# Dams



## Guest (Oct 13, 2003)

*More info on the Da*m Referendum*

Please take a minute or two to go to www.votenoona.com and check out reasons to not support the big dam bill. Also look at all the groups that oppose the referendum.

Thanks,
Kate


----------



## Txoof (Oct 19, 2003)

*Right On! NO ON A. Get your lazy butt to the polls!*

Everybody rouse your lazy butts and find yoru way to a polling place in November. A is a scarry arse bill that serves the water interests in the state without setting any specific rules as to where and how the $4 Billion dollars of our money will be used. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Denver, Auora and Colorado Springs will be jockying for more water projectes (spelled DAMS). 
We don't need any more dams in Colorado. We need more sensible water usage (let your lawn turn brown and title it "An expirament in water conservation and native plant growth in a suburban setting"), not more water storage. 
Vote NO on A.
Thank you.


----------



## Ken C (Oct 21, 2003)

I need to be educated here. I see the primary three rivers in Northern Colorado, Poudre, Colorado and Arkansas as all being enhanced by dams. They take the season that could be as little as two to three weeks long and stretch it out. While it may not go as big, it certainly helps comercial boating and keeps my hobie active longer. 

I guess I'm not against setting aside money to enhance water storage, where I would be against many specific prodjects. 

I would think we kayakers from a selfish prospective would like the storage to take place in select locations as high as possible. Thus allowing for maximum season down stream. Also allowing for the maintanance of minimum flows to protect fish populations. 

A couple years ago a post on this site spoke about reverse pumping into aquifers as a means of water storage. This struck me as an awesome solution. No environmental impact and no loss due to evaporation. If anyone knows where there is more information on this subject I would love to see it.

Fill me in on why I'm misguided on the storage issue.

Ken


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I cant really say that the ARK season is extended by having the Pueblo reservoir, anyway the big question is where to store. If a reservoir of any circumstance is going to be around 5 or 6 miles long then that is 5 or 6 miles of river lost. We don't have that many rivers to lose at this point. My real problem with A is that after we approve the money, which will be the most debt the state has ever incurred, we get no say in what they will do with it. In my opinion if the Springs need more water then Pueblo res needs to be revamped and increase the size of it but I would like the opportunity to vote on it issue by issue.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2003)

Education:
Rivers in this state would not run dry.
Think about all that water never being released.
The world's major source of fresh water is rain, dams reduce a rivers surface area and prevent evaporation causing rain fall to decrease. Low snow packs and drought have been our states latest problem. Bigger snow pack means rivers run all year.
The colorado river doesn't even reach its natural destination any more because of dams and unnatural irrigation systems. 
Dams due irreversable damage to the environment.
Private water rights would be supported by our tax money.
The fish population in this state has become almost completely non-native and dams prevent natural spawning and other migration of fish.
Water is in the process of being commodified meaning water (which is becoming scarce) goes to the highest bidder.
If you want more info on the water crisis here in colorado or across the world I can recommend many sources.

Cheers,
Aaron


----------



## Txoof (Oct 19, 2003)

*Damn Dams*

One only need to visit Lake Foul (Powl) to see how horrible a damn is to an ecosystem. Dams may extend some seasons as we see on the Platte (and I do love the long season) and on Gore, but in the long run they do nothing but harm to the environments they are created in. 
The Grand Canyon, one of the most unique environments on the North American continent is being destroyed by the dams up-river. The natural flood and ebe that has formed and shapped the canyon has been serriously disrupted. Unique and endangered species are being lost every year due to the derth of nutrients and sediment that would normally be brought down by the spring floods. The dams cause most of the sediment to fall out of suspension and never reach the Grand. The water comming out of the bottom of the dam is far colder than it would be naturally at that point; this does some pretty horrible things to native fish populations as well.
Then there's the issue of waste. By stopping water in one place in a big pool, you increase the surface water exposed to sun. This water evaporates. Billions (that's right, BILLIONS, with a B) of gallons of fresh water are lost every year to evaporation from dams in the desert. They also waste the natural resource of the location. None of us who are reading this post will EVER see Glenn Canyon in our lifetimes. It is GONE forever. That is a terrible, terrible price to pay so that we can have a place to run our speed boats and have green lawns in the middle of the Tuscon desert. 
Instead of new water projects (spelled DAMS), what we need is more responsible water management. We don't need more water, we just need to use what we have more wisely. We don't need more blue-grass lawns and 2 hour showers. 

