Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: lawyers, home)

[Mike from back east]

Nadine....I'll moderate the arguing here on this topic to that of only a good healthy 'arguing' of alternatives, as opposed to name calling, blaming or anger. We will argue in the highest sense of good debate. If I'm guilty of being ill tempered, I hereby offer my apology to one and all.

Your words are similar to my wife's experience back in the DC area, 30 miles west of town, where she grew up in a home that was on a well and septic system. I never saw them water a lawn. Her neighbors were also on well and septic sytems and were a bit more rustic about, extending "water control" to how often they flushed. Her neighbor's motto was "if its yellow let it mellow but if its brown send it down."

Even back east, with abundant water, they went to low flow toilets, aerated faucet nozzles, etc. Though it may seem odd to locals here in this dry climate, they still have water issues back in the east, even with rainfall of 36-inches a year.

In the Baltimore/DC area, reservoirs and the Potomac River get low when it doesn't rain for a while, and then they too get water restrictions on sprinklers and car washing, not every year, but it happens. BTDT. Cost to build water purification plants, sewage handing facilities and related infrastructure is high everywhere, not just here, so low flow toilets are now part of the national plumbing code.

There is a lot we can do. I'd like to see removal/ban of HOA community covenants requiring any grass at all, and banning thirsty varieties in places where grass is permitted. I'd be happy with no grass at all, astroturf costs a bit more to put in but I'd save the cost on water and mowing. For those with lawns, would like to see mandated use of drip irrigation vice the usual pop-up spray systems that waste 50% or more of the water used. Drip irrigation goes in UNDER the sod, a set of pipes in straight lines about 18 inches apart and uses such little water that I'm told these lawn systems are exempt from whenever water restrictions are in effect. One of my neighbors has one and I had no idea what it was until I asked the landscaper putting it in to tell me about it. I wish I had known....or had chosen a better landscaper....

s/Mike

[jazzlover]

Nadine (and others),

Water conservation is not a simple issue, and the nature of water use complicates the picture. Nadine, if you don't mind, let me use Canon City as an example. I believe Canon City gets most of its municipal water from the Arkansas River. So, water diverted from the river (or its tributaries) is piped to the treatment plant, then distributed to the users of the water (you, for example). Now, when you do your dishes or flush the toilet, that water goes into the sewer system and, somewhere downstream (less any leakage or evaporation, which is counted as comsumptive use) , is returned to the Arkansas River. That water use, for anyone downstream of the sewer plant, is "non-consumptive." The water was just diverted from the river for some distance. So, if no water user was "injured" between the point of diversion and where the water returns to the river--no harm, no foul.

Now, if that same water from the municipal system is used for lawn irrigation--THAT is 100% "consumptive use." That water never returns to the river. It is transevaporated into the atmosphere by the plants (grass) and returns to the "hydrologic cycle" to eventually fall as precipitation somewhere. So, chasing after conservation in the house (low-flow toilets, etc.) certainly is not a bad thing, but in a case like Canon City, it is essentially curtailing water use that is already largely non-consumptive. In theory, a homeowner on a sewer system could cut their "in-house" consumption of water to nothing, and have no appreciable net positive effect on the streamflow below the sewer plant.

Where water use becomes a problem is where the water is diverted from its basin or river of origin and never returns there. For example, water diverted from the Frying Pan drainage to the Arkansas River is 100% consumptive ("compensatory storage" is often built to try to mitigate this) to the basin of origin, regardless of how the water is used. So, your dishwater may be non-consumptive use in the Arkansas River, but may be 100% consumptive use in the Frying Pan drainage. Confused?

Well water use--100% consumptive, and the source is likely "ancient" water that is not necessarily renewable (some acquifers do not "recharge").

Domestic water use when disposed of in a septic tank--generally 100% consumptive.

Ag water use--100% consumptive. The difference here is that the water is actually being used to produce food and fiber--a much more worthy use than irrigating of non-productive grass.

This explanations should illustrate why I am so adamantly opposed to additional transbasin (consumptive use) diversions of water and supportive of a moratorium on additional well permits (which aggrevate water "mining" of depleting acquifers for 100% consumptive use). I believe consumptive use of water should be reserved for the growing of food, and for the necessary industrial activity that generates jobs and income for Coloradans, not for the wasteful lavishing on artificial non-native landscaping. We no longer can afford that.

