# The end of the Colorado river?



## Ben-Lucks-a-Bitch (Jan 28, 2011)

These guys are just a bunch of college drop outs with nothing better to do then go on 4 month float trips paid for by other people.
There is not one single brown claw worthy waterfall on their entire trip.


----------



## Paul7 (Aug 14, 2012)

Wow wakeup call I had no idea it didn't reach the sea.


----------



## Pro Leisure (Sep 19, 2011)

Ben-Lucks-a-Bitch said:


> These guys are just a bunch of college drop outs with nothing better to do then go on 4 month float trips paid for by other people.
> There is not one single brown claw worthy waterfall on their entire trip.


 
To me it's a great project to create awareness.


----------



## Pizzle (Jun 26, 2007)

There is a good documentary that came out about a year ago on this same topic. Pretty sure it was part of last years Boulder's Adventure Film fest, can't remember the name for the life of me. At the end of the movie they were just wondering around in the desert.


----------



## paddleprincess (Jun 25, 2010)

This had been happening for years


----------



## River Malt (Dec 7, 2009)

*Running Dry*

The book 'Running Dry' documents this in detail. Pretty sad that the Colorado has not reached the sea in over a decade...

http://www.amazon.com/Running-Dry-Journey-Source-Colorado/dp/1426205058


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Might be thinking of "River at Risk"...also "Cadillac Desert" by Marc Reisner is a good read for understanding the value folks place on water.

Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk (2008) - IMDb


----------



## yak1 (Jan 28, 2006)

I was down the low point (geographic) of AZ. and saw the Colorado turned into a few canals with meager flow and water so salty and loaded with pesticides and fertilizer that there was no way you'd want to drink it. The Colorado has not seen the ocean for a couple of decades.


----------



## cosurfgod (Oct 10, 2003)

I'm not trying to be a hater but why do we care if the Colorado River goes into the ocean? I'm sure there's no gradient for brown claw down there. Is it just about the fish and bird habitat in those final miles? I dislike all the dams and the problems associated with the "adjustments" made to the river but why not use the water before it enters the ocean? By the time it gets to Yuma shouldn't they take the rest of it for farming or water for San Diego? At that point who cares?



Either way, it looks like its the front rangers fault. Hot chicks and metrosexuals require alot of water.


----------



## Spade Hackle (Jun 18, 2007)

Try reading "Wet Desert" by Gary Hansen, a mediocre novel but an OK story about the Colorado, dams, desert written by an engineer. Fiction, but interesting.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

The Denver Aquarium has had an interactive display about this for a long time. They follow the Colorado from source to sea showing the various ecosystems along the river. At the end, they have a large aquarium with the sea life from the Gulf of California, but the wall display shows how the river doesn't reach it anymore. It's a cool thing for the kids to see and understand. (There's also an awesome flash flood simulation room.)

cosurfgod- the dilemma is two fold- first, the purist view is that we want it to reach the ocean because it's supposed to. This means that yes, it's harming fish and wildlife habitats not only at the dried out point, but all the way up the river. Since certain fish swim upriver to spawn, they can't either procreate or provide food for their natural predators upstream.

2nd- the more that water is siphoned off to cities, the larger those cities will grow, necessitating the siphoning of more water, until, possible worse case scenario, there's no more Grand Canyon, or Westwater, or Gore Canyon.


----------



## Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (Jun 3, 2010)

cosurfgod said:


> I'm not trying to be a hater but why do we care if the Colorado River goes into the ocean? I'm sure there's no gradient for brown claw down there. Is it just about the fish and bird habitat in those final miles? I dislike all the dams and the problems associated with the "adjustments" made to the river but why not use the water before it enters the ocean? By the time it gets to Yuma shouldn't they take the rest of it for farming or water for San Diego? At that point who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, it looks like its the front rangers fault. Hot chicks and metrosexuals require alot of water.


Agreed


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

Thanks for the suggestion, am always looking for ANYTHING on the Colorado and/or the Grand.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Ben-Lucks-a-Bitch said:


> These guys are just a bunch of college drop outs with nothing better to do then go on 4 month float trips paid for by other people.
> There is not one single brown claw worthy waterfall on their entire trip.


Hey man... we all graduated from the institution that then paid us to go out an dick around on the Colorado River all summer. Yeehaaww .