Please, save Colorado from more debt, more environmental degridation and more dams, Vote no on A.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2003)

DAM POLITICIANS NOT RIVERS


----------



## Old Fart (Oct 12, 2003)

This isn't about kayaking. It's about rivers, and putting money into the hands of those that don't respect them!


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2003)

double-a-ron said:


> The world's major source of fresh water is rain, dams reduce a rivers surface area and prevent evaporation causing rain fall to decrease. Low snow packs and drought have been our states latest problem. Bigger snow pack means rivers run all year.


Your "education" has it backwords. Dams increase the surface area of rivers, causing more evaporation. Lake Powell looses around 8% its water each year to evoration. I doubt many rivers loose that much to evaporation in 190miles. 

Evaporation from rivers is not a significant source of rain/snow. If you look a weather map then you'll see major storms come from the gulf of Mexico, Pacific ocean, or other large bodies of water; not the Arkansas river.

I fully agree with your other points. Vote no on A.


----------



## el gordo (Oct 10, 2003)

We have enough water capacity as it stands now. Moisture in Colorado follows cycles. 

I just received a mailer from Bill Owens which contains disinformation. This is a political "severe drought" scare tactic. Certain groups are taking advantage of the "drought" cycle. It is a panic push, to move money, to the interested parties, to accomplish narrow business goals. Once they get the money, we the people, will have no say on which projects are a go or no-go. Exposure to undesirable projects is high.

Look at the endorsers of A:
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
Dairy Farmers, Livestock concerns, Cattlemen Association, 
Corn growers, Bankers Association, Carwash Association, ect.

They are agri-business and developers.

Go look at the NON-endorsers: http://www.votenoona.com/ It is plain to see who benefits from A.

If the goal is to "improve water conservation," shut off the sprinkler more often.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2003)

Another aspect of this is that they want to use the money to enhance existing facilities. This could include things like expanding Spinnea (sp?) res by flooding Waterton canyon. This would be a loss to those of us who enjoy the area but a 'benefit' to water storage. Money would not be an issue because they would already have it in their hands which would bypass many of the hurdles that they have to go thru now to get approval for such projects. 

Just another angle to think about......


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2003)

I see a number of arguments here.

1.) Dams in any form are bad
2.) We need more sensible water use.
3.) Natural flows are best.

Here are my thoughts. I again ask for feedback.

Dams are a function of the massive population growth in the West. The fact that the Colorado no longer reaches the gulf can be attributed largely to water usage. (Population / agricultural)

We need more sensible water use. I totally agree. This focus should be legislated through local and national means as to legal irrigation methods and urban planning to stop the waste of this resource.

Natural flows will not exist in the future. We will continue to grow in population and flows on western rivers will be effected.

If stagecoach, Dillon, Turquoise, and other lakes were made 10-20 feet deeper as a result of this legislation would any boatable runs be effected? The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water. 

Many mentions are made that if this money is set aside we lose control of what the money will be spent on. Would we not be able to stop any action that effected viable white water in the west?

As I think about this I would rather see storage at the source (High mountain lakes) than massive dams in Arizona and Utah. In the alternative I still think the idea about reverse pumping into aquifers is intriguing. (Does the science exist to support the theory?)


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2003)

In response to!
"Your "education" has it backwords. Dams increase the surface area of rivers, causing more evaporation. Lake Powell looses around 8% its water each year to evoration. I doubt many rivers loose that much to evaporation in 190miles. 

