U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-01-2013, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,136 posts, read 5,343,120 times
Reputation: 5522

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sbelvedere View Post
This will never, ever, ever, ever, ever (you get the point) happen. Having come from the East and having had family in the Midwest, those areas have watched thousands of people flock to the sunbelt despite attempts to keep them around to rebuild their industrial sector. They are not going to agree to some sort of pipe dream (pun intended) to take water from the Great Lakes and other watersheds and send it west to water lawns. What will happen if we run up against a continued shortage of water is that people from Colorado and the rest of the desert West will have to pick up and move if they cannot adapt. Period.
I know that this is a dream, but something needs to be done. I hate to invoke the federal government, but the presence of arbitrary lines drawn on the map (ie. borders), are making it hard for true solutions to be found.

Many people will do desperate things to preserve their land and their way of life. Downstream states should remember that they need to be good stewards of the resources that we all share. There may come a time when the farmers upstream, upset about the pools in Phoenix and wastefulness of the Vegas strip, may try to do something.

After all, the water begins its journey to the ocean here. If Colorado violated the interstate compacts and kept enough water to fill the reservoirs before letting it run down stream, some major stuff would hit the fan. What would the downstream users do? Sue in court? After years of litigation, they might get satisfaction. Meanwhile many would be ruined.

Let's hope it never gets to that point.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 04-02-2013, 07:48 AM
 
Location: high plains
794 posts, read 822,993 times
Reputation: 625
The transcontinental water projects of the early 20th century were considered impossible and extreme at the time. Circumstances and resources combined to make them happen, though, and their unintended consequences linger on and on. Weird political/business practices are everywhere and billion dollar projects are commonplace now. I wouldn't bet against Canada/US/Mexico or Eastern/Western US pipelines, however uphill energy-expensive or environmentally damaging. We're looking at swing-states, pork-barrel bills, politician scandals, drone-assassination, deficit financing, private space-ports, modern engineering, nuclear energy, and advertising-fueled propaganda. What's a few farm/ranches, city lawns, and extinct species in the grand scheme of things?

By the way, here is a link to the downstream City of Scottsdale Drought Situation FAQs:
http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Water/Wa...ng/DroughtFAQs

They almost sound like Pueblo. yeah, there's drought, but we're ok. no need to worry.
It is a little more informative, but not much. no reservoir levels or looming Colorado Compact negotiations.

Last edited by highplainsrus; 04-02-2013 at 07:57 AM..
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,222 posts, read 22,172,777 times
Reputation: 4320
Energy is a key to water projects. Currently the price of energy makes a lot of water projects to expensive to consider, however, the cost of energy keeps going down so eventually the price to build water projects will be such that those projects will become cost effective. So when I refer information technology advancing exponentially and the impact it will have on water availability in the future that is what I am referring to. In fact MIT did a study that showed that by 2020 the cost of solar will be less expensive then fossil fuels and it will continue to go down in the 2020's. If this sounds crazy just remember people must of said the same thing in the early 20th century about a number of the transcontinental water projects that we consider normal today.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Western Colorado
12,076 posts, read 14,026,643 times
Reputation: 30041
I saw on the Denver news I'm forced to watch here that Denver and some other front range cities have mandatory water rationing already. Only water lawn twice a week and no car washing. Those poor city folk. How will they survive?
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:28 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 27,156,575 times
Reputation: 9224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Energy is a key to water projects. Currently the price of energy makes a lot of water projects to expensive to consider, however, the cost of energy keeps going down so eventually the price to build water projects will be such that those projects will become cost effective. So when I refer information technology advancing exponentially and the impact it will have on water availability in the future that is what I am referring to. In fact MIT did a study that showed that by 2020 the cost of solar will be less expensive then fossil fuels and it will continue to go down in the 2020's. If this sounds crazy just remember people must of said the same thing in the early 20th century about a number of the transcontinental water projects that we consider normal today.
What planet do you live on? Energy getting cheaper? That's a blatant falsehood. And we are just at the beginning of what will be probably the largest long-term run-up in the real cost of energy that the US has ever seen. Improvements in energy efficiency can soften the blow somewhat, but those improvements, like just about everything else, take massive capital investments--and we have individually and collectively squandered much of the US's available capital.

As for silly-ass ideas of moving water from the Great Lakes or anywhere else to the arid West, it ain't gonna happen. First, the legalities and logistics to do it would take decades, maybe a century, to work out. Then, once again, where would the capital come from? The broke Federal government? The broke states? It won't be coming from the private sector, either, because even those relatively easy water projects of old could not be built profitably enough for the private sector to finance and build them. That was the easy stuff to build, relatively speaking. The kind of projects that would have to be built now--they are UNAFFORDABLE. Period. In fact, if one takes a hard, realistic look around, it is obvious that we can't even muster the capital to maintain much of the infrastructure, including water projects, that we have now.

