U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-14-2012, 12:23 PM
 
Location: Pueblo - Colorado's Second City
10,271 posts, read 11,675,519 times
Reputation: 3097

Advertisements

^
I don't think its off topic at all.

Its personal preference. I like the look and feel of Kentucky Blue Grass in my yard and I am not a real big flower person. Sure I have some flowers around my patio and they look nice but I would not want them in the main part of my yard. As I call it my yard is my little oasis in the dessert and I spend time and money and since I happen to live in a city that has enough water I consider myself lucky.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2012, 03:33 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 14,200,665 times
Reputation: 10198
No possible comment any longer.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2012, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,509 posts, read 11,238,861 times
Reputation: 8393
hey joss...have you thought of moving to Kentucky? You could have acres and acres of blue grass, irrigate the crap out of it, and you'd fit right in. No one would get on your case. You could enclose you nice Kentucky blue graas lawn with a white picket fence and let the sprinklers run all day and night with no concern of running out of water. Heck, in Kentucky theres' enough rain that wouldn't even have to irrigate it. Funny thing how Momma Gaia grows bluegrass lawns in a water rich state like Kentucky, and didn't put the bluegrass in an arid state like Colorado. But what does Mother Nature know! Mankind knows better, especially when defending a personal preference. I'm joshing with you joss!


Last edited by CosmicWizard; 03-14-2012 at 04:17 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2012, 06:05 PM
 
Location: Midland, TX
120 posts, read 73,982 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
^
I don't think its off topic at all.

Its personal preference. I like the look and feel of Kentucky Blue Grass in my yard and I am not a real big flower person. Sure I have some flowers around my patio and they look nice but I would not want them in the main part of my yard. As I call it my yard is my little oasis in the dessert and I spend time and money and since I happen to live in a city that has enough water I consider myself lucky.
*Shrugs* Ripping out the bluegrass will save you a lot of money in the long run, and I can guarantee you that the rates for water will go through the roof long before Pueblo ever completely runs out of water.

I don't want to condemn you for your decision. In fact I consider you to be one of the more likable posters here because of your "optimism against all odds" attitude towards things, but I truly feel that irrigated lawns are the greatest waste of water in the history of human civilization:

Quote:
Lawns occupy about 50,000 square miles of U.S. turf, which is three times the space taken by corn. Maintaining them costs us roughly 200 gallons of water per person daily. Nationwide, keeping grass green sucks up 50 to 70 percent of our residential water. In dry states like Texas, the percentage can occasionally reach 80 percent.

"The stars at night, are blotted out by wildfires, deep in the heart of Texas!"
Now, "residential water" tends to equal "water that humans can drink." This means that, every day, our lawns are busy shotgunning our precious freshwater supplies into their gaping, bottomless maws.

And we're very, very close to running out.

Each day, New Mexico and Arizona use 300 million gallons more than they can renew. The Southwest largely relies on underground aquifers that can't be replenished, and also we have no idea how much water they have. If they run out, the whole damn continent will get to live out the villain's plot from Quantum of Solace.

"Sure, we could measure it. But then the aquifer wins."
Actually, scratch the "if." It's happening already. The underground river in Arkansas (the one that makes rice growing possible) will be dry in five years. The San Francisco Bay Area is headed for a severe water crisis within the next 50 years. Even Seattle and Chicago, cities that are notorious for constant rain and neighboring the goddamn Great Lakes, respectively, will face shortages within 20 years.

It was a great lake. And when it's dry, it'll be an even greater skate park.
And that's downright peachy compared to what our readers under the Mason-Dixon can look forward to: The entire South is estimated to be locked in a permanent state of drought by 2050.

So while those of us with shiny green lawns have a few more years of regular watering left, we might be better off hoarding our precious sprinkler fuel for the inevitable Water Wars.
5 Seemingly Innocent Ways You've Screwed The World Today | Cracked.com

(I know Cracked is a humor site, but there are links in that excerpt of the article that verify the claims.)

I often disagree with Jazzlover's incessant doom & gloom demeanor on this forum, but he is dead-on in that a sustainable future cannot be attained through developments in renewable technology alone; it requires sacrifice on our part.

Do you think off-the-grid homes achieved that status through the latest, greatest, expensive technology? Nope! They pulled it off because they were small and didn't require much energy for livability, and to be frank, "personal preference" is an easy sacrifice to make, and in your case there are even financial and perhaps time-saving benefits in doing so!