Evaporation from rivers is not a significant source of rain/snow. If you look a weather map then you'll see major storms come from the gulf of Mexico, Pacific ocean, or other large bodies of water; not the Arkansas river."

A weather map does show that but for a storm to keep up its intensity it must pull moisture from on land sources (hurricanes for example). Next point, Dams reduce surface area and stagnate the water. A dam is much deeper than a river and a river is continuosly churning (chundering in kayak terms). Waterfalls for example throw water into the air. Rivers also due this when they are allowed to flow. Dams also saturate more ground in a condensed area than rivers. This is important because that water cannot evaporate. Now don't get me wrong if you can produce a source to dispute anything that I said I will read it and take it into account. Anyone interested in more water issues globally and locally here are some sources to understand the coming water crisis. "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow available at the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), "Water, Culture and Power" by Donahue and Johnston Island Press 1998, Check out the recent editions of the denver post (last sunday- Owens vs. Salazar in a debate over referendum A) and finally their is a lot of literature examining the sources of colorado's recent drought.

Cheers, 
Aaron


----------



## Txoof (Oct 19, 2003)

ken again wrote:

_Dams are a function of the massive population growth in the West. The fact that the Colorado no longer reaches the gulf can be attributed Largely to water usage. (Population / agricultural) _

This is very true. The problem here is the fact that growth has not been limited in any substantial way. 'Unlimited' growth that has been seen in the West is due to the fact that we have an abundance of land and an apparent abundance of water. When we realize that we don't have an unlimited set of resources growth will stop on its own. Unfortunately, this point will be reached only when most of the rivers are damed and there really is no 'surplus' water heading for the ocean.

_If stagecoach, Dillon, Turquoise, and other lakes were made 10-20 feet deeper as a result of this legislation would any boatable runs be effected? The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water. _

You are overlooking the downstream impact of dams. There is the issue of fish spawning inturupted by the physical presense of the dam, water temperature issues and flow issues. Many western fish depend on cold spring floods that eventually taper off to provide shallow warm waters for their reproductive cycles. Dams completely foul this system up. They mediate floods and then releas COLD water from their bases (there are dams that have syphon systems that move warmer water from the top of their resivoirs, but they are not terribly common on large projects). 
Further control of already injured watersheds is not the answer. Besides, how much value do you put on one week extra of boating? There's some serrious karmic issues there.

Your reverse pumping of aquifers is intriguing from an engineering stand point, but it still takes water from natural sources (the rivers) and moves it from its natural setting thus disrupting the environment.

I know this has all been said before, but what we all reall need to consider is what A is really proposing. A gives the water board a blank check and the voters absolutely no say in how that money is spent. It creates debt for the citizens while providing funding for private buisiness projects. Many engineering and construction companies stand to make mountains of money off this bill. 

I personally have no desire to create (more) debt for myself and have no say as to how that money is spent.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2003)

double-a-ron said:


> In response to!
> 
> Next point, Dams reduce surface area and stagnate the water. A dam is much deeper than a river and a river is continuosly churning (chundering in kayak terms). Waterfalls for example throw water into the air. Rivers also due this when they are allowed to flow. Dams also saturate more ground in a condensed area than rivers. This is important because that water cannot evaporate. Now don't get me wrong if you can produce a source to dispute anything that I said I will read it and take it into account. Anyone interested in more water issues globally and locally here are some sources to understand the coming water crisis. "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow available at the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), "Water, Culture and Power" by Donahue and Johnston Island Press 1998, Check out the recent editions of the denver post (last sunday- Owens vs. Salazar in a debate over referendum A) and finally their is a lot of literature examining the sources of colorado's recent drought.
> 
> ...


