Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: tax, agriculture)

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by 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.

Can you explain two things: 1) who decides what is too much water for everyone to use and 2) why is it a criminal offense to use more then some poltican says we should use?

[CosmicWizard]

Josseppie wrote:

Can you explain two things:

1) who decides what is too much water for everyone to use

The best way I can think of to make that determination, would be for each community ( subjest to state approval ) to establish their own standards, written into law, including penalties for over consumption.

2) why is it a criminal offense to use more then some poltican says we should use?

Becasue the community at large would make it a criminal act, and it would not be determined by some politician. The penalties would be spelled out in the law. Penalties for using more than ones alloted share of water would be much the same as a penalties for speeding. Just like the penalty for speeding 30 miles above the speed limit is far more seve than speeding 10 miles above the speed limit, the penalty for a large over consumption ( as clarified in the local lwas ) would be far more sever than the penalty for a mosdest over consumption.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

Josseppie wrote:

Can you explain two things:

1) who decides what is too much water for everyone to use

The best way I can think of to make that determination, would be for each community ( subjest to state approval ) to establish their own standards, written into law, including penalties for over consumption.

2) why is it a criminal offense to use more then some poltican says we should use?

Becasue the community at large would make it a criminal act, and it would not be determined by some politician. The penalties would be spelled out in the law. Penalties for using more than ones alloted share of water would be much the same as a penalties for speeding. Just like the penalty for speeding 30 miles above the speed limit is far more seve than speeding 10 miles above the speed limit, the penalty for a large over consumption ( as clarified in the local lwas ) would be far more sever than the penalty for a mosdest over consumption.

That is kind of what we do now. Cities like Pueblo that have plenty of water don't have to have restrictions while other cities that do not have enough water do have restrictions. People in those cities get fined if they brake the water restrictions.

[livecontent]

The current water restrictions are just for the days of the week or time of day. I am talking about restriction based on the amount of water that is reasonably necessary for a person/household to use in a day with amounts added for drinking, bathing, cooking, washing and some irrigation. That amount can easily be determined under a defined maximum.

As I said, the best I can determine is that I use between 2,000 to 3,000 gallons every 2 months. So, let us say 2500 gallons for the period and 1250 gallons every 30 days or 42 gallon a day. How much water do you use in your household?

If we had better digital water meters with more precise measurement, we can better manage the water usage and have incentives for using less.

What is wrong with government setting standards of behavior and conduct. We do that every day. It is not some politician; it is the people acting in a collective voice in a democratic republic. Of course, many of you do not like any control for yourself but demand control for others that differ from your behavior and opinions. Well, all people in a organized society have to accept restrictions.

It is far less costly to initiate better controls on water usage than to permanently tear up the land to have more water for your lawns. That is what it is really about, to irrigate land for lawns--absolutely stupid. Do not give me that nonsense about planning for future generations. What you are doing is robbing from the future to pay for the excesses of today.

I do not have a lawn. I will not have a lawn. Up to two weeks ago, I had a treed lot but the recent storms caused me to spend thousands to remove many of the trees. Now, I am planning a low maintenance landscape of plants that can tolerate little or no water. Also, I may plant a "Victory Garden" in the front of my house, just to stick it to my water wasting neighbors. Let see what will look really good----corn, yea, nice and big and noticeable with beans planted between the rows with a big dirty straw scarecrow. Got to add some natural scent to my little farm--a big pile of manure and a steaming compost. I hear that raising chickens are become the new in thing--boy, does chicken poop stink. Hey, I may dress as Chief Fakum (Wardo Churchill) and claim my rights as a "Native" American, Coloradan, New Yawk Sicilian, Disabled Veteran, Pioneer. Yes, Yes...

Livecontent

[Josseppie]

If a city has plenty of water why should they restrict how much water its citizens use? Why should a city not plan ahead for future generations? Just because 2,000 gallons a month works for some people does not mean it works for another? I support your right not to have a lawn just as much as I support my right to have a lawn and I don't think that you or I are any better just because one of us chooses to have a lawn and use more water and the other does not and uses less water. That is just a lifestyle choice that we made that works for us.

