Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
People can heat their homes even cheaper with the massive of amount of natural gas we are producing, while we will have no food to eat from anywhere except the Central Valley and China............
Last edited by Mike from back east; 04-03-2012 at 12:07 PM..
Reason: Fixed link.
Since Colorado is having a drought this year, not unusual, I thought I would post this article that says Pueblo will NOT have any water restrictions this summer. They even allowed the leases to continue.
This is from the Chieftain:
Puebloans are not likely to face watering restrictions this summer, despite forecasts for below-average water supply.
Between its accounts in Lake Pueblo, Clear Creek, Turquoise and Twin Lakes, the water board has more than 43,000 acre-feet of water in storage, more than a year’s worth of potable water supply.
That's the best news I've heard all day. Now you can replace your current irrigation system with one that uses more water. The materials and the labor will help to stimulate the Pueblo economy and you'd be doing more to make sure that the abundant Pueblo water supply is being used most wisely. I'd hate to see any of it wasted on growing vegetables.
"'The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives.' Colorado has to find a balance so that rivers can live alongside our human culture," Save the Colorado coordinator Gary Wockner said.' [1]
It seems Gov. Hickenlooper is in favor of a water diversion from Wyoming into Colorado.
In this year when the Colorado snowpack is below 50% of normal, many may agree with him. According to interested parties in the state, under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, Colorado could be entitled to as much as 900,000 acre-feet more of water from this river. It might be noted that the state currently intrudes into the wilderness of RMNP to divert a good amount of water to the front range from the headwaters of the Colorado river, in the Never Summer Mountains.
Something many may be less keen on, Gov. Hickenlooper's appreciation that since 2002 Denver residents have managed to cut their residential water consumption by 20%, to 160 gallons per day. But that he has his eye on such places as Australia, with which its ongoing drought and restrictions has squeezed that figure to 36 gallons a day per person.
Anyone having used a low-flow shower head already has some appreciation of what water restrictions mean. And how one goes about their shower or not may prove the least of what transpires in future.
Unfortunately, the growth-loving real estate lobby in Colorado still controls the politics in both parties in Colorado. So, it's not surprising that politicians will embrace any pork-barrel (read: taxpayer funded) water diversion scheme to keep the party going. A classic case of privatizing profits and socializing costs that seems to be the preferred way to make money these days.
No surprise that the water buffaloes would go after the Green River in Wyoming--it is about the last river in the Upper Basin states that is not already over-appropriated. What the growth-lovers won't publicly admit, though, is any such diversion is very likely to run afoul of the Colorado River Compact of 1922 at some point. Though I'm not a big fan of Wikipedia, there is actually a pretty good synopsis of the Colorado River Compact there ( Colorado River Compact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). The long-time issues of the Compact for the Upper Basin states are these, some political, some economic, some environmental, and some physical:
The biggest issue for the Upper Basin states is that the Upper Basin states must deliver a fixed amount of water to the Lower Basin states--not a percentage of flow, but a fixed amount. Since the Compact was negotiated based on estimated river flows that were abnormally high, that means that the Lower Basin states can effectively demand more than 50% of the Colorado River flow during dry years. That didn't used to be a problem, as the Upper Basin was not physically using its entire allotment, so the Lower Basin got that excess water without really having a right to it. Growth in the Upper Basin states has essentially sopped up that excess, so, if there is a flow shortfall now, someone has to go without. Then Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton (a Coloradan) successfully negotiated a "temporary" agreement in 2007 (through 2026) that allows reduced flows to the Lower Basin states in drought years, but it still may not be enough to keep the Upper Basin states from suffering during a drought when the Lower Basin demands its allotment of the Colorado River flow. In such a case, junior water right holders in the Upper Basin could effectively see their water curtailed or cut off entirely.
Another physical problem for the Upper Basin is this: The water flow metering for delivery to the Lower Basin states is at Lee's Ferry, Arizona, just upstream from the Grand Canyon. That point is DOWNSTREAM from the largest water storage project on the Colorado River--Lake Powell. The problem with that is that Lake Powell is located in the middle of the Utah desert, with a huge surface area subject to large amounts of evaporation. Because the metering point for the division between the Upper and Lower Basin states is downstream from the reservoir, the Upper Basin states must absorb all of the evaporation loss from Lake Powell. That means, of course, that they must deliver more water than the metered allotment at Lee's Ferry in order to meet the terms of the Compact.
There are some people in the Upper Basin who look at these inequities and demand that the Compact be re-opened for renegotiation. That would be complete disaster for the Upper Basin, as it has neither the political power nor population for it to in any way control the outcome of the renegotiation. The Upper Basin states would almost certainly leave the table with a smaller, more restrictive allotment than they now have. Never has the adage, "Let sleeping dogs lie," been more true that it is for the Upper Basin states here.
Lurking in the weeds is the other huge shoe that has yet to drop. One of the major complaints arising from the Lower Basin states about their share of water from the Compact is over water quality. Were this issue to be litigated, it could have disastrous results for the Front Range diversions of Colorado River water. Why? Because those high-altitude diversions are diverting the most clean and pristine water from the Colorado River system. That means that all nature of pollutants--most notably salts from irrigation--are concentrated in the water delivered to the Lower Basin states. Another major high-altitude diversion of relatively pristine water--which the proposed Green River diversion certainly would be--could lead to a high likelihood of the Lower Basin states pursuing (and winning) a lawsuit against the Upper Basin states over water quality issues in the Colorado River. That could potentially jeopardize not only any additional water diversions to the Front Range, but could jeopardize some existing ones. That is a hornet's nest that the Upper Basin states absolutely do not want to stir up.