[Nadine]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Nadine (and others),

Water conservation is not a simple issue, and the nature of water use complicates the picture. Nadine, if you don't mind, let me use Canon City as an example. I believe Canon City gets most of its municipal water from the Arkansas River. So, water diverted from the river (or its tributaries) is piped to the treatment plant, then distributed to the users of the water (you, for example). Now, when you do your dishes or flush the toilet, that water goes into the sewer system and, somewhere downstream (less any leakage or evaporation, which is counted as comsumptive use) , is returned to the Arkansas River. That water use, for anyone downstream of the sewer plant, is "non-consumptive." The water was just diverted from the river for some distance. So, if no water user was "injured" between the point of diversion and where the water returns to the river--no harm, no foul.

Now, if that same water from the municipal system is used for lawn irrigation--THAT is 100% "consumptive use." That water never returns to the river. It is transevaporated into the atmosphere by the plants (grass) and returns to the "hydrologic cycle" to eventually fall as precipitation somewhere. So, chasing after conservation in the house (low-flow toilets, etc.) certainly is not a bad thing, but in a case like Canon City, it is essentially curtailing water use that is already largely non-consumptive. In theory, a homeowner on a sewer system could cut their "in-house" consumption of water to nothing, and have no appreciable net positive effect on the streamflow below the sewer plant.

Where water use becomes a problem is where the water is diverted from its basin or river of origin and never returns there. For example, water diverted from the Frying Pan drainage to the Arkansas River is 100% consumptive ("compensatory storage" is often built to try to mitigate this) to the basin of origin, regardless of how the water is used. So, your dishwater may be non-consumptive use in the Arkansas River, but may be 100% consumptive use in the Frying Pan drainage. Confused?

Well water use--100% consumptive, and the source is likely "ancient" water that is not necessarily renewable (some acquifers do not "recharge").

Domestic water use when disposed of in a septic tank--generally 100% consumptive.

Ag water use--100% consumptive. The difference here is that the water is actually being used to produce food and fiber--a much more worthy use than irrigating of non-productive grass.

This explanations should illustrate why I am so adamantly opposed to additional transbasin (consumptive use) diversions of water and supportive of a moratorium on additional well permits (which aggrevate water "mining" of depleting acquifers for 100% consumptive use). I believe consumptive use of water should be reserved for the growing of food, and for the necessary industrial activity that generates jobs and income for Coloradans, not for the wasteful lavishing on artificial non-native landscaping. We no longer can afford that.

Hey all I said was there were lots of ways to save water. I am not going to be included in this argument. No I am not confused and I am not an uniformed idiot either. If you want to have rocks in your front yd. Have them. I irrigate from the river yes and I will continue to. I have a hay field and a small lawn which I will continue to keep. Animals do not eat rocks. I fill my dishwasher, my wash machine, and put a plug in my sink to wash my face etc etc etc. So you do your thing and I will do mine. But that does not make me wrong or you right. Water that my lawn, garden and fields do not use into the plants themselves goes into a water table that is about 2 ft below, flows into a number of different springs that flow back into the river. Those springs were not there until people stopped using wells. So now it spills over and comes out in the springs. You are speaking again of cities, large cities that take water from other areas. I don't and I don't waste. Oh by the way the PanAk did not have anything to do with Canon City.

[canyontiger2]

Originally Posted by Nadine

Hey all I said was there were lots of ways to save water. I am not going to be included in this argument. No I am not confused and I am not an uniformed idiot either. If you want to have rocks in your front yd. Have them. I irrigate from the river yes and I will continue to. I have a hay field and a small lawn which I will continue to keep. Animals do not eat rocks. I fill my dishwasher, my wash machine, and put a plug in my sink to wash my face etc etc etc. So you do your thing and I will do mine. But that does not make me wrong or you right. Water that my lawn, garden and fields do not use into the plants themselves goes into a water table that is about 2 ft below, flows into a number of different springs that flow back into the river. Those springs were not there until people stopped using wells. So now it spills over and comes out in the springs. You are speaking again of cities, large cities that take water from other areas. I don't and I don't waste. Oh by the way the PanAk did not have anything to do with Canon City.

