month. They use 6.5% of all
the water in the system. People say that they are willing to pay for it, they should be allowed
to use it, but they are not paying for 6.5% of the cost of delivery. If we assign a value to each
1,000 gallons that is higher than the pumping and draining costs such as the cost of the bosque
drying up, the cost of streams in the system running dry, the cost of having to someday look at
a Rio Grande in a concrete channel, then the city ( not "you" ) will have to change things.
If you think the Rio Grande is nasty, ask the Mexicans what they think of the mighty Colorado.
( We're entitled, of course. )
Since people, in general, have a monumental sense of entitlement in regards to gasoline prices,
water prices, etc. I believe that the concrete-channel-Rio-Grande is inevitable.
Just like with energy, our largest supply is our ability to figure out how to use less.
It is there instantaneously and we don't have to invade someone do get it.
You use the word "you" as if you are talking to me and not referring to the city, in general.
I think water rates are way too low and billing systems discourage conservation.
People think that their lawn is OK, but "people" in general should conserve.
My water bill just went up again. The rate per 1,000 gallons just went
from $3.06 to $3.16, but my fixed fee went from $16.51 to $16.84.
The fixed fee increase of 33 cents is the same as the cost to waste over 5,000 gallons.
My water use for the month was 2,870 gallons which cost me an average
of $9.03 per 1,000 gallons. If you include sewer, it cost $17.22/1,000.
Had my wife and I used the Albuquerque average of about 165 gallons/month, our consumption would
have been 9,240, but our average cost per gallon would have dropped to 7.53/1,000. This is ludicrous.
I don't have statistics for the city as a whole, but in Sandia Heights, the 2nd quartile has monthly
consumption of from 5,500 to 8,500 and the 3rd quartile has a consumption of 9,500 to 15,000
gallons per month. Cost per 1,000 gallons for that quartile from $7.41 to $5.98. Again, ludicrous.
The household using 5x more water than mine pays less than 1/3rd per gallon.
People try to defend this billing system by saying that there are fixed costs that must be
accounted for, but if the goal is conservation, then if you use zero gallons ( ie on vacation,
your bill should be zero ) and you should pay for each gallon and that cost should have the
fixed costs built in along with a strong disincentive to use more.
There are 40 customers ( 2.5% ) who use more than 45k gallons/month. They use 6.5% of all
the water in the system. People say that they are willing to pay for it, they should be allowed
to use it, but they are not paying for 6.5% of the cost of delivery. If we assign a value to each
1,000 gallons that is higher than the pumping and draining costs such as the cost of the bosque
drying up, the cost of streams in the system running dry, the cost of having to someday look at
a Rio Grande in a concrete channel, then the city ( not "you" ) will have to change things.
If you think the Rio Grande is nasty, ask the Mexicans what they think of the mighty Colorado.
( We're entitled, of course. )
Since people, in general, have a monumental sense of entitlement in regards to gasoline prices,
water prices, etc. I believe that the concrete-channel-Rio-Grande is inevitable.
Just like with energy, our largest supply is our ability to figure out how to use less.
It is there instantaneously and we don't have to invade someone do get it.
I agree that the city should use less water, that is not in dispute. But show me proof that less water in the Rio Grande requires that the bosque be covered in concrete. I think it's great that you use less water than many others, but that doesn't give you the right to say that the Rio Grande will be relegated to the same future as the LA river and others. Continue using as little water as possible, fight to change the status quo, and get others to join you in that fight and our river can be preserved. As to the use of "you" in my previous post, it was only in reference to anyone that conforms; if you are not one of those people, then you have no reason to be offended.
... show me proof that less water in the Rio Grande
requires that the bosque be covered in concrete.
I'm saying that when the flow eventually gets low enough, the bosque will die - just like
the bosque in Los Angeles and Phoenix did. If water isn't conserved, the flow will stop
for most of the year and for those times when water flows, it will need to be constrained.
In Los Angeles, they use concrete. In Phoenix, they use rocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanrice
... I think it's great that you use less water than many
others, but that doesn't give you the right to say ...
I have the right to say anything I want to. My consumption of water doesn't enter into it.
I posted my numbers to illustrate the fact that there is no incentive to conserve.
Somehow you seem to have interpreted that as patting myself on the back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanrice
... that the Rio Grande will be relegated to the same future as the LA river and others.
I really don't get the connection to my making a prediction about what is going to happen and having "rights" to say stuff.
If the city keeps sucking water out of the system, pretty soon there will only be artificial green stuff and no natural green stuff.
There, I just made another prediction. Now are you going to ask me what gives me the right to say that it has to be that way?
I base my prediction on what I see elsewhere. I suppose I don't have the right to look around either.
No. I have the friggin' right to predict anything I want to. I predicted it
and presented evidence. It is your job to refute it by presenting other evidence
and not to tell me that I don't have a right to say it. I do. Sorry, I just do.
I'm saying that when the flow eventually gets low enough, the bosque will die - just like
the bosque in Los Angeles and Phoenix did. If water isn't conserved, the flow will stop
for most of the year and for those times when water flows, it will need to be constrained.
In Los Angeles, they use concrete. In Phoenix, they use rocks.
I have the right to say anything I want to. My consumption of water doesn't enter into it.
I posted my numbers to illustrate the fact that there is no incentive to conserve.
Somehow you seem to have interpreted that as patting myself on the back.
I really don't get the connection to my making a prediction about what is going to happen and having "rights" to say stuff.
If the city keeps sucking water out of the system, pretty soon there will only be artificial green stuff and no natural green stuff.
There, I just made another prediction. Now are you going to ask me what gives me the right to say that it has to be that way?
I base my prediction on what I see elsewhere. I suppose I don't have the right to look around either.
No. I have the friggin' right to predict anything I want to. I predicted it
and presented evidence. It is your job to refute it by presenting other evidence
and not to tell me that I don't have a right to say it. I do. Sorry, I just do.
I never said that you can't give your opinion. My problem was that you implied that it was fact. Predictions start with words like "I think," but you said, "Sooner or later, it will." This is NOT a prediction, it is a declaration of a "fact." I have never made a claim, I have only said that I would PREFER the bosque to not be paved over and that I also think that water use needs to go down. I didn't make a claim, so I have nothing for which I need to provide evidence.
These two links may shed some light on ABQ's potential to become progressive, modern, etc. in the area of arts and music. It seems pretty good.
I have to say that reading through this thread has been quite a treat. The discussions about transportation, water, urban layout, and architecture show me that there are some really good ideas floating around in your city, and a lot of thought put into these things. That in itself may shed light upon the question about the city's potential.
The bosque needs to be thinned out significantly, it is choking the river with excessive over growth of salt cedar and cottonwoods. They constantly draw water from the river which causes the water level to stay low. Besides it would help during droughts as well, by lowering the fire hazzard.
The bosque needs to be thinned out significantly, it is choking the river with excessive over growth of salt cedar and cottonwoods. They constantly draw water from the river which causes the water level to stay low. Besides it would help during droughts as well, by lowering the fire hazzard.
Why would we thin out the cottonwood trees? They thrive on small amounts of water, and shade the ground and some of the river preventing loss of water by evaporation. The water level of the river is low because of people constantly drawing water and because of the number of human-built dams. Humans need to be thinned out more than the trees do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
