Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: purchase, garden)

[Josseppie]

This was in today's Pueblo Chieftain and illustrates why Pueblo stays ahead of the curve on our water demand and why Pueblo has so much power in the state of Colorado.

"Aurora wants to buy a mountain ditch from the Pueblo Board of Water Works as well as enter a new long-term water lease with the board."

The link: http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2009/02/04/news/local/doc4989566322f1c579016785.txt

[MtnFlyer]

Jazz just how far north is this shortage supposed to stretch? Is Idaho affected?

A friend sent me a news story earlier where Texas is now saying that due to the influx of growth (insert your own border control joke here) that by the year 2060 I believe, 85% of the state won't be able to survive drought conditions. The story also cited that in 10 years, 36 states expect shortages. They didn't cite the states however. That got me thinking so I went to Google and started typing "36 states." Before I could finish typing, it filled in "water shortage." Apparenlty that gets googled a lot.

That led me to this page: watercrunch: Truth or Fiction? 36 States Will Face Water Shortages

It gives a short summary and more importantly points to the report from the GAO citing the 36 states and how the were identified.

My question is since we've already established water never really leaves the water cycle, how can virtually all the states be running out of water? It would seem that unless all the rain is falling into Canada or in the remaining 14 states, or out in the ocean, it eventually has to come to Earth sometime. I suppose that it could be coming back to Earth in a polluted fashion, but it would seem if that's the case then it doesn't really matter if the population continues to influx to Colorado or not. If at least 36 states are reporting the problem, then the problem is going to exist nationwide. If that's truly the case, I don't see Pueblo managing to control the supply and demand issues that would inevitably come.

[Josseppie]

MtnFlyer,

Can you explain why you don't think Pueblo will be able to control the supply and demand issues that would inevitably come. As the news report said "85% of Texas" then obviously there are parts that would be ok, the same will be here in Colorado where parts of the state will have water issues while Pueblo and some other places are ok.

[MtnFlyer]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

MtnFlyer,

Can you explain why you don't think Pueblo will be able to control the supply and demand issues that would inevitably come. As the news report said "85% of Texas" then obviously there are parts that would be ok, the same will be here in Colorado where parts of the state will have water issues while Pueblo and some other places are ok.

Essentially I was referring to the statement that if 36 states, (not counting the ones that didn't participate in the report) are running out of water, then all those residents are going to migrate somewhere. I suppose it would have to do with the degree of the shortage.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by MtnFlyer

Jazz just how far north is this shortage supposed to stretch? Is Idaho affected?

A friend sent me a news story earlier where Texas is now saying that due to the influx of growth (insert your own border control joke here) that by the year 2060 I believe, 85% of the state won't be able to survive drought conditions. The story also cited that in 10 years, 36 states expect shortages. They didn't cite the states however. That got me thinking so I went to Google and started typing "36 states." Before I could finish typing, it filled in "water shortage." Apparenlty that gets googled a lot.

That led me to this page: watercrunch: Truth or Fiction? 36 States Will Face Water Shortages

It gives a short summary and more importantly points to the report from the GAO citing the 36 states and how the were identified.

My question is since we've already established water never really leaves the water cycle, how can virtually all the states be running out of water? It would seem that unless all the rain is falling into Canada or in the remaining 14 states, or out in the ocean, it eventually has to come to Earth sometime. I suppose that it could be coming back to Earth in a polluted fashion, but it would seem if that's the case then it doesn't really matter if the population continues to influx to Colorado or not. If at least 36 states are reporting the problem, then the problem is going to exist nationwide. If that's truly the case, I don't see Pueblo managing to control the supply and demand issues that would inevitably come.

There are different water problems in different areas of the country. Most of the Western US west of the 100th Meridian is a "water deficit" area--that is, evarpotransporation of water to the atmosphere exceeds rainfall for much of the year. That is the basic definition of semi-arid to desert environments. That fact that some of the West is actually green is largely a testament to human management of water that comes from the small percentage of the land of the West that is not moisture deficient--namely the high mountain areas. We have about reached the end of being able to increase water supplies from those sources. The other source has been "groundwater mining" of ancestral water that is essentially non-renewable.