This is funny, cause even thou your points all all valid, well not exactly. Damns DO NOT Reduce surface area, they increase it by a large margin. Yes waterfalls do aid in evaporation, but minimally, they throw liquid molecules into the air, they only way they evaporate is through surface area, and I promise, surface area gained from a waterfall is tiny compared to surface air gained by a damn. Yes damns saturate more area than rivers do, but subterrainian flow of water is again minimall, once the damn is at full capacity, then the ground saturates quickly, then all water loss is regulated to what can flow out of the ground into the local aquafer. As for books try environmetnal engineering science for some facts on evaporation and such. Don't mean to argue, but this is what i believe actually happens, or at least what i have learned. Still, when all is said and done, damns suck, vote no.


----------



## Brent (Oct 23, 2003)

The "big picture" issue here is growth management. Until Colorado gets a grasp on regional growth and sprawl, demand for water will not diminish. Forget about evaporation and surface area and think about toilets flushing and lawns sprinkling on the front range. That's the issue. Agricultural lands are diminishing.

Many states have enacted "concurrency" statutes that halt growth when adequate public facilities are not present. That won't happen in Colorado. Rather than using sound planning principles, the politics in this state will dictate more growth. I am not saying growth is necessarily bad, but there are many ways to address the need for water without spending billions of public tax dollars (to benefit private corporations) for projects that will negatively affect other economic sectors (tourism, for example).

Why do Bill Owens and other Republicans support the issue? Because the organizations that put them in office support it. Personally, I am tired of all the special interest cash-n'-carry, pay-to-play politics in our country. If Gary Coleman were governor of Colorado, we'd have playparks in every back yard.

When this thing passes (which it most likely will), here's how we get the feds to pay for the dams instead of the state...have the CIA draft phony forged documents about a terrorist threat in Cotopaxi...a group of dirty fundamentalist militant islamic oil-well owners with brown skin who are hiding weapons of "nuculear" mass distraction and will "threaten the American way of life" "by any means necessary." Make sure to use the word "mushroom clouds" now and again for emphasis. Then the president will have congress sign a check for billions so we can flood the crap out of Cotopaxi. Bechtel and Halliburton can build the dams and make millions. After we shut down all of our schools and we are all out of jobs, we'll have all day to kayak on what's left of our rivers. Yee haw!!


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2003)

It's nice to see, and probably not suprising, to see that everyone seems to agree on the central point-- namely that ref A is a bad idea. I think whatever your opinions on dams and water management, ref A lacks oversight.

For a good history of water development and use in the west, you should check out _Cadillac Desert_. There's a scary lack of forethought that seems to have gone into most large water projects in the west, and I think some of the same political forces are still at work. Although an increasing amount of our water supply is used by the general population, especially along the front range, I believe about 80% of all the water used in the west goes to agricultural users. Regardless, conservation and smarter, sustainable usage is a better and cheaper answer than building more dams.

And because I can't leave it alone: The surface area of a resevoir is far, far greater than a river. Look at it this way. At steady state, when the resevoir is full, the flow of the river into the resevoir must be equal to the flow out of the resevoir (or the volume would be changing). So the same amount of water passes through the resevoir as would pass through the river if the resevoir weren't there. A resevoir covers several acres, a river does not. Therefore, you have a much greater surface area:flow ratio for the resevoir, and much higher evaporative losses.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2003)

No worries I love to discuss these things,
Absolutely ref a is bad. 
Back to surface area: Two things, first whether moving or not water that is 2-40 deep has more surface area per gallon than water that is hundreds of feet deep. Secondly, the idea of surface area isn't limited to just rivers. Watersheds are huge area of land with sometimes large areas of snowpack (here in colorado, utah, montana, idaho, wyoming, ect.). the run off of snowpack melt is condensed with dams were it is allowed to flow freely with natural rivers. Dams condense water into small areas this by definition increases surface area. Evaporation also takes place with rivers and I don't mean on the small scale of water falls. I was just using that to illustrate and provide visualization of my point. Conservation is key not dams! If you have any suggestions on particular books about environmental engineering please recommend. Reader friendly because my studies are in political science and economics and not engineering. Finally, You argued that major storms come from larger bodies of water, Those bodies of water are all river feed, It may make up a small part of for example the pacific but either way stopping those flows hurts fish, and ecosystems. It is too bad that those flows are being replaced instead by global warming, further damaging ecosystems. Any other comments and discussion are welcome.
Cheers,
Aaron


----------



## el gordo (Oct 10, 2003)

> Many mentions are made that if this money is set aside we lose control of what the money will be spent on. Would we not be able to stop any action that effected viable white water in the west?


