Colorado and the West is running out of water . . . (Denver: living in, estimates)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't really get enough water in Colorado to even worry about rain water harvesting. I really don't see the point.
There are small areas where a whole supply system could work with the appropriate water saving/conservation facets, commodes, etc. But the areas are quite limited if I read the rainfall maps correctly. However, many areas would lend themselves to non-potable systems for landscape use ... with a xeriscape ... and maybe vegetable garden if growing season allows. The calculated number is 623 gallons per inch of rain per 1000 square feet of roof/catchment. A good non-potable system can get close to 600 gal. of that in a tank. So a 2000 sq. ft. roof surface, as on a 1800 to 1900 sq. ft. house could catch 1200 gal. per inch or 12,000 gal. with 10 inches of rain.
The "economics" may not work now but I believe this thread started with some rather dire predictions for the future.
Conservation could really help with water shortages throughout this country and would be cheaper than a rainwater harvesting system in most areas. I believe you have made the same comment in another thread if I remember correctly.
By the way, I have found your input to the forum to quite informative and look forward to your posts.
We don't really get enough water in Colorado to even worry about rain water harvesting. I really don't see the point.
Well in a heavy storm, you could collect quite a bit from a rooftop. It was raining when I went to Safeway today and I noticed so much puddling in the parking lot and thought about the idea. If you took the average roof size and laid it over a part of the lot, you still have a lot of water sitting there (even though realistically if you had one collection pot, you would only get water from certain parts of the roof, but still). If all that was drained into a collection pot, it could be very beneficial. Just because it doesn't rain all that much doesn't mean it isn't useful. I think it's a great idea!
Well in a heavy storm, you could collect quite a bit from a rooftop. It was raining when I went to Safeway today and I noticed so much puddling in the parking lot and thought about the idea. If you took the average roof size and laid it over a part of the lot, you still have a lot of water sitting there (even though realistically if you had one collection pot, you would only get water from certain parts of the roof, but still). If all that was drained into a collection pot, it could be very beneficial. Just because it doesn't rain all that much doesn't mean it isn't useful. I think it's a great idea!
I live in Pueblo and we get 11 inches of rain a year, that includes snow fall. I just don't see how all the work of collecting the water on the roof would be worth it. Especially when I only pay $2.32 for every 1,000 gallons of clean water.
My impression was that Colorado more or less does not allow rainwater catchment, although the statutes may have changed.
New Mexico, on the other hand, does allow this. It can be surprising how much water can be collected off a residential roof, even in a semi-arid climate. The Earthship homes in northern New Mexico well exemplify this, as designed to collect and use water efficiently. Many of them are also off the grid, relying upon rainwater harvesting exclusively, although in some cases with cisterns topped up with imported water when need be. That equation depends upon use and design.
Another design consideration is how the water will be used. If for potable water within the house then the sheathing of the roof must be non-toxic. Something like common asphalt shingles will not do. Many Earthships use a single form-fitting coating which reflects the heat of the sun, while also not tainting any water. All is channeled into cistern(s) which may be buried. Some filtration is required (bugs, etc.) but not much, and the result excellent water without a plethora of chemicals.
I live in Pueblo and we get 11 inches of rain a year, that includes snow fall. I just don't see how all the work of collecting the water on the roof would be worth it. Especially when I only pay $2.32 for every 1,000 gallons of clean water.
You are right at that price point. BUT, water is becoming more scare as the population pressure increases demand. It might also be worth it if the price reflected actual costs and was not subsidized with tax revenue. Just my thinking for a possible problem in the future? ... but then my crystal ball has never worked all that well <g>.
You are right at that price point. BUT, water is becoming more scare as the population pressure increases demand. It might also be worth it if the price reflected actual costs and was not subsidized with tax revenue. Just my thinking for a possible problem in the future? ... but then my crystal ball has never worked all that well <g>.
If water become that expensive I might look into but not before.
"They have some conservation programmes, sure, but they are still encouraging El Paso to grow at an exponential rate, which is a mistake," said Bill Addington, a rancher and member of the local branch of the Sierra Club. "More people equals more water, no matter how you look at it. El Paso shouldn't be like an aggressive cancer – just growth and more growth." [1]
This article caught my attention in part because of the picture it leads with. I hope that is more than the extent of the Rio Grande River at El Paso, Texas. Quite a contrast to the same river high and wide at South Fork, CO, not far from its headwaters, when I saw it several days ago.