In the Eastern and Midwestern US (where a lot of that transevaporated Western water actually may fall back to the earth as precipitation) is not moisture deficit, but the quality of many surface and underground water sources has been so compromised by chemical and other human-caused contamination that it is no longer a usable supply. Places like Texas may suffer from both problems, depending on the location.

As far as Idaho and the some of the Pacific Northwest, it is a schizophrenic place as far as water supplies go. Some areas--those favored by Pacific precipitation--receive copious amounts of precipitation. Some large rivers upon which relatively modest population demands (so far) for water have been placed (the Snake and some tributaries of the Columbia River) also run through the state. But there are large areas of very forbidding high desert areas in the Pacific Northwest, as well--where water supplies can be very limited.

The central and southern Rocky Mountain states are nowhere near as near fortunate. They are distant from ocean moisture sources--in the case of the Pacific Ocean, separated from it by substantial moisture-stripping mountain ranges. Thanks to Colorado's Front Range, but mostly due to the absolutely unrelenting demands of the Lower Basin states on the Colorado River, water supplies of the Colorado River Basin are already stretched to the absolute limit. A protracted drought in the Colorado River Basin (say, a decade or longer) would devastate the region--and such droughts, according to tree-ring analysis, have been quite common in the region over the last couple of thousand years.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by MtnFlyer

Essentially I was referring to the statement that if 36 states, (not counting the ones that didn't participate in the report) are running out of water, then all those residents are going to migrate somewhere. I suppose it would have to do with the degree of the shortage.

Fair enough if 1 million people move to Pueblo this century we will have issues.

[MtnFlyer]

So is this really a Colorado issue or a ~40 state issue? If it's the later then would a statewide irrigation ban really do any good? Wouldn't the aquifer depletion continue and Colorado be right back in the same position in a matter of months? If that's truly the case then it would almost seem that the building of reservoirs is not the ideal, but a logical solution albeit a departure from the land's history.

[Josseppie]

I think that reservoirs if planned right can be a good idea for a region. The Pueblo reservoir is a great storage not only for Pueblo but for the farmers out east. Also, it reduces the risk of a major flood like the one that devastated Pueblo in 1921.

Reservoir's, also, enhances the life of the community by giving more recreational opportunities. For example the Pueblo reservoir is great for boating, fishing, trails (hiking and off road), swimming and much more.

Here is a picture of the Pueblo reservoir:

[reginhild]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

MtnFlyer,

Can you explain why you don't think Pueblo will be able to control the supply and demand issues that would inevitably come. As the news report said "85% of Texas" then obviously there are parts that would be ok, the same will be here in Colorado where parts of the state will have water issues while Pueblo and some other places are ok.

The Pueblo Resevoir depends on the Arkansas river in an otherwise arid region. Upstream and downstream communities and other states end up competing for river water resources eventually. Immediately upstream is Canon City, Florence, and Penrose. Downstream is Las Animas who also have a large resevoir that depends on the Arkansas. All these areas are arid/semi-arid and you have to figure all of their future growth with use of the Arkansas river's flow rate. If consumption exceeds the flow rate, the resevoirs will start decreasing in size.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by reginhild

The Pueblo Resevoir depends on the Arkansas river in an otherwise arid region. Upstream and downstream communities and other states end up competing for river water resources eventually. Immediately upstream is Canon City, Florence, and Penrose. Downstream is Las Animas who also have a large resevoir that depends on the Arkansas. All these areas are arid/semi-arid and you have to figure all of their future growth with use of the Arkansas river's flow rate. If consumption exceeds the flow rate, the resevoirs will start decreasing in size.

Then it goes back to growth and like I said if 1 million people move into the Pueblo metro are this century we will have issues if not we should be ok...