Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: auction, dangerous)

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Nonsense, this is the kind of radical environmentalism that is strangling our country and causing gridlock in everything from water resources to manufacturing. The waco environmentalists want everyone to believe that we must return to the stone age and put the welfare of bugs and plants above those of people. They are the real danger to this country and will not be happy until they have brought all progress to a halt. To argue that it is impractical to invest in infrastructure that would pay huge future dividends for the country as a whole, when at the same time we are giving trillions to private corporations that benefit only the wealthy is the definition of stupidity. The real objective of environmentalist is to put a stop to any infrastructure that would support future development. They would be much happier if huge numbers of humanity were killed off and the earth de-evolved ten thousand years.

I'm an environmentalist and I do not want to return us to the stone age. I have no desire to bring real progress to a halt. I do not wish to put a stop to any (by which you mean all) infrastructure that would support future development. I would not be happier if huge numbers of humanity were killed off and the earth de-evolved ten thousand years.

I do think that nature, to a large degree, follows a self correcting oscillating pattern that, when a certain dynamic has been exceeded, leads to a significant change in the environment - sometimes local, sometimes global. I think we should take care of each other as human beings, but I also think that our tendency to anthrocentrism (when it comes to determining our "importance" in the grand scheme of things) can lead us to wreckless behavior due to a lack of information (or sometimes the presumption that we have enough information) or a lack of education.

Human beings are certainly capable of grand engineering projects and we tend to declare such projects as signs of "progress." That's well and good but it usually fails to address either the definition or the cost of such progress. So long as we acknowledge what we're trading when we undertake something as epic as, say, the Central Arizona Project, and we take responsibility for the possible consequences of those actions, then fine. We've made our choices.

Some projects however are simply unnecessary. We are willing go expend amazing amounts of energy, time and resources to alter our environment in order to create (or recreate) a lifestyle that is not natively conducive to a locale. However, we are quite lazy and objectionable to the notion of altering our lifestyles slightly to suit our environment...the path of least resistance...particularly when that environment has already "figured out" an efficient way of supporting life.

Otherwise we are "gold rushing" places for their temporal properties, often ruining the very things that make them desirable, and dictating to an ecosystem that has no emotion, compassion or consciousness, but can reject us by changing (forcing us to expend even more energy and effort on further projects) into something not only unsustainable, but that can also have repurcussions elsewhere. Maybe over the next hill, or the next county, or the next body of water.

Colorado has delicate water issues. It's at the top of the table. It has an increasing population. Farms vs cities. Forests and mountains vs deserts and plains. The notion that we can just pump our water down from British Columbia, across the Great Basin and to CA, NV, WY, AZ, UT, NM and CO - and that those problems will be resolved is...well, frankly, a pipe dream. The Colorado River Compact is already complicated by the policies of seven different independent governments. What would all this additional water do to the West anyway? Invite more people to move out where the bounty is plentiful? Where they would demand even more when the tap is turned that the water must flow. What would be the impact on British Columbia and it's region? A windfall of cash, perhaps? But as an area the size of Mexico draws and demands even more (it's own environment increasingly dependent on BC snowmelt and water tables), would the province be able to handle the changes to it's environment as animals are forced to migrate elsewhere and invasive species creep in to replace native ones that are accustomed to a different environment? I'm not necessarily suggesting the desertification of British Columbia mind you, but changes do happen. Every inch of this planet has seen massive changes in climate and ecology over it's 4 billion history and will see many more. The question is how do those changes affect not only the environment but...well, us. At slow rates, we may have time to adapt, but at an accelerated pace, whether by our hands or not, it becomes a larger problem for us to face.

We are not separate from our environment. We rely on it. In many ways, it relies on us.

Why is it so hard for us to try and live with our environment rather than always fighting it? Two hundred years ago we measured progress by conquering our environment. I suggest that we can easily consider understanding (and I don't mean this in any touchy / feely way), interacting and working with our environment to be an equally valid measure of progress.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by jimhcom

Sounds as if you are assuming the water would be traveling by canal. The proposal was for a pipeline. I really do not think Washington and Oregon need any more water, and I am lost as to why anyone would be pumping sewage and fertilizer into a water supply.

Why, to get rid of it, of course. It's been standard practice for many corporations since the industrial revolution.

But then sometimes we let our own politics and economies determine why: Gaza sewage pumped into the sea over past three months - Haaretz - Israel News (an old story, but a fine illustration.)

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by zenkonami

I'm an environmentalist and I do not want to return us to the stone age. I have no desire to bring real progress to a halt. I do not wish to put a stop to any (by which you mean all) infrastructure that would support future development. I would not be happier if huge numbers of humanity were killed off and the earth de-evolved ten thousand years.

