# Law Makers Move forward Dam Project on Colorado



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

We are eventually in for difficult interstate fights about water. Adding more of this water projects is just going to continue to stress a system that is already dangerously over utilized. I know Washington County is still moving forward with the Lake Powell Pipeline and just recently passed one needed approval. 

All of these projects are justified by arguments about growth. At some point the communities of the intermountain west are going to have to recognize there is an upper limit and we would actually best constrain ourselves to an even lower sustainable number.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

restrac2000 said:


> All of these projects are justified by arguments about growth. At some point the communities of the intermountain west are going to have to recognize there is an upper limit and we would actually best constrain ourselves to an even lower sustainable number.


What no one's talking about is that in modern times with widespread water conservation, economic / population growth and water use are effectively being decoupled in all the major population centers. For example, Denver residents have managed to reduce water consumption by more than 20 percent in the last 15 years, even with a 15 percent increase in population, according to Denver Water CEO Jim Lochhead.

When there's less water, people use less water.


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

So you're saying you trust the Denver Water CEO?


----------



## Issip (Apr 7, 2011)

It would provide more irrigation water to about 25 different ranches and only costs 80 million? What a bargain for the taxpayers to be able to subsidize these ranches for $3.2million each + annual operating and repair costs.

The government has tons of extra money, the taxpayers have no other needs, and Lake Powell and Mead are bursting with water so why not allocate the excess water and money to these poor ranches?


When viewed in that light you can easily see why it is worth whatever environmental damage may result.


----------



## crispy (May 20, 2004)

I personally think this is a stupid idea, but I believe this is Wyoming tax money and supported by Wyoming taxpayers

and Wyoming taxpayers don't pay much, since most state income is from oil & gas taxes

with Colorado doctrine established, water rights are kind of 'use it or loose it' - which is too bad since states have an incentive to do stupid things to keep their water rights. maybe this can change someday


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

crispy said:


> with Colorado doctrine established, water rights are kind of 'use it or loose it' - which is too bad since states have an incentive to do stupid things to keep their water rights. maybe this can change someday


The "Doctrine of Prior Appropriation" is what's used by most Western States and was established in Colorado, I believe. The system is based on mining law which stipulates that the first to stake their claim and develop it have the first right to the water. And the "use it or loose it" part is one of the real downfalls to the system. I had a water manager explain to me once when we were talking about waterlogging the soils, and also flushing toxic metals and salts from the aquifer down along the Arkansas River on the plains. "A farm gets a half inch of rain on Tuesday, and then the farmer's obligated to take his share of the ditch water on Wednesday when his crops absolutely don't need it."


----------



## dbertolad (Feb 11, 2015)

Paddle Iraq said:


> So you're saying you trust the Denver Water CEO?


Do you have any data on this topic to suggest that we shouldn't trust this statistic?


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

dbertolad said:


> Do you have any data on this topic to suggest that we shouldn't trust this statistic?


Do you have any data that says that we should? Andy H. linked to an article where the CEO of Denver Water said that Denver residents have managed to reduce water consumption by more than 20 percent in the last 15 years, even with a 15 percent increase in population... but it doesn't have any data backing that up. It's also a feel good article about expanding a front range reservoir, so yeah, 

Here's some good information about the proposed Wyoming dam: Supporters of $80M dam beat back funding cut | WyoFile


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

From the utility:










I run a water conservation program for a municipal utility. Denver Water has long been an example of success. A few things drive this. One is that fixtures are getting more efficient due to more stringent standards. You can't buy a five-gallon toilet anymore. Another driver is the cost of obtaining new water. Water rights are really expensive because of availability. Denver realized many years ago that conservation can be a source of new supply, and if getting new water rights is really expensive, you can get good results from targeted conservation for less. They can also regulate how much turf is installed, and they can reward customers financially for installing xeric landscapes and then watering them less.

I remember a presentation at a conference several years ago from what I think was Aurora Colorado. They tried developing individual water budgets for all their customers. They used GIS to determine landscape areas, and each customer was given an amount they could use. Any more and the price would go through the roof. Neat idea, and it took a lot of work, but after a short time (a couple years), customers got tired of it and insisted it go away. I likely have some of the details wrong; it's been several years.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Anyone want to buy a $67,470 property from American milling of east ST. louis?
Trust or conservation group would be a better way to purchase, don't want to be a sole person standing in the way of big business. It could monkey wrench there shit.....


----------



## El-Butcher (Feb 22, 2018)

USGS water usage

https://water.usgs.gov/watuse/wutrends.html


----------



## ArgoCat (May 14, 2007)

*Water Law*

Hey Andy:

There was actually a new wrench thrown in Colorado Water law in the last few years and it added one interesting word: "efficient" use. No case law has been established, but I am sure it is coming. In other words, I have a water right and a leaky ditch that loses half of the water before it gets to my beneficial use. Under this new language, it is surmised that the water right might be reduced by the amount of leakage and re-appropriated. Then the other catch is that it might expand to field flooding, any amount of leakage, and a slipery slope towards crop choice, et al... Worrying lots of people and we really do not know what will come of it.

Don;t have time to look up the exact language, but High Country News had an article on it not too long ago.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

ArgoCat said:


> Don;t have time to look up the exact language, but High Country News had an article on it not too long ago.


ArgoCat,

Thanks for the info on this, I'd really like to know more about it. I haven't seen in the legislature about it and with my day job as a hydrologist in Colorado I'm surprised I haven't heard about it by now if it's something that could really make an impact. I mean, Hell, legalization of rain barrels was a major multi-year legislative battle and the CWCB had to do a study on it and all... If you could post some more info or a link to the article that would be greatly appreciated.

Looking forward to hearing more about it,

-AH


----------



## spencerhenry (Jun 21, 2004)

Decreasing water usage is pretty easy, but you have to want to.
The people I see screaming the most about water are people on the left, like nearly the entire town of Carbondale. Drive though town in the summer, almost every house has a green lawn and lots of irrigation dependent vegetation. People are apparently not yet ready to give up their lawns and shrubbery. I would guess that they are not yet willing to give up long showers, doing multiple loads of laundry per week, letting the water run to get hot, letting the water run while brushing their teeth, and on and on. 
When I built my house in 1996, I put in cisterns and no well. I piped spring water down to the cisterns, but the spring only ran until about july 1 after that I would haul water that I bought in town. After a few years of that, I paid for water to be delivered, 3100 gallons at a time. Full cisterns of about 3800 gallons would last me about 6 months.


----------

