Colorado and the West is running out of water . . .

[Shuffler]

"Water does not control growth"...that's a valid statement, because in my 36yrs here I've never seen more growth than in the past 10-15yrs, and this is in light of the facts regarding our climate, limited water supplies, climate change, etc.

People don't need lawns, office parks & campuses don't need vast swaths of grass either. Conservation is free and costs us nothing, yet nobody seems to grasp the concept.

Draconian water conservation laws & taxes are going to be the end result unless our leadership and populace gets their collective shiznit together and learn to live with less. I suppose we could say the same for oil & natural gas.

[Shuffler]

forgot to mention the other scourge of our landscape....GOLF COURSES....now there's a misallocation of resources if I ever saw one...

[jazzlover]

Growth in Colorado so far has been accommodated by damming up rivers, diverting streamflows, drying up agriculture, drying up wetlands--that has done plenty of harm to everything from riparian areas, to decimating farming and ranching, to destroying critical wildlife habitat. That's so far. Even all of that destruction has an end game--that is, when there just isn't enough water left for suburban growth (the farms and ranches, the wetlands, and the free-flowing streams will be long gone by then)--THEN Colorado will have reached the point of its own demise. I wish there was enough political spine and leadership in this state to look farther than 15 minutes into the future and tell Coloradans, current and prospective, that the way we are doing things just ain't gonna cut it any longer--if we expect this state and its residents to have any decent future at all. We, in this country, seem determined to squander our resources like the burning of a Roman candle--one big spectacular blaze of glory, followed by darkness. Any society--or species--that ignorant, greedy, and stupid probably doesn't deserve to survive--and probably won't.

[Shuffler]

yep, it all comes back to money...short-sighted goals for financial gain, with not much thought given to the future. 3 million more folks projected to land here by 2035...where will they go? What will they do? How will they get water? I'm sure our leaders have a plan, influenced by the monied interests from development, water projects, etc. The best technology & planning won't make it rain or snow more, or make the summers any cooler. As one of my favorite social critics likes to say, "we'll need to make other arrangements" because this way of living we've become accustomed to here in the West, and everywhere else for that matter, is NOT sustainable.

[jazzlover]

The February 15, 2008 issue of the Denver Post contained the following article ( The Denver Post - Not a drop to spare ) by Neil S. Grigg, a civil engineering professor at Colorado State University and the author of "Colorado's Water: Science and Management, History and Politics." It is the latest in a sobering number of articles outlining Colorado's increasingly tenuous water future. Grigg tries to end his article on a positive note, emphasizing that people are looking for solutions to Colorado's water problems through cooperation and innovation.

Unfortunately, the most telling statement in the article is not the optimism expressed toward the end, but this statement in the middle:

So, our water supplies seem near their limits with little new water available except to take water from agriculture.

In other words, Colorado's likely path to future water development is going to be the same as it has been for the past five decades--dry up productive agriculture to use water largely for non-productive sprawling suburban growth. Some water policy.

Many Coloradans, particularly those ensconced in those water-hungry suburbs, might ask, "So what if agriculture gets effectively dried up?" They might wish to consider two things. First, there is the real possibility that productive Colorado agriculture may actually be needed to feed us in the future--especially if spiraling fuel costs or fuel shortages make transportation of foodstuffs long distances too expensive or too uncertain. For those naive enough to think that food actually grows in the supermarket, that prospect may not seem troubling, but for those who have familiarity with the US food supply chain, the prospect of even the most minor supply disruptions are unnerving. Second, and maybe more near and dear--at least right now--to Coloradans is the fact that drying up agriculture will also destroy many of the state's aesthetic qualities. Irrigated agriculture actually makes things green, and also creates or sustains much of Colorado's existing wetlands. When irrigated agriculture goes by the wayside, so, too, do those aesthetically pleasing and environmentally necessary assets. To doubters, one only need look for an example at the sub-irrigated wetland paradise that was South Park 40 or 50 years ago compared to the parched high-altitude desert that it is today--forty years of Front Range sprawl and the resulting water rights acquisitions and water diversions can be thanked for that.

People absolutely hate to be told that they "can't have it all." But Coloradans need to hear that loud and clear concerning the state's water situation. The choice is simple: If Colorado continues to pursue its current path of accommodating population growth through sprawling water-wasting development, then it can kiss goodbye irrigated agriculture, free-flowing rivers, and environmentally critical wetlands. Say goodbye to things like the sub-irrigated ranchlands in Middle Park, the upper Gunnison River Basin, North Park, potentially even the very agriculturally productive San Luis Valley. For what is left of the irrigated agriculture of the lower Arkansas River valley, and the lower South Platte River drainage--adios. So long, too, to the few free-flowing stretches left in many Colorado rivers--the upper Arkansas, South Platte, etc. Not to mention what is left of several of Colorado's very overused and depleting underground water acquifers.

If anyone need wonder why so many old-line Coloradans, particularly those with any association with agriculture, are so bitter about out-of-control growth and sprawl on Colorado's Front Range, they need only to look at what has happened to rural Colorado in the last 40-50 years because of it--and then increase those impacts multi-fold and project them out into the future a few decades. Simply stated, the Colorado they love, and many others also love--even loved by some of those very Front Range suburban residents--will be destroyed. Mostly for some Kentucky Bluegrass. What a waste.

[Shuffler]

and then there is this story regarding Lake Mead and Las Vegas...