But, of course, some people just think that hard economic facts shouldn't matter and that technology, or maybe the tooth fairy, can solve everything. The reality that the West has to learn to live with is that the water resources that we've got now are all that we are going to have, at best, and we are going to have to learn to live within the limitations of those resources.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:39 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,222 posts, read 22,172,777 times
Reputation: 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
What planet do you live on? Energy getting cheaper? That's a blatant falsehood. And we are just at the beginning of what will be probably the largest long-term run-up in the real cost of energy that the US has ever seen. Improvements in energy efficiency can soften the blow somewhat, but those improvements, like just about everything else, take massive capital investments--and we have individually and collectively squandered much of the US's available capital.

As for silly-ass ideas of moving water from the Great Lakes or anywhere else to the arid West, it ain't gonna happen. First, the legalities and logistics to do it would take decades, maybe a century, to work out. Then, once again, where would the capital come from? The broke Federal government? The broke states? It won't be coming from the private sector, either, because even those relatively easy water projects of old could not be built profitably enough for the private sector to finance and build them. That was the easy stuff to build, relatively speaking. The kind of projects that would have to be built now--they are UNAFFORDABLE. Period. In fact, if one takes a hard, realistic look around, it is obvious that we can't even muster the capital to maintain much of the infrastructure, including water projects, that we have now.

But, of course, some people just think that hard economic facts shouldn't matter and that technology, or maybe the tooth fairy, can solve everything. The reality that the West has to learn to live with is that the water resources that we've got now are all that we are going to have, at best, and we are going to have to learn to live within the limitations of those resources.
Look at this study:

If the trend continues for another 8-10 years, which seems increasingly likely, solar will be as cheap as coal with the added benefit of zero carbon emissions. If the cost continues to fall over the next 20 years, solar costs will be half that of coal. These predictions may in fact be too conservative given that First Solar have reported internal production costs of 75 cents (46 pence) per watt with an expectation of 50 cents (31 pence) per watt by 2016. When applied to electricity prices this predicts that solar generated electricity in the US will descend to a level of 12 cents (7 pence) per kilowatt hour by 2020, possibly even 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.

The link: When Solar Becomes Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels | azizonomics

Historically energy has been a barrier due to its cost, however, once electricity generation comes down in price then large expensive water project to run will not be so expensive and it will be easier to get water to Colorado.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:43 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 27,156,575 times
Reputation: 9224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
Look at this study:

If the trend continues for another 8-10 years, which seems increasingly likely, solar will be as cheap as coal with the added benefit of zero carbon emissions. If the cost continues to fall over the next 20 years, solar costs will be half that of coal. These predictions may in fact be too conservative given that First Solar have reported internal production costs of 75 cents (46 pence) per watt with an expectation of 50 cents (31 pence) per watt by 2016. When applied to electricity prices this predicts that solar generated electricity in the US will descend to a level of 12 cents (7 pence) per kilowatt hour by 2020, possibly even 2015 for the sunniest parts of America.

The link: When Solar Becomes Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels | azizonomics

Historically energy has been a barrier due to its cost, however, once electricity generation comes down in price then large expensive water project to run will not be so expensive and it will be easier to get water to Colorado.
Silliness. Go put a tooth under your pillow tonight. There's a better chance of that yielding you a quarter (or, now, a dollar, because of inflation) than there is of the solar pipedream coming true in any way like this lame-brained article suggests.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
12,222 posts, read 22,172,777 times
Reputation: 4320
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
Silliness. Go put a tooth under your pillow tonight. There's a better chance of that yielding you a quarter (or, now, a dollar, because of inflation) than there is of the solar pipedream coming true in any way like this lame-brained article suggests.
So I guess GE, MIT are wrong too? I don't make these predictions myself. I, also, don't make the predictions that when energy becomes cheaper it will be easer to get large energy intensive water projects built.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 09:31 PM
 
8,317 posts, read 27,156,575 times
Reputation: 9224
Josseppie, you really don't know a darned thing about hydrology, dams, water projects, water rights, climate or anything associated with it. Quit pretending that you do. You may fool other people like yourself who have scant knowledge about such subjects, but, for those of us who do have that knowledge, your posts reek of ignorance. I started this thread to have a common-sense discussion about the very serious long-term water problems that face this region, not to have the thread clogged with an unending litany of unfounded drivel about how yet-undeveloped technology is somehow going to save us.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 04-02-2013, 09:40 PM
 
930 posts, read 1,448,164 times
Reputation: 798
I just hope this technology comes before the Ogalalla Aquifer dries up. So, say, five to ten years? I hope it gets working quick. Things will be very different if we don't have the miracle water delivery system in place by then.
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:26 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top