Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Canon City: transplants, HOA)

[Mike from back east]

When I worked for Army, convention was: if you take a problem to the boss, take a workable solution with you at the same time.

Cutting off all new taps is not a workable idea. It's a simplistic, wishful thinking idea of those who have been somewhere a while and want to shut the door behind them so no one else can follow them in. It's as bogus an idea as building no new roads, no new schools, no new hospitals, no new power plants, no new....... Such points of view are unrealistic and are the stock in trade of people pining for the good old days. As I said in another thread, I can recall my elders, 50 years ago, pining for the good old days when such and such an area was a dairy farm, or the roads weren't so busy, or the pace wasn't so fast, blah blah blah. We've been down this road before, with others, and with Jazzlover's repetitive harping on this topic. As I've said in many posts, this country has been growing since the Mayflower landed, it's going to keep growing, and we need to deal with our issues like progressive adults and solve the problem, not whine and predict doom and gloom in every stinking thread. There is NO shortage of solutions to any problem, only a shortage of leaders and citizens willing to shut up and put up the bucks to make the right things happen, for the good of us all, including the piners and whiners.

s/Mike

PS: JazzLover, thanks for adding a list of possible actions. We can and will solve this issue.

[jazzlover]

Mike from Back East,

The human race has survived as long as it has, and our country has survived as long as it has by our ability to adapt to change. The change we face now is the growing constraint of limited resources, be that water or energy, that our present living arrangement and lifestyle requires.

What I find so frustrating is that people continue to try to support our current unsustainable course, to build more of the same, to continue on a destructive path--when it is absolutely obvious that an ADAPTATION is needed.

I use this analogy: Years back, I had two friends. Both were two-pack-a-day smokers. They both loved to smoke--had done so for decades. It was part of their lifestyle. About the same time, they both were diagnosed with the beginning stages of emphysema. One decided, then and there, that he needed to change--to ADAPT, no matter how painful it was. He quit smoking "cold turkey." He's still alive and well today, 20+ years later. My other friend refused to adapt. "I've always smoked, and always will," he said. He was right. 18 months after his diagnosis of beginning emphysema, he was dead from a combination of emphysema and heart failure.

Colorado is like those smokers. It can choose to modify a course that is--if anyone seriously examines it--clearly harmful to the state's health and wellbeing; adapt to a new reality, if you will. Or it can continue to try to follow its current unhealty course, and accept the inevitable catastrophic result. Adapt, or die. I choose to advocate adaptation--even it that means accepting a lifestyle that is different from what is today's norm.

[canyontiger2]

Pinning for the old days---not hardly but if you mean don't spend what you do not have. Then I guess that is old fashioned.

We cannot keep robbing Peter to pay Pal. There are places in the USA that have more water than they know what to do with. There is where the big growth should be. That is not stupid as you imply it is practical. It is your type of thinking that you like to call progressive that will continue to destroy us. Somewhere, sometime, something has to give. And the way we are doing it now is not going to do it. We may not live long enough to see someone in power to get their noses out of the so called progressive books and read a history book and learn from our mistakes and correct them. What is being done now only cost money, it does not fix anything. But again you even mention that the bucks can fix it.

As to the Army, I am a great believer in the military as a commissioned officer of 35 yrs, that is what I know best.Don't preach tactics to me. But again, even they are not following their own rules. To break it down in simple terms. The military way to win, is to go thro get control of a whole area and then put military law in effect. Now it is go just so far and stop. The so called progressive thinkers are not thinking--period. Sometimes we must back up to move forward. If the know nothings would let the professions in the military, run the military, and the press that guess at what they see stop reporting garbage, then maybe just maybe they too could do their jobs. I know the practical nor the wise or the simple way will never be done. Why because of people with your mind set. Can't raise taxes etc if done that way. We are building roads etc without more growth. New people in. People die, people move away. When they do, jobs open, homes are for sale, apts become available. We are building schools now. Would it not be nice if for change that the new schools will hold the students and money now being spent to try to build more be used to keep it in repair and up to date and pay good teachers to do so also. We don't need to grow to continue. Instead of stretching the money we do have to none existence and go farther in the hole when the tax payers say, enough already! Growth is not the answer when you do not have water!!! And distroying one area to give to another and another and another is not a solution either.

[Mike from back east]

Jazz, very true. We can and will adapt. It is happening in various ways now in many cities that seek to limit the size of home lots to get more homes per acre, and thus help contain the expensive build-out of water, sewer and utility services to sprawling sub-divs.

I seem to think that a movement of some sort is developing, I've heard some terms for it, but like anything, it will take time to make people realize what a "bill of goods" the old American Dream really was. IMO, it was all about GM selling cars....and getting out of hot steamy cities before the days of A/C when tons of horse manure littered unpaved dirt streets...in reality, the good old days weren't so good. People view things in a binary fashion: Crowded dirty hot stinky city is bad; Clean new fresh air and roomy digs is good. So out to the burbs they went. That worm is turning. Big action in my hometown of Bal'mer, MD is rebuilding the inner city for in-town walkabout living, lot less sprawl going on there. Density is forming around rail lines that pipe residents to jobs into the otherwise unaffordable DC area.

I'd love to live in or near a walkable downtown, like Manhattan. But at $7-9M for a nice brownstone near Central Park in NYC, we can't afford it, as can most people, so we go out where affordability exists. But as more people opt for efficient living in-town, more of it will be built and prices can compete.

