Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: city hall, assess)

[MimzyMusic]

haha you ain't gettin' any of oregon's!

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by xeric

You don't think that the treatment of water, or the energy used to pump it to your house generates greenhouse gasses? By your own admission you use very large quantities of water during the hot months of the year to keep your yard green. I doubt that the trees and grass in your yard make up for that in absorbed greenhouse gasses. But even if they did, that would still make your argument something along the lines of the following: "Americans generate excessive quantities of greenhouse gasses so to make up for that we should use excessive amounts of water to increase the amount of vegetation in our yard which will absorb more of those greenhouse gasses."

I've got a better idea: reduce our emission of greenhouse gasses AND our consumption of water to moderate levels. Just say no to excess, not only in the above examples when it comes to amassing huge personal debt, buying houses much larger then we need (and can afford), super-sizing all of our meals, and host of other things we have loved to do in this country. (I'm going to step off my soapbox now, lest I be accused of excessive moralizing.)

Instead of lowering my standard of living why not build "greener" ways to produce power like nuclear, wind power, solar power, bio mass, natural gas etc.

This not only allows me to water my lawn but creates thousands of jobs in our local economy! In fact there are many planed just go to the economy thread to see what is planned!

[xeric]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Instead of lowering my standard of living why not build "greener" ways to produce power like nuclear, wind power, solar power, bio mass, natural gas etc.

This not only allows me to water my lawn but creates thousands of jobs in our local economy! In fact there are many planed just go to the economy thread to see what is planned!

Reducing the size and greenness of your yard in a desert area equates to a lower standard of living? That's like feeling deprived because you don't have as many luxuries as you used to. But I suppose it's true in a strictly quantitative sense: if a man who is worth 10 million loses a million in the stock market then his standard of living is reduced by 10%. Still, the level of importance of that event loses some significance because he started off with such a large amount.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by xeric

Reducing the size and greenness of your yard in a desert area equates to a lower standard of living? That's like feeling deprived because you don't have as many luxuries as you used to. But I suppose it's true in a strictly quantitative sense: if a man who is worth 10 million loses a million in the stock market then his standard of living is reduced by 10%. Still, the level of importance of that event loses some significance because he started off with such a large amount.

I have always said that if I lived in a city that did not have enough water for its residents I would do what I could to save water, in fact the one time Pueblo did have restrictions do to a major drought I cut back my usage.

The reality is living in Pueblo that is not something I have to worry about, our concern is more on economic growth and urban renewal as we have plenty of water for a city close to 500,000 people and buying more water. Pueblo has so much water that we leases water to other cities, like Aurora, to keep our rates low. Even this year the reservoir is completely full and there will be no water issues this year even though the city of Pueblo has had a dry winter.

[jazzlover]

And you still don't give a **** about how many acres of prime agricultural land have been dried up in Colorado so you can waste water on your bluegrass lawn. Maybe when transporting food across the country (or halfway around the world) is no longer economically practical--we are very close to that day--and having to rely on mostly locally and regionally grown foodstuffs is necessary to keep from going hungry--well, maybe then you'll give a **** about Colorado farmers (instead of you) having water again. You'll probably have to go hungry for awhile first, though, to figure it out. City-slickers are like that.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

And you still don't give a **** about how many acres of prime agricultural land have been dried up in Colorado so you can waste water on your bluegrass lawn. Maybe when transporting food across the country (or halfway around the world) is no longer economically practical--we are very close to that day--and having to rely on mostly locally and regionally grown foodstuffs is necessary to keep from going hungry--well, maybe then you'll give a **** about Colorado farmers (instead of you) having water again. You'll probably have to go hungry for awhile first, though, to figure it out. City-slickers are like that.

How much land has been lost so Pueblo can have green lawn? Not much considering we are the same size we were back in the 1960s. Even if we grow at my optimistic projections do you really think Pueblo will need much more water in the coming century?

[Josseppie]

I just saw this about Pueblo:

"Pueblo can go through a 7 year drought and have plenty of water"

Source: Pueblo Board of Water Works.

Note: That is before Pueblo buys the Bessemer ditch that will add to our water supply.

[Josseppie]

If they can get the goverment to pay for it then why can't Colroado Springs get the federal goverment to pay for part of the SDS?

Legislation authorizing the Arkansas Valley Conduit, along with other area water projects, cleared the U.S. House Wednesday by a 285-140 vote.

The vote follows Senate approval last week of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which includes 170 separate measures and would add 2 million acres of wilderness designation in nine states.

The Arkansas Valley Conduit was originally authorized in 1962 as part of the Fryingpan-Arkansas

The link: The Pueblo Chieftain :: Conduit legislation passes house

[zenkonami]

With the chatter this board gets about water in Colorado, this seemed an appropriate article to share.

Must our water always flow uphill toward money? — High Country News

[Josseppie]

FEMA is creating major problems for a number of cities in the west by changing the 100 flood plain map. Two cities this is affecting in Colorado for sure are Pueblo and Fort Collins, as they are going to put both downtown's including CSU Fort Collins in a 100 year flood plain.

The good news for Pueblo is they have the option to certify levees, even though it will cost a small fortune, I am not sure what Fort Collins has to do to keep their university and downtown from being put in a 100 year flood plain.

Here is what KRDO said about it but it has been all over the media in the Pueblo metro area.




PUEBLO - The Federal agency, FEMA has warned city council that new flood maps could put downtown Pueblo in a 100-year flood plain.

The link: http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=10147212