5,029,196 People Now Live in Colorado (Denver, Aurora: health insurance, home, purchase)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Please explain how we can just magically "grow more crops" in Colorado when what little water we have is being diverted to residential use? In fact, call down to the Arkansas Valley and get their view on this. All those wonderful melon fields are turning to dust, because Aurora and Pueblo bought the water rights for bluegrass lawns and swimming pools. Then call the farmers in northeast Colorado and ask how their grain production is going since their wells were shut off in order to preserve water flows in the Platte River so that Kansas actually received some of the water they own?
Sure, adding another million in the next twenty years won't have any impact at all. Sure thing. Magical technology will arrive to power our gleaming cars, create water out of dust, and build all the new houses we need, all the way to the Kansas line. We'll just dig new holes, and magically new fuels and minerals and food will sprout from the ground.
Man, no wonder we are in trouble.
Who says we have to grow melons in Colorado? There is a bigger world out there outside of the state where melons grow just fine.
Who says we have to grow melons in Colorado? There is a bigger world out there outside of the state where melons grow just fine.
That is the kind of myopic thinking that is getting this country in real trouble. Increasing energy prices and scarcity is going to make it mandatory to have more diversified agricultural production in closer proximity to the people who will consume it. In Colorado, we are going the exact opposite direction. Colorado, in the not so distant past, had one of the most diversified lists of agricultural commodities produced within the state of most any state in the US. Only California had a larger diversity of in-state produced crops. That has all changed, mostly because cheap transportation made it possible to transport foodstuffs from across the country or even internationally. The days of that cheap transportation are about over, and agricultural diversity and production close to home is going to be a necessity again. In Colorado, that means having water available for agriculture, and we're doing our best to wreck that possibility. It also means preserving the very limited amount of high quality agricultural land available in Colorado, and we're also doing our best to cover that up with suburban s***.
There are few places in the United States where modern stupid-ass destructive land use policies (translation: letting the developers run the show, reap the profits, and socialize the costs on the taxpayer) are being employed to greater negative long-term effect than they are in Colorado. We should be ashamed.
But considering that 80% of Colorado's populations lives along the front range, and that the prime agricultural land in Colorado is on the eastern portion of the state, with some pockets of rich lands along the Western Slope, I do not see this as letting developers "run the show" and destroy these areas. Developers are adding to areas where there are already larger populations. If you are worried about Colorado becoming overcrowded perhaps a drive along I-70 to Burlington and back will be reassuring.
But considering that 80% of Colorado's populations lives along the front range, and that the prime agricultural land in Colorado is on the eastern portion of the state, with some pockets of rich lands along the Western Slope, I do not see this as letting developers "run the show" and destroy these areas. Developers are adding to areas where there are already larger populations. If you are worried about Colorado becoming overcrowded perhaps a drive along I-70 to Burlington and back will be reassuring.
Wrong. The most productive agricultural lands in Colorado are--now more like "were"--along the Front Range corridor from around Brighton northward through about 10 miles north of Greeley. The swath included areas of eastern Boulder County, western Adams County, much of eastern Larimer County, and a lot of western Weld County. These lands contain the best soil in Colorado, as well as having had a good irrigation water supply until suburbanization stole both. In fact, in their agricultural heyday, those lands were considered some of the best lands for producing a variety of crops that could be found anywhere outside of California's Central Valley.
As for the Western Slope, its most productive agricultural lands are found in the lower Gunnison and lower Colorado River valleys, both under full assault from rural subdivision development. As an example, Delta County has lost nearly half of its orchard land to rural development in the last 20 years.
I really get sick of arguing with people about Colorado's agricultural issues when I've been both directly and indirectly involved with Colorado agriculture (and Colorado water issues) since the early 1970's.
Well, I could start out with over 20 years of data from the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service, NRCS information, CSU Extension information, USDA information, etc. Oh, and all that "boots on the ground" experience and personal contacts in the Colorado agricultural industry in every major agricultural area of Colorado.
Saying that the Front Range will get anywhere near the Kansas line is completely ridiculous. It'll fill in before it starts spreading east. It probably won't spread futher east then it already does with the possible exception of Aurora.
As solar and wind energy become more efficient and affordable, we can expect less reliance on oil and coal to power our homes.
AND as cars become not only more fuel effecient, but not needing fossil fuel at all (electric and hydrogen), we can also expect once again, less reliance on CO's unrenewable resources.
The only problem is water. And even then, reservoirs can be built. If the farmers in the Arkansas Valley want water, then they should 1) fight for the rights back instead of complain and 2) do something to create a better supply of water, like another reservoir off the Arkansas.
I'm not saying I want 10 million people here because I don't. I'm just saying that these doomsday scenerios are a bit absurd when you consider the fact that technology is improving at an exponential rate.
I don't even need to ask if you are from Colorado. You aren't.
You have no clue how precious water is here, or how water rights work. You also have no clue how much energy Colorado uses, and how much could possibly be produced from wind and solar.
