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.
Water usage trends in the west aren't the problem. Adding population has led to the loss of agricultural land in many areas that turns into new subdivisions. Those subdivisions have thousands more people and yet use far less water than farming. Climate change reducing our snowpack and leading to wild swings in weather between one year and the next are the issue.
While people always can claim the sky is falling the fact is conservation can usually meet whatever need is there. Las Vegas uses less water today than it did 20 years ago despite its endless population growth. Getting rid of grass and recycling water can be hugely effective. The same movement has gone to the Phoenix area where residents complain about it, but it is what is needed. Both cities have long been pointed out by outsiders as completely unsustainable from a water perspective and yet they continue to grow finding the water they need. The same could happen for all Colorado cities as well if necessary. While there is always this talk about limiting growth to protect scarce resources, where has that really happened?
Both cities have long been pointed out by outsiders as completely unsustainable from a water perspective and yet they continue to grow finding the water they need. The same could happen for all Colorado cities as well if necessary?
And yet the prevailing strategy for the Front Range seems to be a never-ending conquest to extract every last drop of water from poorer, rural parts of the state. Crowley County, anyone?
The San Luis Valley is currently fighting yet another ludicrous proposal to pump water from the closed basin at the north end of the valley in exchange for a paltry amount of cash. Thank god the vast majority of our residents are vehemently opposed to it.
Last edited by interloper1138; 04-26-2021 at 09:37 AM..
I appreciate your response CR, and I actually felt somewhat regretful about making that reply to Pika’s earnest suggestions. But as to your point, I’m not sure that conservation by existing residents is really going to enable more growth. My city, requires new development proposals to guarantee that they will provide the water shares necessary to support the new households. I suspect that this is common - politically it’s fairly easy to add these sorts of restrictions to the development process. A smart city is going to require that new water rights are provided by the developer rather then trying to leverage any additional water that happens to remain in the reservoirs because of successful conservation efforts. I think that the only possible way that conservation is going to enable more growth would be if the per capital usage went down enough to affect the formulas used to determine how much water is needed to support X amount of new households. If the formula is based on 110 gallons per person per day vs. 130 gallons then a developer could conceivably build more homes for the same amount of water shares. But I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing if the amount of water used is the same. We don’t have negative population growth in this country (although I personally think that would be good) so we should at least try to reduce the per capita resource usage.
Hey, sorry I did not respond to your second post earlier. I get your point that more than individual voluntary conservation action is needed, so no offense taken.
Like CR, I also fear that any water savings will be seen as opportunity for the greedy overdevelopment interests. Seems that a portion of the human population views resources strictly for their potential commercial or humans-only use, whether the resource is water or land. I heard someone comment on buyers who had just acquired a large parcel of beautiful land, all of it under conservation easement and therefore not open to development other than building the buyer’s own home. The buyers bought it BECAUSE they appreciated the conservation restrictions, not despite them. They paid a hefty price, too. But the commenters dismissed the land with, “You can’t do anything with it.” I kept my mouth shut, thinking that building a home and hiking on their own land and having the peace of knowing no houses would be added nearby and enjoying the quiet darkness of night etc etc constituted a lot of priceless “doing.” Worth far more than endless amenities/conveniences are.
What you present—development standards that stipulate lower per-capita water consumption and xeriscape plantings—is a step in the right direction. A good start.
I would take it a step farther and incorporate standards that promote improved nonhuman conditions, too. Namely, conserve resources so that the millions of species being squeezed out of existence by human grabbiness (either deliberate or unintentional) can not only exist but be healthy. It is no coincidence that the health of these “other interests” indirectly helps people also.
The above is a long-term view, not a cash-out-and-run one, so not appealing to entities in it for the money or for political maneuvering.
It's interesting how all the different micro climates of CO react differently to storms. In North Colorado, our main water source, Big Thompson and Poudre River are close to 100% snow pack levels. I think Cameron Pass is 98%, I'm not sure how Steamboat Springs and other NO. Colorado towns are fairing.
I always assumed big front range storms would affect all front range communities equally, or the foothills above those communities, but that is not the case.
It's also interesting that most of the CO water conversation revolves around the Colorado, makes sense, but there are quite a few other rivers that might be arguably more important for Colorado, at least in terms of the front range.