The map of the extent of the severe drought across most of the southern United States is also illustrative. You'll note that nearly half of Colorado is affected to some extent, with the severest drought centered in the southeast corner of the state.
While this article primarily concerns El Paso, TX, the example there of adapting to water shortages are applicable to many others. Apparently the average yard lawn is becoming an endangered species there, with xeroscaping more the norm. Which makes sense in a desert. But I'm reminded of places such as Fort Collins, CO, where one could be excused from thinking that lush lawns were a natural feature of the terrain. In comparison, in overall green, Ft. Collins is obviously a far more verdant place to begin with. However any lawn still uses a lot of water. Something highlighted in this article are not only the sometimes mandatory water conservation measures taken in El Paso, but the inherent limits in what is possible.
Population plays a key role. Within Colorado there is a finite amount of water as well. Unlike in Texas it is carefully adjudicated, but that used somewhere must be taken from somewhere else. Already we have lost agricultural land due their water rights sold and used elsewhere. In time, if demand grows, it may be that such things as lawns now taken for granted may become more of a luxury, or not possible at all. All the more as El Paso, and no happier for it.
"The combination of limited water supplies, rapidly increasing populations, warmer regional temperatures, and the specter of recurrent drought point to a future in which the potential for conflict among existing and prospective new water users will prove endemic," the research council said in a statement that accompanied the report.' [1]
It is interesting to note that Clark County Nevada, the home of Las Vegas, saw its water use double between 1985 and 2000. Yet Las Vegas is currently spending a huge amount of money to construct a third, and lower, outlet from Lake Mead as dropping water levels may soon leave the first two dry. Or that there is a 50% chance that Lake Mead may go entirely dry in the next 20 years. Las Vegas depends on the Colorado River water within Lake Mead for over 90% of its water.
The Scripps Institute estimates that even under conservative climate change scenarios that the Colorado River will not be able to meet current demands 60 to 90% of the time by 2050. That by 2025 there will be shortages of 400,000 acre feet 40% of the time. [2]
Sana'a, with a population of about 2,000,000, is the capitol of Yemen. It may also soon hold the dubious distinction of being the first modern capitol city abandoned due water shortages. If in the mountains of Yemen, at current water usage rates it is estimated the the deep wells supplying Sana'a will fail by 2015. [3] There are a variety of reasons for Yemen's water crisis, not helped that it is located in a very arid part of the world, with wasteful agricultural practices one of them. But it should not be overlooked that Yemen's population of 23,000,000 has almost tripled since 1975, and is expected to double again in the next twenty years.
Those familiar with southwestern Colorado have increasingly witnessed another troubling related phenomenon: dust storms which coat high mountain snow packs, causing them to melt earlier than usual. Mankind is responsible to the extent that they exacerbate global warming with high levels of CO2 and other emissions, some in the form of soot from auto exhaust also adding to an effect. [4] As the Four Corner region warms and dries native vegetation that hold the soil in place are lost, releasing all the more dust. Additionally, new oil and energy extraction schemes will result in more roads and disruption to fragile soils, thus more dust in consequence. All this in addition to warming temperatures which will see Colorado and the southwest more arid, with less annual snow, generally less precipitation, and a less temperate climate with harsher storms and quicker, less controllable, runoff.
Yet for a region which will have some serious accounting to do, since the 1990s Colorado's population grew by 30%, and Arizona's by 40%. [1] The recent drought and water shortages in Atlanta, Georgia and the southeast are said to be from random weather events, not global warming. [5] Maybe, but it is also noted that the severity of this event was exacerbated by population, with Georgia's population alone having increased from 6.48 million in 1990 to 9.54 million by 2007. The flow of the Colorado River, and subsequent apportionment among the states using its waters, was derived in the 20th century, being one of the wettest on record in the last 1,200 years or so. Total flows and available water are assumed from that, yet populations and demand continue to increase even as global warming, in addition to natural drought cycles, will insure there is even less snow pack and waters available.
"The combination of limited water supplies, rapidly increasing populations, warmer regional temperatures, and the specter of recurrent drought point to a future in which the potential for conflict among existing and prospective new water users will prove endemic," the research council said in a statement that accompanied the report.' [1]
.... snip ....
This should sort of information be required reading starting in Junior High IMHO
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roof rainwater