COsurfgod- You should care because it is not just an effect, it is a symptom of the Southwest's attitude towards the river. Powell exists for the same reason that the river doesn't reach the sea. Glen Canyon is drowned by Lake Powell because of the same mentality that causes the river to dry up at the Mexican border. 

We all live downstream from somewhere. In other words, the whole system is connected. Just because you live in the West Slope or Denver doesn't mean you can ignore issues facing the river in LA. The natural system draws us together. On top of that, we are all legally bound together through the 1922 Colorado River Compact. 

In the end, as long as we treat the river solely as a resource to be used for development and our enjoyment in specific areas, you can count your recreational interests as in peril. If you want the opportunity to raft and kayak in the beautiful places that we love then you gotta love the whole river.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Oh and here is a page with more info on our trip and the river Down the Colorado Expedition | Facebook


----------



## nicho (Mar 18, 2009)

This is another good book about not only the Grand but also the ridiculous water management of the West.

*Canyon*: *Michael* P. *Ghiglieri*: 9780816512867: Amazon.com: Books

Canyon - Michael P. Ghiglieri - Google Books


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

*Most of the water*

Actually it's important to realize that most water is siphoned off to farmers. Most who get their water almost for free subsidized by people living in cities, farmers have no incentive to conserve water because they have never paid the true cost. It almost made sense when some of these giant reservoirs were built and many farms were family owned but now it's mostly large agribusiness corporations still getting price breaks on their water and massive farm subsidies.
Another good book is "Hijacking a River. A Political History of the Grand Canyon"




TakemetotheRiver said:


> The Denver Aquarium has had an interactive display about this for a long time. They follow the Colorado from source to sea showing the various ecosystems along the river. At the end, they have a large aquarium with the sea life from the Gulf of California, but the wall display shows how the river doesn't reach it anymore. It's a cool thing for the kids to see and understand. (There's also an awesome flash flood simulation room.)
> 
> cosurfgod- the dilemma is two fold- first, the purist view is that we want it to reach the ocean because it's supposed to. This means that yes, it's harming fish and wildlife habitats not only at the dried out point, but all the way up the river. Since certain fish swim upriver to spawn, they can't either procreate or provide food for their natural predators upstream.
> 
> 2nd- the more that water is siphoned off to cities, the larger those cities will grow, necessitating the siphoning of more water, until, possible worse case scenario, there's no more Grand Canyon, or Westwater, or Gore Canyon.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Wavester said:


> Actually it's important to realize that most water is siphoned off to farmers. Most who get their water almost for free subsidized by people living in cities, farmers have no incentive to conserve water because they have never paid the true cost. It almost made sense when some of these giant reservoirs were built and many farms were family owned but now it's mostly large agribusiness corporations still getting price breaks on their water and massive farm subsidies.
> Another good book is "Hijacking a River. A Political History of the Grand Canyon"


Ag users are indeed the largest users of water in the state of Colorado. However, a large portion of the water that they use ends up filtering back into the river. Yes, the water is polluted and worse quality than it was before being used for irrigation but at least it returns to the river. Water that is siphoned off to cities out of the Basin (Front Range, Phoenix, LA) will never return to the river. 

Municipal and ag users have to use water from the river at this point and both types of users have a lot of room to improve their conservation standards.


----------



## Preston H. (Jun 25, 2008)

David Spiegel said:


> Ag users are indeed the largest users of water in the state of Colorado. However, a large portion of the water that they use ends up filtering back into the river. Yes, the water is polluted and worse quality than it was before being used for irrigation but at least it returns to the river. Water that is siphoned off to cities out of the Basin (Front Range, Phoenix, LA) will never return to the river.


Point taken on return flows from agricultural use, even if modern sprinklers don't produce a lot of return flows. But can you tell us what percentage of transmountain water goes to ag use vs. municipal use? I am wondering if it is different in the lower basin states than it is in CO.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

It takes far more water to feed people, particularly on the high protein diets we have all come to know and love than it does to quench their thirst.