I do think that nature, to a large degree, follows a self correcting oscillating pattern that, when a certain dynamic has been exceeded, leads to a significant change in the environment - sometimes local, sometimes global. I think we should take care of each other as human beings, but I also think that our tendency to anthrocentrism (when it comes to determining our "importance" in the grand scheme of things) can lead us to wreckless behavior due to a lack of information (or sometimes the presumption that we have enough information) or a lack of education.

Human beings are certainly capable of grand engineering projects and we tend to declare such projects as signs of "progress." That's well and good but it usually fails to address either the definition or the cost of such progress. So long as we acknowledge what we're trading when we undertake something as epic as, say, the Central Arizona Project, and we take responsibility for the possible consequences of those actions, then fine. We've made our choices.

Some projects however are simply unnecessary. We are willing go expend amazing amounts of energy, time and resources to alter our environment in order to create (or recreate) a lifestyle that is not natively conducive to a locale. However, we are quite lazy and objectionable to the notion of altering our lifestyles slightly to suit our environment...the path of least resistance...particularly when that environment has already "figured out" an efficient way of supporting life.

Otherwise we are "gold rushing" places for their temporal properties, often ruining the very things that make them desirable, and dictating to an ecosystem that has no emotion, compassion or consciousness, but can reject us by changing (forcing us to expend even more energy and effort on further projects) into something not only unsustainable, but that can also have repurcussions elsewhere. Maybe over the next hill, or the next county, or the next body of water.

Colorado has delicate water issues. It's at the top of the table. It has an increasing population. Farms vs cities. Forests and mountains vs deserts and plains. The notion that we can just pump our water down from British Columbia, across the Great Basin and to CA, NV, WY, AZ, UT, NM and CO - and that those problems will be resolved is...well, frankly, a pipe dream. The Colorado River Compact is already complicated by the policies of seven different independent governments. What would all this additional water do to the West anyway? Invite more people to move out where the bounty is plentiful? Where they would demand even more when the tap is turned that the water must flow. What would be the impact on British Columbia and it's region? A windfall of cash, perhaps? But as an area the size of Mexico draws and demands even more (it's own environment increasingly dependent on BC snowmelt and water tables), would the province be able to handle the changes to it's environment as animals are forced to migrate elsewhere and invasive species creep in to replace native ones that are accustomed to a different environment? I'm not necessarily suggesting the desertification of British Columbia mind you, but changes do happen. Every inch of this planet has seen massive changes in climate and ecology over it's 4 billion history and will see many more. The question is how do those changes affect not only the environment but...well, us. At slow rates, we may have time to adapt, but at an accelerated pace, whether by our hands or not, it becomes a larger problem for us to face.

We are not separate from our environment. We rely on it. In many ways, it relies on us.

Why is it so hard for us to try and live with our environment rather than always fighting it? Two hundred years ago we measured progress by conquering our environment. I suggest that we can easily consider understanding (and I don't mean this in any touchy / feely way), interacting and working with our environment to be an equally valid measure of progress.

You make some very valid points. One problem I do have with discussions concerning fixing water problems in the southwest is the argument that it will attract more population. The birth rate now in the U.S and Europe is less than 2 per household meaning we are now reproducing at a rate less than to maintain the population. The only reason the population is continuing to increase is due to immigration, which makes our problems more political than environmental. Unless our future planning is comprehensive and takes all these factors into consideration it will not be successful. Current discussions on future planning seem to be a hodgepodge of one sided arguments that are both politically and profit oriented. My argument is that the water problems we have now are not that bad, and are fixable at current population levels. If we continue to allow massive immigration we will be creating problems in the future.

[Idunn]

"People say that water is a lot like air. Do you charge for air? Of course not, you shouldn't charge for water. Well okay, watch what happens."
- Boone Pickens


Concerning water, the 2007 movie 'Flow' can prove educational. It is available for purchase from such sources as iTunes and Amazon, considerably less expensive from iTunes. It may be, but I have located no source of rental. This movie is specifically concerned with water as a resource and how we use and manage it. While its scope is global, it most particularly is applicable, and touches upon, the American West and such places as Colorado.

"For the longest time people have taken water for granted. Most people don't think about where their water comes from, they just turn on a tap and they expect it to be there. Those days are ending."*
(* All quotes are directly from this movie)


"The Nile river doesn't reach its end. The Colorado river, the Yellow river in China, they, for the most part, don't flow anymore to the sea."


"The United States does not keep active records of how many people get sick from our water supply every year. There are estimates that from 500,000 to 7 million people get sick per year from drinking their tap water."


"We are not removing things like industrial chemicals, rocket fuel, pesticides, certain pharmaceuticals, drugs that were discharged either by big animal factories or by sewage treatment plants. A lot of people think that they don't have to worry about their water supply because they go out and buy bottled water. Well, we have news for them. In fact a lot of your exposure to many of the chemicals comes from the simple act of showering in them. So some of these more volatile pollutants come in through your skin."