The simple fact is that the Upper Basin states, including the municipal water users, must simply learn to live with their existing water supplies without additional transmountain diversions. For the metro areas, most can easily meet that need--and even still accommodate some additional population growth--simply by reducing consumptive use of water, the majority of that consumptive use being lawn irrigation. Unfortunately, the promotion and building of water projects is very much about bureaucratic and political empire-building that is often completely divorced from real need. Bluntly, when you hear someone say that "X" Front Range city must have more water diversions from other river basins or from agricultural use to "accommodate growth," THEY ARE LYING.
Jazz the Pueblo Board of Water Works seems to agree with you. That is why they sold the rights to the Columbine ditch to Aurora and bought the rights of the Bessemer Ditch. They are worried that if the lower basin states ever call their water rights during a drought the city using the water from the Columbine ditch would be at a disadvantage while the Bessemer Ditch is not under that compact. It will, also, give Pueblo more water in the long run, enough for a city up to 500,000 people, but that was not the primary goal just a side benefit. Also they acknoledge few new projects have been built since the completion of Lake Pueblo in the 1970s. That is why they say Pueblo has a advantage when it comes to the larger cities in the state as we currently have enough water for the projected growth.
Maybe I should read the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Little details such as allotments being based on fixed amounts, versus percentage of flow, have huge implications.
This might prove a perfect year to see where the rubber meets the road in apportionment among all interested parties—save last year so helped the reservoirs. So this drama probably postponed for at least another year.
As for metering Colorado river flow at Lee's Ferry, what are they thinking; how in any way can that be accurate (aside from evaporation) when self-interested parties control the amount of outflow from Lake Powell? I can only surmise this was instituted prior to the construction of this reservoir, but at minimum they should move their gauges upstream of the reservoir.
Water quality in the Colorado river would surely be better if no headwater upstream diversions were made. But a good question to how much actual effect. One can only diffuse pollution so much. Anyone having paid much attention to our natural rivers will understand how much they suffer from mankind's maltreatment. Even the pristine waters from their headwaters in Rocky Mountain National Park are somewhat less than that, even within the Park, due airborne pollutants. But even literally but a few miles outside Park boundaries, they really begin to catch it. I mean even before Estes Park, if speaking of the Fall river, and the Big Thompson it merges into is nowhere the same river it was at headwaters by the time reaching the flat level of the front range, let alone farther along in the South Platte river; or certainly Arizona, if headed off from the other side of the Park. 5% of its original flow at its delta at the Gulf of California—heavily infused with sewage, fertilizers and pesticides—is probably not the river idyll most have in mind when thinking of beautiful rivers.
Reopening the Colorado River Compact might be water suicide for up-basin states, but they may not have to bother. The reality is that there will simply be less water to go around in the Rocky Mountain West in decades to come. All the grand schemes everybody have will run up against that hard reality. With a measure of the honest civility and intelligent forethought most like to think they have, this could all be decided rationally: with fair apportionment; appropriate conservation measures; and learning to live within one's means in a semi-arid environment.
'However, the local and county-level impacts on water resources and on agricultural land could be significant, and could drastically change the landscape and current way of life.' [2]
Texas may be a good example of what to expect with water restrictions.
With Stage 1 watering restrictions in Arlington, TX, one is limited to watering their lawn twice a week. But this is likely to become a permanent mandate if people such as Arlington mayor Robert Cluck have their way, believing anything more than that "excessive." My feeling some Colorado lawn owners may disagree.
By the time one has reached Stage 3, as outlined in the restrictions of San Antonio, TX [1], water restrictions have become significantly more severe. Outside landscape watering (including lawns) can only be done once every other week, between certain set hours. Drip irrigation is allowed three days per week, but again only during certain hours. If you are a determined trooper, you are allowed to use your hand-held garden hose at all times.
Swimming pools are still allowed, but all non-public pools must have at least 25% of their surface area covered when not in use. But forget that fountain you like: all water features, outside or inside, are prohibited, unless using recycled non-potable water.
You can no longer use the hose to spray off the driveway, or any other hard surface. It is permissible to use it to wash off the car, but only on assigned water days, and then with such spartan care as to have no appreciable water runoff.
Agriculture in Colorado is another matter. Colorado agriculture currently uses 47% of the land, and 86% of water.
Agricultural land has already been sold to municipalities for its water rights. But what may truly exacerbate this trend is the advent of fracking techniques towards recovery of natural gas. A large portion of Colorado is susceptible to being infested with fracking. It is estimated that the high water demands of fracking could see this industry in Colorado use as much water as the entire Denver metro area currently does. [2]
With water restrictions, look forward to less personal liberty, less overall use of water, more inconvenience, higher water prices, and less agriculture. Throw fracking into the equation, and what you do have left will be highly compromised groundwater (i.e. aquifers) sources, and likely more polluted rivers as well.
One might point out that much of this is needless, but will occur due the imbalances in population growth, etc. that most prefer as business-as-usual.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Colorado local food sources
City water restrictions unlikely
Colorado river schemes