----------



## Wavester (Jul 2, 2010)

Co is just one state out of 7 that gets water from the Colorado, it's also a state that grows very low yeild crops that are water intensive. In other words without almost free water paid for by taxpayers it probably wouldn't be profitable to grow crops in certain parts of the west. CA gets more water then all the other states and I doubt that farmers in the middle of the Imperial Valley a desert are returning very much water back into the river. Most probably evaperates before it even gets to the crops. A very inefficient process, just one of the unintended consequences for giving farmers subsidized water, they have no incentive to conserve. 
Meanwhile people in cities who only represent around 25% of the water use are not only conserving but they are subsidizing inefficient farming.




David Spiegel said:


> Ag users are indeed the largest users of water in the state of Colorado. However, a large portion of the water that they use ends up filtering back into the river. Yes, the water is polluted and worse quality than it was before being used for irrigation but at least it returns to the river. Water that is siphoned off to cities out of the Basin (Front Range, Phoenix, LA) will never return to the river.
> 
> Municipal and ag users have to use water from the river at this point and both types of users have a lot of room to improve their conservation standards.


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

Spade Hackle said:


> Try reading "Wet Desert" by Gary Hansen, a mediocre novel but an OK story about the Colorado, dams, desert written by an engineer. Fiction, but interesting.


Mediocre? I loved this book. Great story about the plight of the Colorado River while having a great fictional story line that made it a page turner. Still trying to get through Cadilac Desert (yawn) but Wet Desert was great. Highly recommended.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Wavester- Definitely not trying to defend ag, simply pointing out that all sectors have a lot of work to do. Many crops grown in the southwest (particularly alfalfa) are incredibly water intensive and make no sense in a desert environment. Truly sad that the river in its lower reaches is converted into cost-inneficient cabbage instead of reaching the ocean. You are totally right that the right cost incentives could get farmers to put more effort into lining their ditches and using more efficient irrigation technology. That could save a lot of water. 

That said, water users in Denver/Fort Collins are also not paying market rates for their water. They are getting some of the cheapest water in the country despite its scarcity and the immense infrastructural projects necessary to transport it. It is also important to note that projects such as the Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT), although they take a small volume of water in absolute terms, have a huge effect on their part of the system. By taking a small portion of the flow of the overall system, the CBT dewaters miles of stream near Hot Sulphur Springs and Windy Gap. 

Preston- I don't want to get my numbers wrong so I'll look into that a bit and try to get some good hard facts on it. 



Wavester said:


> Co is just one state out of 7 that gets water from the Colorado, it's also a state that grows very low yeild crops that are water intensive. In other words without almost free water paid for by taxpayers it probably wouldn't be profitable to grow crops in certain parts of the west. CA gets more water then all the other states and I doubt that farmers in the middle of the Imperial Valley a desert are returning very much water back into the river. Most probably evaperates before it even gets to the crops. A very inefficient process, just one of the unintended consequences for giving farmers subsidized water, they have no incentive to conserve.
> Meanwhile people in cities who only represent around 25% of the water use are not only conserving but they are subsidizing inefficient farming.


----------



## Preston H. (Jun 25, 2008)

David Spiegel said:


> Preston- I don't want to get my numbers wrong so I'll look into that a bit and try to get some good hard facts on it.


Thanks David. I would be surprised if the majority of the transmountain water does not go to ag use. But I suppose it's possible with so much going to municipal use outside of the basin in Southern CA.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

Preston H. said:


> Point taken on return flows from agricultural use, even if modern sprinklers don't produce a lot of return flows. But can you tell us what percentage of transmountain water goes to ag use vs. municipal use? I am wondering if it is different in the lower basin states than it is in CO.


Ok Preston so it looks like the exact numbers on this are still being researched by the Bureau of Rec in a supply/demand study that should be completed in the near future. 

I got in touch with Brendan, the Program Coordinator for the State of the Rockies Project and here is what he has to say:

"In the upper basin, I’d say the large majority of transbasin water is for municipal and industrial use. Some water we dump in the Ark may end up going towards farmers down below Pueblo, but I imagine most ag uses down there are allocations from the Ark’s natural flows, not water we’ve sent over from the Colorado. Wyoming similarly uses their transbasin diversions in Cheyenne, but I don’t think it contributes to ag along the north platte. "

"The lower basin is different though, for a number of reasons. The Imperial Valley is not inside the basin and receives over 1 MAF of water a year from the Colorado. However, Metro Water (LA) takes an equally large, if not larger share of CA’s 4.4 MAF. California does use the vast majority of its allocation in transbasin diversions. Arizona is mostly in the basin, so you don’t see huge transfers of water out of the Colorado River basin, but the Central Arizona Project geographically reallocates water in a manner that’s inconsistent with whats naturally found. Short answer, in the Lower Basin CA diverts almost all of its water out of basin and Imperial valley is big ag culprit, but LA still has the bigger straw. AZ doesn’t have any transbasin diversions, but their environmental engineering for places like Tucson and Phoenix is just as bad." 