Don't bother Nadine. Don't you know the good Lord sent us these people? from somewhere else to teach us dumb hicks how to live because the good Lord never educated any of us, and we need them to save us. None of us could possibly know anything about anything.

[jazzlover]

Nadine,

I was not trying to discourage your point. In fact, I agree with what you said. I was just trying to point out the complexity of the water issue, using your locale as an example. I am sorry if you took offense. That was not my intent. And, you are right, PanAk did not have anything to do with Canon City.

I do admire the fact that you are actually thinking about your water--where it comes from, how you use it, and the impacts from that. That puts you in a distinct minority of today's Colorado residents. I know that you also have lived and travelled about the state of Colorado for many years. I'm sure that you remember when South Park actually was a sub-irrigated paradise, and when the lower Arkansas valley was one of the largest irrigated ag areas in the state--both lost to the Front Range's appetite for Kentucky bluegrass.

Again, I'm sorry if you took offense. I do tend to get pretty passionate about my home state.

[zaphod07]

I pretty much agree with your statements... but I don't for a moment think that it spells doom and gloom.... remember...money talks and walks! Where there is a need for a product we 'mericans somehow come up with a way to provide it! Me, I have 160 out in the boonies... 4 1/2 miles to the nearest power pole....8 miles from the "divide". But, I also have a spring that provides me with cool 52 degree water, 24/7 and it consistantly test 99.9% pure. Never freezes up, never runs dry... Provides me all I need. you want water, you better live near the source! I have thought about developing that water for bottling purposes, but then again.... nah!

[jazzlover]

canyontiger2,

I don't know if your comment was directed to me, but I happen to be one of those "dumb hicks" who knows what irrigating boots and an irrigating shovel are--and how to use both. I've also personally been involved with water issues for 30 years+ in Colorado. To put that in perspective, the median age of Coloradans is about 35 years old. That means that I was dealing with Colorado water issues before about half of the current Colorado residents were even born. I'm also a Colorado native and have lived in both urban and rural Colorado--on both sides of the Continental Divide. So, I would definitely not call myself one of the outsiders trying to tell Coloradans how to live.

I just happen to be one of those native Coloradans who actually cares about what happens to my native state. I guess I should take the advice of one of my bureaucratic acquaintances, "It would be a whole lot easier if you would just quit giving a **** about it."

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

For those with lawns, would like to see mandated use of drip irrigation vice the usual pop-up spray systems that waste 50% or more of the water used. Drip irrigation goes in UNDER the sod, a set of pipes in straight lines about 18 inches apart and uses such little water that I'm told these lawn systems are exempt from whenever water restrictions are in effect. One of my neighbors has one and I had no idea what it was until I asked the landscaper putting it in to tell me about it. I wish I had known....or had chosen a better landscaper....

s/Mike

That's a great idea. How does the water actually make it into the soil? Is it like a soaker hose or are there nozzles every so often like an above-ground drip system?

[formercalifornian]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, and I also catch the initial burst of cold shower water in a bucket to water the potted plants on the porch. I also turn off the shower while I shave my legs.
No; the refrigerator door delivers cold, filtered water on demand.
Yes, and the dishes get just as clean.
Yes, although I don't stuff the dishwasher because then the dishes come out dirty, requiring a second wash.
Absolutely, I use the shortest cycle for both the dishes and the laundry.
No, I use the carwash down the street about once a month.
Yes, I sweep the walks and the garage, too.

As far as the lawn, every third day, I water for 15 minutes in the evening, when it's cooler, to cut down on heat evaporation.

Not all transplants are water-hogging hypocrites.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

That's a great idea. How does the water actually make it into the soil? Is it like a soaker hose or are there nozzles every so often like an above-ground drip system?

It's like a soaker, tiny openings all along the pipe, about 2 inches below the surface. Neighbor's lawn looks fine. See Diagram.
http://www.rainbird.com/drip/specdra...e2BlwGrd-P.jpg

s/Mike