Impending Drought (Mead: fit in, homes, movies)

[proveick]

You NEED food, you don't need a green lawn in a semi-desert. It is the last limiting resource that people are going to fight for. Ask the governors of CA and TX. RP

[CosmicWizard]

treedonkey poeticized: the tulips and toilets of me and my 2 million neighbors

Very nice! I like it.

[Mike from back east]

True. We do not need green lawns in a semi-desert. Nor do we need to spray water all over hell's half acre to grow millions of acres of corn that goes to fatten cattle or support the ethanol industry, both of which are extremely fuel and water intensive and cost us a fortune in federal subsidies.

I have no doubt that by using drip irrigation in greenhouses and farm plots that we can grow all the veggies here in COLO that we need, and do it with minimum water. The Israeli's do it, in a real desert.

Just this week I spent $2 and change for a tiny packet of Thyme at King Soopers, Thyme that came from Israel. For pete's sake, WE can grow Thyme in a greenhouse here instead of flying the crap in from Israel! And it only takes a tiny bit of water to do that; so why don't we? Money. Follow the federal subsides for corn farmers and the ethanol industry and you'll see why CORN is KING on the plains. That's where the water goes, federal subsidies lead to the extravagant use of water, and I don't see those guys lining up to change that status quo. All I see and hear are attempts to deflect the attention away from wasteful forms of ag and onto john q homeowner. No thanks folks.

[sterlinggirl]

Here's a link on somebody's plan to take water from the Green River all the way to Joseppie's water hungry bluegrass in Pueblo.

Colorado pipeline proposal stirs water fears - Salt Lake Tribune

Mikes arguments of agricultural users being the water hogs are misleading at best. The ag industry may use a lot of water, but exactly where do their products wind up? That steak and salad on your dinner table don't appear out of a vacuum, and you'd be screaming if you had to pay for milk flown in from the wetter states.

[CosmicWizard]

sterlinggirl wrote:

Mikes arguments of agricultural users being the water hogs are misleading at best.

Not misleading at all. It's one of the most accurrate posts in this thread. Mike makes a good point that that mega-farm agriculture is a wasteful practice. IMO, we don't need most of their products anyway, especially a product like milk. If we live in a place where milk needs to be brought in from a distance, then simply don't drink milk. IMO, we'd all be healthier if we ate mostly local produce, and very little food that comes from a long distance away. But I digress. This statement from MIke is the crux of the matter...federal subsidies lead to the extravagant use of water. All across this country, rural residents decry government intervention, but it's OK if it's something that benefits their lifestyles....wasteful or not.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by sterlinggirl

Here's a link on somebody's plan to take water from the Green River all the way to Joseppie's water hungry bluegrass in Pueblo.

Colorado pipeline proposal stirs water fears - Salt Lake Tribune

Mikes arguments of agricultural users being the water hogs are misleading at best. The ag industry may use a lot of water, but exactly where do their products wind up? That steak and salad on your dinner table don't appear out of a vacuum, and you'd be screaming if you had to pay for milk flown in from the wetter states.

I'm all for making use of agricultural water use more efficient. In fact, my father spent part of his career working on technology to do just that. But sterlinggirl's point is right on--at least ag produces something that people can eat--bluegrass lawns don't. Also, a fair amount of Colorado's agricultural irrigation water is used up in the high country to semi-naturally irrigate subirrigated pasture and hay meadows. This water use is not especially efficient, but it sustains many wetland areas in the mountains that are aesthetically attractive and are critical wetland water habitat. That type of wetland irrigation in the high country is one that is especially under siege by the metro water buffaloes. South Park has been turned from a subirrigated paradise to desert by them, Middle Park will be with in few years, and the water buffaloes have tried to do it in the Upper Gunnison Valley.

As sterlinggirl noted, the developers and their water buffalo lackeys are not satisified with that--now they want the grandiose (which means it will either cost the taxpayers or the CURRENT ratepayers for water dearly) scheme of purloining water from Wyoming to continue the stupidity. For very sound ecological and fiscal reasons, it is time for us to "just say 'no'." Tell the Front Range cities that the waterflows they have are all they going to get. If they want to continue to grow in population, then get more efficient--if they don't, then tell them that there will be no more development. Period. End of story.

[treedonkey]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

sterlinggirl wrote:

Mikes arguments of agricultural users being the water hogs are misleading at best.

Not misleading at all. It's one of the most accurrate posts in this thread. Mike makes a good point that that mega-farm agriculture is a wasteful practice. IMO, we don't need most of their products anyway, especially a product like milk. If we live in a place where milk needs to be brought in from a distance, then simply don't drink milk. IMO, we'd all be healthier if we ate mostly local produce, and very little food that comes from a long distance away. But I digress. This statement is the crux of the matter...federal subsidies lead to the extravagant use of water. All across this country, rural residents decry government intervention, but it's OK if it's something that benefits their lifestyles.

I spent a week on the plains in SD last summer talking to many farmers there. Actually, I talked to very few farmers there because the only resident farmers there were guys in their 80's and 90's that were struggling to work the last few acres which had not yet been taken over by the industrial machine. Everyone else I met were just regular folks renting rural property and commuting into town for work. They all agreed that the modern farming industry was killing both the independent farmer and the environment because of its careless practices and greedy ways.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

sterlinggirl wrote:

Mikes arguments of agricultural users being the water hogs are misleading at best.

Not misleading at all. It's one of the most accurrate posts in this thread. Mike makes a good point that that mega-farm agriculture is a wasteful practice. IMO, we don't need most of their products anyway, especially a product like milk. If we live in a place where milk needs to be brought in from a distance, then simply don't drink milk. IMO, we'd all be healthier if we ate mostly local produce, and very little food that comes from a long distance away. But I digress. This statement from MIke is the crux of the matter...federal subsidies lead to the extravagant use of water. All across this country, rural residents decry government intervention, but it's OK if it's something that benefits their lifestyles....wasteful or not.

Thank you.

Cow's milk is not really that good of a product nutritionally; mother's milk is BEST for infants, beyond that we don't need it and tens of millions of people are lactose intolerant. Dairy farming is okay by me, a decent use of resources. We buy milk from Sinton's Dairy as they have a plant HERE in COLO SPGS. I like to buy locally and support the home town dudes. But I use Soy Milk, a non-dairy product, but soy is also heavily subsidized and uses a lot of irrigation. Federal subsidies, or lack of them in some cases, skew markets and often serve mostly political aims.

I hope that none of us are thinking or implying that COLO has to be self sufficient in all forms of food, products or services, such arguments are specious at best. We have a great transport system in the country that allows any product or service to be made or grown where it's most advantageous and transport it to other areas. Same on a world basis. Local is best, where feasible.

EDIT: There are a LOT of things we need to say NO to. Lawns, farm subsidies, wasteful irrigation, et al. Sadly, it all gets political in a hurry.

[treedonkey]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

sterlinggirl's point is right on--at least ag produces something that people can eat--bluegrass lawns don't.

Sure, I don't think anyone here has asserted that KBG lawns are a good idea here or anywhere else in the west. They're NOT. But you're just nit-picking over the most micro of causes simply because it is carried on by faceless 'bad guys' you'd never confront in person.

[CosmicWizard]

jazzlover wrote:

at least ag produces something that people can eat--bluegrass lawns don't.

The only person on this forum who consistently offers strong support for bluegrass lawns is a certain fellow ( you all know who I mean ) from Pueblo ( the water capital of Colorado! ). Other than him, most of us agree that bluegrass lawns are wasteful.