Hope that helps a bit?


----------



## BCxp (Jun 3, 2012)

For an interesting take on this, check out "The Tamarisk Hunter", a short story by Paolo Bacigalupi


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

*Really?*

Who Cares? Really? The fact that the Colorado no longer reaches the ocean is an issue that should matter to everyone, unless of course you are so sickballer that you have no hope or vision for the future. I can appreciate sarcasm to the fullest and hope that some of these ignorant comments are a joke. The big picture issue on how we manage our rivers is that all the sediment carried by those rivers is now stored in reservoirs instead of deltas and oceans. The Sea of Cortez is the womb of the Pacific. The biodiversity of that place is in sharp decline. The MASSIVE sediment load that once nourished those waters are unlikely to return in our lifetimes. What we will continue to see in our lifetimes however is the continued extinction of native plants and animals. Everything IS connected and I am hopeful that members of the boating community will continue to fight for clean water and free flowing rivers.


----------



## ootek34 (Mar 27, 2007)

I agree with jmacn....It's a sytematic problem that we have with the way we treat our water in the west. Look at the old pics of what the confluence with the Sea of Cortez once looked like , and what it now. The attitudes of bens a bitch and spag ho, while hopefully pure sarcasm, seem to be the new the norm in young paddlers. Put your Claw back in where it gets browner....See ya in the Ditch yall


----------



## Shitouta (Apr 17, 2008)

I am Ben Luck. Will somebody who runs this site please delete the user "Ben-Lucks-a-Bitch"?


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Shitouta said:


> I am Ben Luck. Will somebody who runs this site please delete the user "Ben-Lucks-a-Bitch"?


Did you report the post? That's probably the most effective method. So lame!!!!


----------



## jmacn (Nov 20, 2010)

Not sure if B-L-A-B brownclaw was just trying to get a rise or what. For anyone out there who considers themselves a boater and loves water, being informed about the health of their local watershed is really important. We do live in a progressive country where decisions are made by elected officials. The more you can learn about the policies of the past and the related benefits/consequences, the more able you will be in the future to weigh in on important decisions that still need to be made. Hydro power has a lot of pros and cons. The rate at which dams are being built around the world today exceeds our own dam building hay day. When major continental drainages are impounded and developed for agriculture and growing cities, the ocean is affected in a big way. The health of our oceans has not been addressed yet because of the many other global problems. It is a major issue however and I would love to be on the side of people choosing future policy makers that will support clean water and healthy ecosystems (even if they happen to be in mexico). A source to sea mission anywhere is badass, stouts or not.


----------



## David Spiegel (Sep 26, 2007)

I am glad that Ben Luck's good name is defended. He is 50% gentleman, 50% scholar, and 100% gnarly dude. Folks, that adds up to 200% of a human right there. But it would be great if the off topic posts about Ben's worth as a human could be deleted or stopped somehow so that we can get back to the Colorado River Basin.

On that note, here are a few great articles about the ongoing drought: 

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20121206/NEWS/121209901/1078&ParentProfile=1055

http://www.gjfreepress.com/article/20121130/COMMUNITY_NEWS/121129956/1062&parentprofile=1062

It's a real a dilemma. Continue activities like snow making that represent substantial tourist $$$ for the area or allow the fish/riparian zone to "thrive?"


----------



## zpodmore (Aug 30, 2010)

*Delta Restoration*

The US and Mexico have reached an agreement which allows them to share water with each other and the Colorado River delta over the next five years. This is a huge step forward in the effort to reconnect the river with the sea. 

Read about the deal on the NY times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/21/us/us-and-mexico-sign-deal-on-managing-colorado-river.html?_r=0


----------

