Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: bankrupt, subsidized)

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by treedonkey

Oh, great, it's not bad enough we have major international wars going on over natural resources already... Now we've got to stir up interSTATE contentions as well.

Nothin' new about that--the Western states have been fighting about the Colorado River forever. And it's going to get worse, as the sheeple figure out that there just ain't enough water for everybody. Like the old Western saying, "Whiskey is for drinkin' and water is for fightin' about." Back in the old days, people got killed fairly regularly over water rights. We may see some of that again, too. For we native Westerners, water is not frivolous subject.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Nothin' new about that--the Western states have been fighting about the Colorado River forever. And it's going to get worse, as the sheeple figure out that there just ain't enough water for everybody. Like the old Western saying, "Whiskey is for drinkin' and water is for fightin' about." Back in the old days, people got killed fairly regularly over water rights. We may see some of that again, too. For we native Westerners, water is not frivolous subject.

You and I can agree on that!

[treedonkey]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Nothin' new about that--the Western states have been fighting about the Colorado River forever. And it's going to get worse, as the sheeple figure out that there just ain't enough water for everybody. Like the old Western saying, "Whiskey is for drinkin' and water is for fightin' about." Back in the old days, people got killed fairly regularly over water rights. We may see some of that again, too. For we native Westerners, water is not frivolous subject.

Fight if you must, but as for me, I'd rather let the politicians and others bicker over that one. I may die of thirst in the meantime, but I will remain decidedly neutral.

[solarweasel]

it's simple economics. as water supplies become stressed, costs for this precious resource will increase. as costs increase, those consuming the most will either have to change their ways (i.e. xeriscape) or pay a premium. development will grind to a halt as it will become more economical to develop elsewhere. personally, i'd also like to see country clubs, business parks, and military installations held accountable for their disproportionate use of water.

there is simply not enough room for everyone who wants to live in colorado to do so. the 'limit' can be maximized by responsible use of what we have.

the tipping point will be another drought like we dealt with earlier this decade... and personally i think the sooner the better. i don't like to see hardship, but i accept that it catalyzes changes in habit and prioritization. just look at what happened when gas topped $4 last summer... or read about the Great Depression...

[Idunn]

On the face of it this may not seem to have much to do with Colorado water issues, but exactly what I have in mind.

If you like oysters then surely aware of all the fine options Colorado has in seafood and dining. Also that obviously all this fresh seafood comes from somewhere else. Such as Apalachicola Bay in northwest Florida, which produces 90% of Florida's oysters and 10% of the oysters consumed in the US. You might have one of them on your plate this very moment. The oystermen and citizens of Apalachicola Bay have a problem, in that the "harm to the ecosystem here in Apalachicola has been going on a long time . . . Three more years. I don't know if Apalachicola Bay is going to survive that kind of timetable." Basically, the problem is that the flow of the Apalachicola river has been decreased to the extent that it has put into danger shrimp, crab, fish and oysters, and those that depend on them.

You may recall news reports from only a couple years ago of Atlanta, Georgia's water problems. Lake Sidney Lanier, just to the northeast of Atlanta, from which Atlanta draws 3/4 of its drinking water, was at very low levels due a prolonged drought. So low that recreational marinas were high and dry, and emergency plans to lower water intake pipes were being discussed. Due rains that finally came, the reservoir is still not full, but appreciably more so. You might also recall events from then reminiscent of water issues in the West over the Colorado river. Downriver Alabama and Florida, with legal entitlements to this water as well, were contesting the amount of water Georgia used, and were in effect being shortchanged.

This has at last devolved into a court ruling. This explained in an article from 'USA Today:'
Ruling leaves North Georgia with water crisis - USATODAY.com

To wit:
"A federal judge ruled recently that metropolitan Atlanta has been illegally taking water from Lanier, which he said the federal government built more than half a century ago for hydroelectric power generation and other uses — not for drinking water.

Unless Georgia and downstream neighbors Alabama and Florida can work out a water-sharing agreement in three years — something they haven't done during a two-decade-long "water war" — north Georgia will have to return to mid-1970s levels of withdrawals from the lake. Alternatively, Congress could approve a reallocation of water from Lanier."

Authorized by Congress in 1946 and built by the Army Corps of Engineers in 1956, Lake Sidney Lanier covers 38,000 acres.

Gwinnett County has recently completed a $700 million water reclamation plant which will recycle two-thirds of the water Gwinnett takes from Lake Lanier. As Frank Stephens, a county water official, says, "If you really want to look at water withdrawal per capita, our water use is as conservative as any community in the country."

That may be, but as Judge Magnuson noted in his ruling, that reducing withdrawals from Lake Lanier would portend a "draconian" future for north Georgia. Especially true for Gwinnett County, during the 1990's the US's seventh-fastest-growing county, with a population increase of 111.5%. In 1975 the counties population of 130,000 used 13 million gallons a day (MGD); the population of 830,000 today averages 93 MGD.