You don't just "fight for your rights back." Water rights in Colorado are property, bought and sold. The rights were created in the 1860's. They have been bought and sold and passed through many hands since then. A farmer in the Arkansas Valley growing melons may have inherited the rights from his father, grandfather, great-grandfather. The problem is that water rights have been bid up by suburban entities and Denver Water to the point where many farmers are literally sitting on millions of dollars worth of water rights, and generating a return on those rights of 1% or so. They can cash out and retire by selling to Aurora or Denver or Pueblo. They have the right to sell just as they have the right to sell their other property. The problem is that once those rights are in the hands of a suburban development machine, they will never again be used to grow crops. The environment in most of Colorado just can't support agriculture without irrigation.
You can't just build a reservoir in Colorado. First of all, you must have the water rights in the river you propose to dam. Then you must prove that the reservoir will not harm the environment, then you must provide supplemental water rights to replace what is lost by evaporation, then you must come up with BILLIONS of dollars to build the reservoir.
I won't even address the energy issues since you obviously have no grasp on reality there, either.
I don't even need to ask if you are from Colorado. You aren't.
Excuse me?! Just because I'm not as aged as some of you other posters on here doesn't mean I'm some sort of alien. I may be young, but I'll bet you a fortune that I know a hell of a lot more than your average 18-year old Coloradan by a LONG shot.
As to "water rights issues," it was the farmers' decision to sell. Same goes with the farmers on the outskirts of the Denver area. You can blame developers all you want, but it's the farmers/ranchers that sell their land to them. Sure, the developers bribe with large amounts of money but if the rural folks wanted to preserve that way of life then they would hold out. Then the logical way to build would be up rather than out (concerning land use of course) which I'm sure we can all agree that by this day and age is better than "out rather than up."
Well, I could start out with over 20 years of data from the Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service, NRCS information, CSU Extension information, USDA information, etc. Oh, and all that "boots on the ground" experience and personal contacts in the Colorado agricultural industry in every major agricultural area of Colorado.
I welcome specific examples. I'm sure that you have vast experience and look forward to further discussion on the matter. Regardless of what is considered "prime" agriculture, there are 1,000s of miles of agriculturally rich land in Eastern Colorado, which is my main point. There are patches of farmland there that are bigger than some states back east. Land that is not cultivated for crops is used for cattle. This is the case in much of the Southeastern corner of the state.
Development is going to happen. Populations are going to grow. Those people are going to live somewhere. Is it not it better to build near cities that already exist than to start new ones in the middle of nowhere?
I welcome specific examples. I'm sure that you have vast experience and look forward to further discussion on the matter. Regardless of what is considered "prime" agriculture, there are 1,000s of miles of agriculturally rich land in Eastern Colorado, which is my main point. There are patches of farmland there that are bigger than some states back east. Land that is not cultivated for crops is used for cattle. This is the case in much of the Southeastern corner of the state.
Development is going to happen. Populations are going to grow. Those people are going to live somewhere. Is it not it better to build near cities that already exist than to start new ones in the middle of nowhere?
I don't know how else to get people to understand this. I am at a complete loss here.
I am going to make a numbered list of points, and please respond with the ones you either don't understand, or with which you disagree. I will add references that you can go to for more information:
1) There is a finite amount of water in Colorado. It is technically known as a "semi-arid" environment. Before the establishment of irrigation, the entire area from the Missouri River to the foothills was labeled on maps as "The Great American Desert" and was considered to be largely useless and uninhabitable. It was made habitable by drilling wells into underground aquifers (primarily the Ogallala aquifer), and by digging tens of thousands of miles of irrigation ditches. Great American Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) The Ogallala aquifer, which lies under part of eastern Colorado, is being depleted at an astonishing rate, because it has been pumped for over 150 years for both agriculture and residential development. It is an underground aquifer that built up over thousands of years, being slowly replenished by the very sparse rainfall over its area. Ogallala Aquifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) Many municipalities in the Denver area, including Douglas County, one of the fastest growing counties in the US, rely on water from the Denver Basin aquifer. They have already seen drastic drawdowns of the aquifer in this area and are scrambling to find other sources of water. Water | Douglas County, Colorado
4) Almost all new sources of water supplied to the Front Range in the past 30 years have come from pumping water from the Colorado River basin back east under the Continental Divide. The Colorado River is the lifeblood of the southwest, and the water is highly sought after by Las Vegas, Phoenix and Los Angeles, as well as Colorado and Utah. An agreement called the Colorado River Compact governs the water use, but the Compact was drawn up during a historic high flow period. Therefore, the actual amount of water in the River Basin is less than previously thought. Any use of water from the Colorado River for the Front Range takes away from LA, LV and Phoenix as well as the agricultural areas along the River. Lake Powell and Lake Mead, the two largest dams on the Colorado, lost nearly half their water during the last drought. Lake Mead is still in a crisis :Lake Mead at 54-year low, stirring rationing fear
6) I want to make one final point, which colors everything about water in Colorado: Water is very heavy (8 pounds per gallon), it flows DOWNHILL, and it is VERY difficult and expensive to get it to flow uphill. Think long and hard about this point, because it truly does impact every area of thought around water in Colorado.
Last edited by soscrewed; 01-09-2011 at 09:58 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