It's also interesting that most of the CO water conversation revolves around the Colorado, makes sense, but there are quite a few other rivers that might be arguably more important for Colorado, at least in terms of the front range.
The Colorado River watershed has the most downstream users and has more complicated multi-state agreements, so it makes sense that it dominates the conversation. Despite it being on the other side of the divide from the Front Range, there are many users in eastern parts of the state that rely heavily on water from the Colorado River due to the tunnels and reservoirs that have been built to re-route water from that side of the divide.
While landscape, comercial processes, and AG are the heavy water hitters... Personal water use can also be a big contributor to conservation.
We have renters that consistantly use over 100g / day per occupant, including kids.
Spouse and I seldom use 20g / day combined, often under 10g / day for (2).
That adds up with a Colorado sized population.
1.5m when I arrived (big snows in those days, little pavement or rooftops, people were far better stewards of water resources, as they were carrying it up to their house in a bucket...)
2.8m when I was pushed out by the crowds
5.9m today
Many Colorado residents use over 170 gallons of water per capita per day. In contrast, some western cities use less than 150 gallons per capita per day. Water conservation is vital to enhancing the efficiency of how we use water.
@170g/day.. = 1b / g/day (1.2m Acre Ft of water / yr)
@17 g / day (reasonable) = 100m g/day = w/ conservation
Annual saving via personal conservation could = 328b gal savings / yr in Colorado alone
Make this REAL to people (including kids) and you might see some results.
Stealth, how is it that you and spouse typically use 20 gals/day combined, or less?
My husband and I use about 60 to 65 gals/day for both of us in winter, rising to 140 to 150 gals/day during the hottest part of the year, during which we turn on drip irrigation and hand-water some plants, all of which are native species or xeriscape ones chosen for compatibility with both the conditions and for “playing nice” with native species. We shower daily, do dishes by hand, and machine-wash a total of 4, sometimes 5, loads of laundry per week. Both of us are home most of the time, so commuting to a different place does not figure into this. Frankly, I am puzzled at just HOW DOES THE SO-CALLED AVERAGE AMERICAN USE 100+ GALLONS PER DAY PERSON?!?? We are at 32.5 and 72.5 gals/person/day in winter and summer, respectively, and it does not feel like deprivation! But I’d like to know how you get down to only 10 gals/day/person. Do you have pit or composting toilets instead of flush? Do your laundry at laundromats?
With the Average American, those lawn sprinklers, dishwashers, and washing machines must be going every day!
As for making water quantities visually real to the public, I read last month that somewhere in the Front Range (I think that’s where it was), someone had piled up a display of water barrels to demonstrate what a given quantity looks like when viewed at one moment. It was quite a tall, wide array!
Water usage trends in the west aren't the problem. Adding population has led to the loss of agricultural land in many areas that turns into new subdivisions. Those subdivisions have thousands more people and yet use far less water than farming. Climate change reducing our snowpack and leading to wild swings in weather between one year and the next are the issue.
While people always can claim the sky is falling the fact is conservation can usually meet whatever need is there. Las Vegas uses less water today than it did 20 years ago despite its endless population growth. Getting rid of grass and recycling water can be hugely effective. The same movement has gone to the Phoenix area where residents complain about it, but it is what is needed. Both cities have long been pointed out by outsiders as completely unsustainable from a water perspective and yet they continue to grow finding the water they need. The same could happen for all Colorado cities as well if necessary. While there is always this talk about limiting growth to protect scarce resources, where has that really happened?
It's true that water conservation efforts can be quite effective and Las Vegas is a good example of this. However, today's Las Vegas has come to the end of the road (or perhaps river) when it comes to water use by an ever growing population.
It’s estimated that Vegas gets up to 90 percent of its water from Lake Mead, courtesy of the mighty Colorado River. It stretches from its snowmelt source in the Rocky Mountains and winds its way through seven US states including Nevada, before eventually arriving at its mouth in Mexico’s Gulf of California.
By comparison, the remaining 10 per cent or so of Sin City’s water supply trickles in from groundwater wells and other pipelines.
That’s a lot of over-reliance on a source that serves around 20 million people across a number of states. Especially since, despite its population growth over the years, Nevada’s share of Lake Mead’s supply is historically much less than neighboring California and Arizona.