One might guess the outcome. Given this ruling Georgia plans to:

• Appeal Magnuson's ruling.
• Work with other states on their long stalled water agreement.
• Consider new reservoirs and allocation schemes.
• Conservation
• AND, pursue congressional reauthorization to take water from Lake Lanier, from which drinking water use was not originally intended.

One might consider this over their plate of oysters. Such notable things as high growth and a basic lack of water even now. As a willingness to revisit and change long standing water agreements. Also the ability and indeed usage of water beyond existing agreements, to the detriment of downstream neighbors legally entitled to same. Also just how much longer the provenance of your oysters and other sea food has to last.

If looking elsewhere, one might consider that fish populations have been in rapid decline for decades due over fishing, with many fisheries entirely collapsed. Or other venues, such as Puget Sound in Washington State, also having issues. In that case with millions of pounds of oil runoff from streets, PCBs, and other pollutants into that bay every year. Some of this was covered in the PBS Frontline documentary, 'Poisoned Waters.' It also, by the way, covers another endangered national natural resource, Chesapeake Bay.

None of this has touched upon global climate change, or that the best possible projections are for continued and more severe weather disruptions in this region, including stronger but more infrequent rains, more and stronger hurricanes, and drought.

How's that seafood now? And what are you washing it down with?

[SNOWMOBILENUT64]

Hello my name is rusty.... I currently live in Michigan my wife and I were considering moving to a drier climate. you know for health reasons. We have friends in wyoming that consulted us to first look into water issuses so that there isnt any problems later... well michigan is very wet...i just assumed that most every where there is a population of people there must be water..... but the news says diff so any comment is needed... thanks rusty

[SNOWMOBILENUT64]

here in michigan nestles presesce is very large in this county. they wanted to put 3 main water wells here by the headwaters of the white river, enough that the actual outflow would be felt. that didnt happen either by court decree and or politcal pressure so they went elsewhere, one county over..
water production was so great that the entire communitys well aquafir dropped incredibly.. our friends lost 11 feet of table height.

[Idunn]

Your friend in Wyoming is correct, access to water or not will determine your life in the West, and this will increasingly become more of a problem and contentious issue. Reading some of the posts on this thread will reveal as much.

Las Vegas, NV is a good example of a major population center that exists without a natural source of water. It is a fabrication of man. So while water always exists where mankind is, in some cases it is all, or nearly all, imported.

KUED on its program 'Utah NOW,' just discussed some of these issues in the Snake Valley. Although not yet available, the program can be accessed here:
"Water in the West" | Utah NOW on KUED Channel 7 - Salt Lake City, Utah

Utah is involved because the aquifer Las Vegas wants to draw water from underlies Nevada and Utah, near Great Basin National Park. To the northeast of there is one town that will be impacted if this transpires, Callao, UT. It is a ranching community, with several families going back generations, small enough to have a school with several grades in one class. If this underlying aquifer is drawn down it will impact the flow of surface water, the landscape, and all that live there. The aquifer itself is composed of ancient water, having formed over a very long period of time, with only slow surface recharge. While some seeking this water profess environmental concern, by the time surface water irregularities began to emerge, the underlying aquifer could be severely impacted.

Las Vegas wants to build a 3 billion ($3,000,000,000) pipeline north to access this, and likely other water in northern Nevada. Speculation is that with such investment they will want to maximize the amount of water taken, or put another way, disinclined to limit their water withdrawal if signs indicate that appropriate. Utah has already acceded to their demands in part to forestall a threatened, long and very costly lawsuit. There is also the question of what they do once having built all the many more houses dependent on this 'new' water, only at last to find it exhausted. The severe draw down of aquifers across the West is a growing problem, being in no way sustainable.

KUED did not discuss this, but one visiting Logan, UT will see that the valley to the west of town often a lush marshland, with much standing water. This is due the outflow from nearby Bear Lake, on the border of Utah and Idaho. I am informed locally that Salt Lake City, UT, had it eyes on this water, being now used by farmers and wildlife, but was persuaded otherwise by locals who said, 'no way.' This even as communities along the front range of Utah are fortunate in measure to have fairly good access to water.

Colorado does too, in measure. If blessed with high mountains and a good snowpack, this also within a semi-arid climate with a certain amount of water and no more. Those most focused on the Ponzi scheme of ever more growth at all costs, would just as soon ignore such realities.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by treedonkey

Oh, great, it's not bad enough we have major international wars going on over natural resources already... Now we've got to stir up interSTATE contentions as well.

They have been there all along! I recommend "Cadillac Desert" for the disturbing history of the on-going water wars in our nation.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Idunn

.... while water always exists where mankind is, in some cases it is all, or nearly all, imported. ....

Transporting water? Roman Aqueducts anyone.