[brightdoglover]

So many people don't want to see reality in so many critical areas. Let's see, the answers are (pick one):
"We can move to other planets"
"Technology will find a way"
"There's so much empty land in Texas/Utah/etc."

Every time I see an ad for "active adult" golf course communities in the West, I wince for that generation. DON'T YOU GET IT?!
People love the idea of ethanol, like Ma and Pa Kettle drop a fresh ear of corn from the back 40 right into the gas tank.
Making stuff uses energy, using energy uses up energy. I fear for Colorado and places like it (while Massachusetts continues to drown its basements, etc.)

[multitrak]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

In other words, Colorado's likely path to future water development is going to be the same as it has been for the past five decades--dry up productive agriculture to use water largely for non-productive sprawling suburban growth. Some water policy.
<snip>
Say goodbye to things like the sub-irrigated ranchlands in Middle Park, the upper Gunnison River Basin, North Park, potentially even the very agriculturally productive San Luis Valley. For what is left of the irrigated agriculture of the lower Arkansas River valley, and the lower South Platte River drainage--adios. So long, too, to the few free-flowing stretches left in many Colorado rivers--the upper Arkansas, South Platte, etc. Not to mention what is left of several of Colorado's very overused and depleting underground water acquifers.

as one who intends to live and work in rural colorado, how can i insure that my senior water rights filed on my own ranch and farm lands are not stolen by legal thievery from front range power brokers? the thought that i won't be able to legally use the mountain snowpack runoff on my own land because of a power water grab greatly concerns and irks me...

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by multitrak

as one who intends to live and work in rural colorado, how can i insure that my senior water rights filed on my own ranch and farm lands are not stolen by legal thievery from front range power brokers? the thought that i won't be able to legally use the mountain snowpack runoff on my own land because of a power water grab greatly concerns and irks me...

That depends on the water right. If it is a senior right in an area desirable for purchase by urban water agencies (and that these days can be a lot of places), you might be able to sell those rights for a pretty penny. Of course, the land's value for any viable agricultural purpose will be probably lost forever. For some landowners, especially those facing the pressures of finding a financially feasible retirement or those where other development has already made making a living from ag difficult, that may be an acceptable tradeoff.

The less lucky landowners will be the ones holding junior water rights. In many cases, senior right holders may not use their entire water allotment, and junior right holders actually may have water to irrigate their land. Municipal water purchasers usually purchase senior rights with the intent of utilizing the entire allotment, and usually prepare diversion applications and augmentation plans on that basis. One also must consider that 1 cubic foot per second (cfs) of an agricultural water right does not necessarily equate with 1 cfs of a municipal water right. Why? Because most agricultural water rights are predicated on the basis of seasonal use (during the summer irrigating season), while municipal rights are usually predicated on the basis of year-round use. So, as part of an augmentation plan, a municipality may have to purchase several cfs of agricultural water rights to convert to 1 cfs of municipal water rights.

By the way, it is absolutely possible to hold a senior water right on an irrigation ditch that is still junior to other water rights. For example, say I own the senior water right on the ABC ditch getting its water from the Big Fancy River with an appropriation date of 1900 for that diversion from the river. An upstream user on the XYZ ditch which has an 1880 appropriation date from the Big Fancy River may have a senior right to everyone on the ABC Ditch (even me as the senior right holder on the ABC ditch). That, by the way, is why there are so many water lawyers in Colorado--it gets complicated quite quickly.

There are other considerations, too. For example, if a municipality purchases most of the senior water rights associated with, say, a ditch company with the intent of diverting the water at its source for use elsewhere, it may have little interest or incentive to contribute to maintenance of the ditch for downstream agricultural users. There is also the problem that when a considerable number of farms and ranches in a certain area are dried up and removed from agricultural production, the infrastructure supporting the remaining farms and ranches (i.e., implement dealers, fertilizer dealers, local livestock sale yards, ag processing facilities, etc.) may no longer be economically viable. One need only look to the communities in the lower Arkansas River valley (i.e., Rocky Ford, Las Animas, etc.) to see this economic decline in action.

I mentioned it in my earlier post, but it bears repeating. To see the destructive nature of the Front Range's water appetite, one only need drive about 75 miles from Denver--to the top of Kenosha Pass--and look over South Park. If you stood at that viewpoint on a summer day in, say, 1960 or so, you would have seen a green expanse of subirrigated meadowlands and wetlands extending across South Park as far as the eye could see. Some of the best hay in the world was produced there. Not long thereafter, Front Range cities began purchasing water rights and diverting the water. Today, that water is held for municipal use in Spinney Mountain and Elevenmile Reservoirs. As for South Park, it is now a dry brown desert year-round, except for a few acres of wetlands that are still irrigated as part of a state wildlife refuge. As one who remembers what South Park was, it brings me to tears to see it now--and to imagine that Middle Park, North Park, the upper Gunnison Valley, and other wetland meadows and irrigated areas in Colorado are likely headed for the same fate. Despise Front Range sprawl and water wasting? You bet. That kind of waste is not only wrong--it should be criminal.

[ryanek9freak]

Well said. It's reasons like that, that if I could go back and do it all over again, i would have gone to law school to become a water rights attorney. I'd probably be filthy rich by now. You know, the state borders of Colorado should be closed, and the entire current population sterilized. Maybe that would put a stop to all this nonsense.