From Colorado River, the water reaches man-made Lake Mead via Lake Powell and is sucked through Las Vegas Valley’s “straws” on a journey that carries the water thousands of miles through treatment facilities on a cyclical mission.
The problem that we all are facing is that our two major reservoirs - Lake Mead and Lake Powell - have been in a steady decline which will only worsen as climate change continues to occur and wreck havoc with all man's best laid plans. At the same time that water is dwindling in Mead and Powell, the population of the West continues to boom. We are like careless children who keep withdrawing large sums of money from our bank accounts while never making a deposit. Even the fattest of bank accounts will eventually vanish in such a scenario and Powell and Mead are graphic examples of this.
Mead attained its highest level of water at 1,225 feet back in 1983. It would be one thing if Mead had continued at that elevation up through now and hydrologists were assuring us that Mead would continue to have a robust supply in the future. However, according to The Bureau of Reclamation Mead's water level is currently at 1,081 feet, and the Bureau projects it will drop below 1,075 feet as soon as June. After it crosses that threshold, the federal government will declare an official water shortage. Under a Drought Contingency Plan agreed upon by the affected states in 2019, some states will start to see big cuts in how much water they receive from Lake Mead starting in 2022.
You can't conserve what no longer exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikabike
Hey, sorry I did not respond to your second post earlier. I get your point that more than individual voluntary conservation action is needed, so no offense taken.
Like CR, I also fear that any water savings will be seen as opportunity for the greedy overdevelopment interests. Seems that a portion of the human population views resources strictly for their potential commercial or humans-only use, whether the resource is water or land. I heard someone comment on buyers who had just acquired a large parcel of beautiful land, all of it under conservation easement and therefore not open to development other than building the buyer’s own home. The buyers bought it BECAUSE they appreciated the conservation restrictions, not despite them. They paid a hefty price, too. But the commenters dismissed the land with, “You can’t do anything with it.” I kept my mouth shut, thinking that building a home and hiking on their own land and having the peace of knowing no houses would be added nearby and enjoying the quiet darkness of night etc etc constituted a lot of priceless “doing.” Worth far more than endless amenities/conveniences are.
What you present—development standards that stipulate lower per-capita water consumption and xeriscape plantings—is a step in the right direction. A good start.
I would take it a step farther and incorporate standards that promote improved nonhuman conditions, too. Namely, conserve resources so that the millions of species being squeezed out of existence by human grabbiness (either deliberate or unintentional) can not only exist but be healthy. It is no coincidence that the health of these “other interests” indirectly helps people also.
The above is a long-term view, not a cash-out-and-run one, so not appealing to entities in it for the money or for political maneuvering.
I couldn't agree with you more, Pika. Long term planning never seems to interest anybody - we are all too busy living our lives in the now. In addition, realistic long term planning has to acknowledge that the West's status as a hydrological fiefdom is coming to an end. There will be winners and losers just like always, but this time around there will be many, many losers and the loss of vast sums of money is only the beginning of it.
Arizona is already becoming very thirsty with few options available - the depleted supply of water simply is not enough to meet the ever growing demand. Last year Arizona’s top water official presented new long-term projections showing that Arizona's Pinal County doesn’t have enough groundwater to provide for the fast-growing area’s cities, farms and many planned subdivisions over the coming decades. Developers want to build subdivisions that would add a total of 139,000 new homes to the region, but the water is simply not there.
Arizona is making up for water shortages from the Colorado River by digging wells deep into its regional aquifers, but even an aquifer is a finite resource and once an aquifer has been pumped dry, few options remain. In the end, Phoenix might actually come to rely on heavily expensive desalinated water pumped all the way from the Gulf of Mexico.
While the idea of recycling wastewater and cleaning it up to the extent that it can be used as drinking water sounds somewhat disgusting, it's certainly an idea whose time has come. If it's good enough for El Paso, why shouldn't it be good enough for Denver and other Front Range cities? Water is a finite substance in the West, and it's becoming increasingly precious. We all need to conserve in every way we possibly can.
What is one of THE most important things we need to sustain life...water. What do we do with it? We poop in it. LOL.
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.