Was a piece in the Wash Post this weekend of McMansion families living in the exurbs of DC that are chucking it all and going into the city for the rich diversity it offers vice the sterility of their version of the American Dream.

What worries me most is the gullibility of so many citizens. Seems every time some pied piper comes along running for office with that old "vote for me and I'll cut your taxes" story line, all we get is gridlock, inaction, status quo and insiders getting what they want. The stock market actually goes up when Congress fails to act on matters. Someday that will change. Until then, I'm gonna have a beer and hope Coors can find enough of that Rocky Mountain water...

Sincere regards.
s/Mike

[Mike from back east]

Canyontiger2, there is no shortage of water on this planet. We have a shortage of pipes, that's it. We can fix that.

Meanwhile we can limit lawns and watering as Jazz suggests, and many other things.

[Vision67]

If we just eliminated bluegrass, we'd have plenty of water.

When I lived in Tucson, they passed an ordinance requiring desert landscaping. We could do something similar here. Raising the price of water dramatically would have the same effect.

In Colorado Springs, some of the covenants actually require you to plant bluegrass on a good percent of your lot.

I'll bet about 75% of the water is used to water the grass.

[Pathwalker]

I understand the solutions you guys are proposing. I guess what I meant was are you actively trying to do something about it? Or are you just complaining, hoping that people will wise up? Complaining about it isn't going to accomplish anything. If you let your voice be known to those responsible and in control, then that's all you can do. Beyond that, it's pointless to keep whining about it.

For example, I've read that people like to plant Kentucky bluegrass in their yards. But it seems no amount of encouraging people to stop growing KY bluegrass is accomplishing anything. They keep growing it. So have you written to legislators, encouraging them to enact laws which forbids it? Can't restrictions be put in place regarding the consumptive use of water, such as watering lawns and owning swimming pools? Who is doing WHAT about any of it? All I'm hearing is talk. Is there any action taking place? Yes it's a legitimate problem, I agree. But the truth is, people are going to keep pouring into Colorado and the SW, and they are going to keep filling their pools and watering their lawns. So maybe building those pipelines from the great lakes isn't such a far fetched idea after all. But the longer the government thinks about it, the longer it will take to get built and the more problems there are going to be.

[aggies07]

Originally Posted by canyontiger2

Colorado has water but others want it and the dumb dumbs keep giving it away. There are metropolitan areas within the state that do not have water so take it away from someone else, the heck with them. I say, If you do not have the water don't grow. Grow where there is water. Why do we have to have big cities here anyway? Let the states that are drowning grow. Use their water, they have it. We can't turn back the clock but we can shut it off. Enough is enough. I know that will put lots of people out of work in the building etc industry but mostly politicians. But they too can follow the work. That is what most of us have done all our lives anyway. We lived where we found work. We have 3 larger cities. That's enough. They are drying up our states livelihood which has always been agriculture. It was set up many many yrs ago how much water should be sent out of the state. In some cases not real wisely as in so many ft of running water which should have been a % of water available or something of that sort. If in drought there is not that water to be had. Then they sue. There are only 2 states in the union that do not get water from anywhere else. Colorado and the other are islands. Colorado is not running out of water. We are wasting and over using it. Calif. wants it for swimming pools, Los Vegas for decoration etc etc.. Let them cut back on the fivilious. And people want Colorado to do away with only a tree and green lawns. Does not seem fair to me.

Great post, you know there has been talk of diverting water from the beautiful great lakes just to appease those wasteful fools in cal. nev. and ariz. be strong there in Colorado and never give in to them as I hope we stand firm up here in the great lakes too!!!

[jazzlover]

Writing legislators, etc. is a great idea--BUT. I actually worked "inside the system" in government in Colorado for quite a few years. The average citizen has NO idea how much political power the real estate development and construction lobby has in the state of Colorado. One of the reasons that no real meaningful action has been taken in Colorado to address the issues of sprawl and drying up of agriculture in favor of development is that ANY politician that proposes ANYTHING that threatens the developer/construction lobby gets immediately put on the political "hit list." I watched it first hand for over 20 years. And this is by no means a single-party issue. Both sides of the aisle are influenced by this lobby--even some of the so-called "left wing enviros" that outwardly profess to want to "protect the environment." Check out the contirbutor lists to campaigns and PAC's supporting almost any candidate for Colorado political office. The story is there.

[Nadine]

I don't want to get into this argument but I do have some questions. Those of you that are speaking of how to save water. -----Did you run water into a cup to brush your teeth this morning or did you let the faucet run. Did you let the water run for it to get cold before getting a drink or did you have a pitcher of water in the ref. Do you turn on the water and let run while you rinse off the dishes before putting them into the dishwasher? Or do you scrap them well and put them in. Most have disposals in them. Or even put them in a pan of water to rinse them all in the same water instead of rinsing all in different water, they are going thro hot sterilizing wash after anyway. Do you make sure the dishwasher cannot hold another item when you run it? Do you use the shortest cycle to wash that will clean them? Same with laundry. Do you wash your car with a bucket and sponge, then rinse once? Do you use a hose to clean the porch and sidewalk always or do you sweep it first and wash it less. I could go on and on, but you see what I mean. Watering lawns certainly is not the only way water may or may not be wasted.