"People assume that there is somebody in the government protecting their water supply, and that is often not the case. One of the most extraordinary examples of that is the most common pesticide sprayed in the United States, atrazine. . . Atrazine itself is a herbicide, or a weed killer, and it is used on products such as corn. It is the number one contaminant found in drinking water, and ground water, and surface water. . . We found that atrazine had a number of effects, but most significantly atrazine demasculinized the exposed male frogs. I would say even chemically castrated. We went on to show that that in addition to being demasculinized they were also feminized. So that in other words male amphibeans would grow ovaries and even produce eggs. Fish showed similar effects, their sperm counts drop and they start to make egg yolk protein. Does that mean atrazine is causing a global decline of sperms counts in men? Again the experimental and epidemiological data suggests that atrazine may play a very significant role. . . In the entire European Union atrazine has been banned, and in effect that is the only way you can limit atrazine levels because it can travel up to 600 miles, a 1,000 kilometers, in the rain water. In fact of the 80 million pounds of atrazine we use in the United States, about a half million pounds of that atrazine comes back in the rain water. And the irony is, I guess, that here is a European company selling 80 million pounds of a product in the United States where it's not even legal in their home country."


"There are private corporate interests that have decided that water is going to be put on the open market for sale, it's going to be commodified, and treated as any other salable good. . . The market is amoral. It is going to lead you to taking advantage of pollution and scarcity, frankly it's going to lead you to selling to those who can buy it and not to those who need it."


"There has really been a concerted effort to mischaracterize the degree of threat that is facing us. . . We have wars going on in the world over oil, because of pricing of oil, and if we take the same path with water that's oil all over again."


"It is not an issue of lack of knowledge. It is a lack of political will. We have to collectively find the political will to do what needs to be done to save the world's water sources."


"You know those movies where there is the comet coming at the Earth, and all of a sudden the governments of the world say, 'gee, our differences are not so big anymore because we're about to all die.' That's really where we are. There is a comet coming at us, it's called water shortage. . . . Climate change is a real problem. Humans are changing the climate. We already see evidence about it. One of the most significant impacts of climate change will be on our water resources."

[Josseppie]

This is from the Denver post, looks like Colorado might be geting more water:







"The $3 billion pipeline would carry water not claimed from the Green River Basin, south of Wyoming's Wind River Mountains, along Interstate 80 and Interstate 25 to high-growth cities from Fort Collins to Pueblo."

The link: Thirsty cities eye Wyoming water - The Denver Post

[livecontent]

Josseppie,

I just knew when I read this article on this big water project, you would be excited about the idea and that it would happen. I doubt that it will happen because the opposition to these schemes will stop them. If indeed it gets passed all the court cases, it will be in the next century.

We have more than enough water. The simple approach is the easiest--stop watering all these useless lawns. Return the water rights to farming which is the eminent right. Water restricted plumbing and appliance should be mandatory. Outdoor irrigation should be drastically restricted and completely prohibited during certain days and times of day. Violators should expect fines, imprisonment and seizure of property. Specific residential plants and grasses should mandated and certain types prohibited. Encouragement should be given to fruit and vegetable gardening.

Increase individual home water/sewer cost dramatically and fully prevent water usage beyond preset determinations. Meter homes that measure water usage in smaller units and force and encourage consumption to minimum levels by severe fines and heavy costs. Give good rebates and cash incentives to those who use of water is below determined usage per household. I would get school children involved in a program to monitor their home water use and give them rewards for minimizing use.

By metering water with smaller increments with digital daily readings; it will allow micro monitoring and encourage more individual responsibility. I use about 2 to 3 thousand gallons of water every two months. I really cannot tell the exact amount because the meter only measures in 1000 gallon units. So one month it is 2 and the next month it may be 3. If I had a more precise feedback, I would be able to know at the point where I am using more water and take an effort to reduce it.

Yea, you are all going to say this idea is crazy. But, each household by saving a few gallons, here and there, can lead to significant reduction over the whole population. I would even go further and put these meters on a overall system management. When, the usage exceeds a certain amount every day, I would reduce or stop water to each individual household that exceeds the standards. The monitoring would be very precise so that we can see immediately the excessive use of water by household and take punitive action.

In addition, I would require mandatory education of the populace of the farming and livestock industry. I would require that each and every capable individual in high school and college be required to work a set period of time, every year, doing menial farm labor. You do not do the work, you get reduced benefits in our society and will be subject to hard labor imprisonment.

We need to educate our society on the importance of basic food production. We need them to see and appreciate the importance of agriculture and the wasteful diversion of water from these uses. In addition they must also understand the importance of water in industry and that growing lawns in not a good use of limited resources.