[Fenrisulfr]

The solution to the water problem lies not with restrictions, but rather letting the price reflect the supply and demand dynamic. This may be done through a Dutch-style auctioning system whereupon the highest bidder gets their quantity of water at their price, and so on for the next-highest, etc. down the line.

[livecontent]

I am talking about the state to set standards of water usage with federal mandates.

Do not give me that lifestyle baloney. If a lifestyle is dangerous or injurious to any other person and our home, then that lifestyle and behavior should be prohibited. We do it everyday in every aspect of our lives. Growing water sucking blue grass in this state is injurious to our fragile environment. Lifestyle be damned. It is the lifestyle of many to deny rights to others because they look different; it is the lifestyle of many who harass people because of they are born with different sexual persuasions; it is the lifestyle of many to drink and drive; it is the lifestyle of many to beat their wives; it is the lifestyle of many to abuse their children. Yes, there are many lifestyles that have been prohibited and restricted in our society. You are claiming that growing blue grass is a protected right for your independent personal freedoms---bull.

What do think that you live in a little protected enclave of Pueblo. What you do affects me; what I do affects you. Pueblo has enough water and we can waste it--again bull.

Livecontent

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by Fenrisulfr

The solution to the water problem lies not with restrictions, but rather letting the price reflect the supply and demand dynamic. This may be done through a Dutch-style auctioning system whereupon the highest bidder gets their quantity of water at their price, and so on for the next-highest, etc. down the line.

Now we have the rights of the wealthy, who can claim more because they have more---nonsense. We do not need "Lexus Lawns". Buying more at a higher price does nothing to prevent excessive use. There is always people willing to pay and waste.

Livecontent

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by livecontent

I am talking about the state to set standards of water usage with federal mandates.

Do not give me that lifestyle baloney. If a lifestyle is dangerous or injurious to any other person and our home, then that lifestyle and behavior should be prohibited. We do it everyday in every aspect of our lives. Growing water sucking blue grass in this state is injurious to our fragile environment. Lifestyle be damned. It is the lifestyle of many to deny rights to others because they look different; it is the lifestyle of many who harass people because of they are born with different sexual persuasions; it is the lifestyle of many to drink and drive; it is the lifestyle of many to beat their wives; it is the lifestyle of many to abuse their children. Yes, there are many lifestyles that have been prohibited and restricted in our society. You are claiming that growing blue grass is a protected right for your independent personal freedoms---bull.

What do think that you live in a little protected enclave of Pueblo. What you do affects me; what I do affects you. Pueblo has enough water and we can waste it--again bull.

Livecontent

I think this issue is to complicated for federal mandates and I know any state would fight that all the way to the supreme court if the federal government tried anything like that and I have a feeling states would win. Same is said even with in the states, people in Denver use less water then people in Pueblo. One of the reasons is depending on where you live you might not need as much water so one standard for all does not work. Just like out west we drive more then people back east simply because of geography.

The likely hood of them placing the kind of restrictions on us for our water is about as likely if less likely then us getting the pipeline from Wyoming to bring Colorado more water.

[Fenrisulfr]

Originally Posted by livecontent

Now we have the rights of the wealthy, who can claim more because they have more---nonsense. We do not need "Lexus Lawns". Buying more at a higher price does nothing to prevent excessive use. There is always people willing to pay and waste.

Only about 7% of water use in the United States is municipal:

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p445-456horrigan/fig2.jpg (broken link)

Additionally, the auction system lets the market dictate what is 'excessive' or not. If one wants a Lexus Lawn, let them pay for it. Higher water prices as determined by supply and demand and as dictated by the market would allow industry and agriculture to adjust their business models to perhaps free up supply so that the part of the 7% that is so pernicious in your eyes will be a non-issue.