I'd go so far as to claim that if we just did away with irrigated lawns the entire state of Colorado would probably never have to worry about water again outside of a drought.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2012, 07:49 PM
 
17,305 posts, read 24,301,462 times
Reputation: 12657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antares45 View Post
....I'd go so far as to claim that if we just did away with irrigated lawns the entire state of Colorado would probably never have to worry about water again outside of a drought.
The VAST majority of the water used in COLO is for ag purposes.....the Front Range uses no more than 20% of COLO's water, but generates 80-85% of COLO's economic activity AND tax revenue.

Here's an excerpt from the link:

- Statewide water withdrawals are 15.1 million acre feet (AF), of which 1.1 million AF, or 7.5 percent, is withdrawn for municipal and industrial purposes and 13.8 million AF, or 91 percent, is withdrawn for agricultural purposes.

The doomers need to stop blowing smoke about how the Front Range is such a water hog, the stats just DO NOT support that crap.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2012, 08:21 PM
 
Location: Midland, TX
120 posts, read 73,982 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east View Post
91 percent, is withdrawn for agricultural purposes.
Ah, ok. Thanks for posting, that's good to know.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2012, 08:50 PM
 
9,713 posts, read 12,293,049 times
Reputation: 7080
Most people don't understand water. You drink the same water dinosaurs drank. For all intents and purposes, water is neither created or destroyed, it just assumes another form.

When you drink water, where does it go?
When you water your lawn, where does it go?
When you take a shower, where does the water go?

It eventually all ends up back in the system somewhere.

Now sure it is true that you can deplete an aquifer or lake quicker than it can replenish but someday, somehow it will replenish.

When a farmer irrigates in Colorado, a lot of the water goes right back into the water shed and the water absorbed by harvested crops is then consumed by people or other animals and whizzed right back out at some point.

The utopian fanatics and their paranoia "experts" have tried to convince everyone the world is running out of water. LOL! The water hasn't gone anywhere.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2012, 09:29 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 14,200,665 times
Reputation: 10198
But the claims on it have and have more and more.
Didn't some rivers used to actually run their length and make deltas and all, and now they don't?
Also, proportioning existing water is not, well, an even proposition. Witness L.A. 1920s.
Also, if the predicted long droughts in the SW continue/happen, even if the water exists somewhere sometime, it sure won't be there for the fire seasons and all.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2012, 04:49 AM
 
Location: Lansing Metro
2,775 posts, read 2,950,471 times
Reputation: 3531
Alright people... don't even glance at those giant blue patches on the map in the north central part of the U.S. Those maps are outdated, and the giant blue patches are gone. So don't even try to come up here looking for them. We drank it all. Nothing to see here. Move along.................
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2012, 05:15 AM
 
Location: Lansing Metro
2,775 posts, read 2,950,471 times
Reputation: 3531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idunn View Post
Show of hands, who has a low-flow shower head in their bathroom? I'll get to that in a moment.

I found it an interesting statistic that the watershed of the Great Lakes contain 20% of the fresh water on this planet, but only a population of 40 million. My feeling it is generally a bad idea to mess with Mother Nature, although that is what mankind excels at. So maybe more a case of using wisdom and balance, which they do not excel at. But the front range of Colorado would probably not be as populated save certain water diversions made. However for the Great Lakes, it seems a bad idea, even if economically feasible, to export its waters because someone wants to mine coal in Wyoming, or move to the desert of Arizona next to a swimming pool. For a world that is increasingly running out of potable water in a variety of ways, it should be no surprise that 7 billion people might ask why but 40 million of them should control 20% of some of the cleanest water on this planet.

Insofar as show heads are concerned, who recalls their grandparents using a low-flow one? The point being that we are already bumping up against water restrictions even now. Something very obvious in places such as Texas, even despite their recent rains. Already at times it has not only been shower heads or low flush toilets, but also such things as on what days one could water their lawn, or even at all. Using less water in the shower might be a good, noble, or even desirable thing, but try buying a new house with a traditional shower head that really gushes the water. The laws that mandate against it are a reflection of a growing population that is beginning to exceed supplies in certain regions. We are already apportioning water, when a generation or two before there was no need or care of it.

Colorado may find its position similar to citizens of the Great Lakes region. 5,000,000 is more population than this state can bear reasonably, but states such as California may begin to ask why such a relatively small population should be sitting on all that water when they want more.
Wouldn't it make more sense for people to just MOVE to the Great Lakes region? Not that I want them to move here... believe me, I don't... but I don't see why the people can't migrate towards the water, instead of vice versa.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top