Spoken like a true laywer. I like to spend my time enjoying the river, not fighting special interests money and their army of attorneys. 

No, we would not be able to stop them. $2 billion is a significant amount of money, and once approved, will have a life of its own with the vultures to feed on the carcass. --They are swarming right now, I can see them very clearly...look! -- 
The NON-endorsers do not have the resources to waste on attorney fees, fighting bad projects. There is barely enough to fight Ref A.
Vote NO on A.

Ken, with respect, your thinking is reversed. Vote NO on A first, then we don't have to fight bad, narrow minded, water projects. 
Vote NO on A.



> Natural flows will not exist in the future. We will continue to grow in population and flows on western rivers will be effected.


Ouch! That is fatalist. --"Uh-oh, here come the class III rapids, hey...let's just give up and swim!" 

Natural flows will continue to exist in the future, if the river community fights narrow, corporate, selfish business goals. Vote No on A.



> The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water.


 --Let's just sell the whole damn state for a extra week. What do you think we can get for the Poudre?



> As I think about this I would rather see storage at the source (High mountain lakes) than massive dams in Arizona and Utah.


--"Hey Joe, what's the plan for the weekend? Oh, I'm going to float the 10th Mountain Division Dam-to-Dam route, how 'bout you?"

We need to stop dams in AZ and UT as well. We have enough dams already. No more. And we have enough gambling as well. Does this country have to dam every mile of river, and put a slot machine at every bus stop?! Enough is enough already, sheeeesh. Vote NO on A.

This proposal is a revenue bond, right. So, charge (revenues) aggressive users of water more. Exponential pricing structures. That's the referendum to support. If residential users consume greater than 8,000 gallons on average per month, quadruple the cost (per 8,000 gallons). Commercial/industrial users will be charged quadruple for excessive consumption, over 50% of the Dec/Jan average. Money/cost changes behavior. Vote NO on A.

Ken, I think, your thoughts, are unthinkable. Vote NO on A.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2003)

*introductory text*

check out Principles of Water Resources: History, Development, and Policy, by Thomas V. Cech, 2003, ISBN 0-471-43861-8. It's a pretty basic text.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2003)

*85% of water is used for agriculture*

i think they will keep building dams even without this bill. but i don't think the politicians should be the ones deciding where each one is built. there has never been a problem with funding feasible water projects. i think the people should vote on each project. i also think they should allocate more money to more efficient agricultural irrigation. at least *85%* of colorado's water is used for agriculture.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2003)

if its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I hate the idea of raising the cost of anything but until you make water relatively expensive no one will save it. I have lived in several places and the water in Colorado Springs is the cheapest I have ever seen. I lived in Dallas for a while, ugh, but while they have 10 or so huge reservoirs and tons of rain, the water there was more expensive than in this arid climate. Makes no sense to me. If you make it expensive for someone to water their bluegrass then and only then will you see widespread xeriscaping and water conservation.


----------



## Txoof (Oct 19, 2003)

*Conservation through graduated price schedule*

A graduated price schedule would be a great way to regulate the amount of water people use. Somebody mentioned something like this before. Based on average water use for a family/business your size, you get a quota of water that you can use at a reasonable rate. Should you go over that quota, you are charged at a rate that is double, or tripple. After you pass that tier, the amount is six times as much, and so on with larger and larger increases. 
I'm sure there's tons of opposition to this plan as it might 'slow growth' in colorado. Well, DUH! As if slowing growth is a bad thing...