Livecontent

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by livecontent

Josseppie,

I just knew when I read this article on this big water project, you would be excited about the idea and that it would happen. I doubt that it will happen because the opposition to these schemes will stop them. If indeed it gets passed all the court cases, it will be in the next century.

We have more than enough water. The simple approach is the easiest--stop watering all these useless lawns. Return the water rights to farming which is the eminent right. Water restricted plumbing and appliance should be mandatory. Outdoor irrigation should be drastically restricted and completely prohibited during certain days and times of day. Violators should expect fines, imprisonment and seizure of property. Specific residential plants and grasses should mandated and certain types prohibited. Encouragement should be given to fruit and vegetable gardening.

Increase individual home water/sewer cost dramatically and fully prevent water usage beyond preset determinations. Meter homes that measure water usage in smaller units and force and encourage consumption to minimum levels by severe fines and heavy costs. Give good rebates and cash incentives to those who use of water is below determined usage per household. I would get school children involved in a program to monitor their home water use and give them rewards for minimizing use.

By metering water with smaller increments with digital daily readings; it will allow micro monitoring and encourage more individual responsibility. I use about 2 to 3 thousand gallons of water every two months. I really cannot tell the exact amount because the meter only measures in 1000 gallon units. So one month it is 2 and the next month it may be 3. If I had a more precise feedback, I would be able to know at the point where I am using more water and take an effort to reduce it.

Yea, you are all going to say this idea is crazy. But, each household by saving a few gallons, here and there, can lead to significant reduction over the whole population. I would even go further and put these meters on a overall system management. When, the usage exceeds a certain amount every day, I would reduce or stop water to each individual household that exceeds the standards. The monitoring would be very precise so that we can see immediately the excessive use of water by household and take punitive action.

In addition, I would require mandatory education of the populace of the farming and livestock industry. I would require that each and every capable individual in high school and college be required to work a set period of time, every year, doing menial farm labor. You do not do the work, you get reduced benefits in our society and will be subject to hard labor imprisonment.

We need to educate our society on the importance of basic food production. We need them to see and appreciate the importance of agriculture and the wasteful diversion of water from these uses. In addition they must also understand the importance of water in industry and that growing lawns in not a good use of limited resources.

Livecontent

You got it right, livecontent. I knew the water buffalo idiots would be salivating over this article, but it's just another loser scheme by the developers to perpetrate more sprawl. The Front Range has plenty of water without diverting one additional drop, if even a scintilla of water conservation was practiced with the consumptive uses of water (lawn irrigation) out there in suburbia.

The fact is that these outlandish water diversion schemes are promoted by the land developers who love chewing up open land for their bull**** developments because that is the cheapest and most profitable way for them to develop. ESPECIALLY, when they can stick the taxpayers with the costs of the water diversion. Why people can't see through that scam just plain escapes me.

Get this right: all of those water diversion and land development schemes do nothing to benefit existing Coloradans--unless they are part of the development cancer determined to ruin this state. Nothing. BUT, we existing Coloradans, through either taxes or rising water rates (not to mention the environmental devastation), will definitely get to help pay for it. I hear constantly about people revolting against high taxes--well, here's a chance to do something. Make sure that projects like this get stabbed in the heart, and make the developers pay for ALL of the costs that their developments generate--instead of socializing the costs and the problems onto to current Colorado residents.

As far as these water diversion and land development schemes go, I think there is a special place in hell for the people who support and promote them; maybe they can try to divert some water down there--they''ll need it.

[Josseppie]

Livecontentent said:

I just knew when I read this article on this big water project, you would be excited about the idea and that it would happen. I doubt that it will happen because the opposition to these schemes will stop them. If indeed it gets passed all the court cases, it will be in the next century.


LOL I am glad to see you thinking of me when you read this article. To be honest I think its kewl that we all know each other so good in here that we can predict how we will react to certain news and events and for the most part do it in a respectful way. That is why I like this site.

As far as water, to be honest I am not sure how much water the greater Denver area has or Fort Collins and how long they can go with out a project like this but I can tell you with the Bessemer Ditch and other local sources Pueblo has more then enough water for this century for any kind of growth that will come our way. So if we don't get this till next century that is ok with me as we will be preparing for Pueblo's future just like the earlier generations did for us.

[Ticky909]

I would hate for either of those projects to take place, I'd probably move somewhere else if this is the way things continue to be done.

[CosmicWizard]

livecontent wrote:

Yea, you are all going to say this idea is crazy. But, each household by saving a few gallons, here and there, can lead to significant reduction over the whole population. I would even go further and put these meters on a overall system management. When, the usage exceeds a certain amount every day, I would reduce or stop water to each individual household that exceeds the standards. The monitoring would be very precise so that we can see immediately the excessive use of water by household and take punitive action.

Not a crazy idea at all....rather it an idea of absolute sanity! Water abusers are criminals and they deserve punishment for their criminal actions.