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

*SA of rivers*

Double-a-ron

"surface area per gallon"
This has nothing to due with the total evaporation. I have never seen surface area per gallon correlated to evaporation. Increased surface area does correlate to increased evaporation though.

"Dams condense water into small areas this by definition increases surface area"
Where in the definition of condensing does it allude to changing the surface area. Condensing is a reduction in volume. I don't think that we are changing the volume of the water; only its shape. And anyway, I thought you were argueing the opposite about surface areas/dams? 

"A weather map does show that but for a storm to keep up its intensity it must pull moisture from on land sources (hurricanes for example)."
Actually a weather map does show that. My training is in geological engineering. I do not claim to be a meteorologist, but we do cover weather patterns in many of my classes. Major storms systems come from large bodies of water. Your example of hurricane does an excelent job of demonstrating MY point, not yours. The hurricane builds up over the ocean, and then "piddles out" once it reaches land. It does not "pull moisture from land sources." It rains. Rain means that it is dropping water.

Please conduct this experiment:
http://www.heard.org/rain/science5/evaporat.html
You will be able to decide for yourself if SA effects evaporation. 

I apologize to others for poluting your nice thread with a different argument.

BTW, the first "Guest" post was mine. The others are not. I do agree with her though.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

*ref A*

I must be clear in the beginning that I oppose Ref A but for different reasons than most. The discussion has discussed growth as a bad thing in Colorado, but I believe that it's a two edge sword. Growth brings industry and increased revenue to the state which then can be used to support many programs that preserve the environment. We all know that funding for these programs is the first to go in a depressed economy. However, on the other hand, if there wasn't so much growth we wouldn't need to build dams and other things to support the influx of people. History does show that growth boosts the economy which then indirectly influence everyone for the better (that is debatable depending on your point of view and what you term benefit), it's just unfortunate that it comes with so many costs. I support growth, but as I mentioned I oppose ref A. Giving any politician, either democrat or republican a blank check for anything is A VERY BAD IDEA. We can see how they use our money by monitoring the fact that congress just voted themselves a raise for the fifth straight year in a row today. History again shows that most of it will never be used for what it is supposed to be used for. Vote no on A--give your wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend or kids a blank check and ask them what they'll use it for--let them go and see how different the results are at the end of the day.

Peace
Ben


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

Leave the state then spaltshot. I don't want anyone else to move here. It's to crowed here in Denver anyway. 
:twisted:


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

The second guest post was mine, messed up, my bad, but year, what you said. By the way, geo at mines, how do you like it, I am almost done with my enviro eng at CU.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

Referendum A will clearly go down in flames. No need to get all worked up about it. 

It makes no sense--all that money and water just to aid East Slope farmers. 

I think Owens is pushing for it just to get votes in rural East Slope.


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

Just because Ref A makes no sense does not mean that it will go down in flames. I don't belive that there is any need to cite examples.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

Jeffro and Farmer,
Guys thanks for some info, yes I misspoke and meant dams decreased surface area. I still stand by this. Water that would normally be available for evaporation is now at the bottom of a dam. This removal of water from the natural cycles is a problem and does decrease its turnover. Surface area per gallon or any other measure of volume is exactly what we are discussing. Also, I don't claim to be a meteorologist either nor do I even know how to spell it. I do know that storms dump moisture back in some areas and not in others. Just because you are in the path of a storm doesn't mean that you will experience rain. Colorado is a great example of my point. We experience afternoon showers on a regular basis during the summer. Two points arise. One, why do these storms tend to take place in the afternoon? my answer would be that this would have something to do with evaporation as the day heats up which the clouds are unable to hold as it starts to cool in the late day 4-5 oclock. Secondly, how are these storms created? once again the answer is in fresh water evaporation. a weathermap of the western u.s. is very different in the summer than it is in the winter. Winter storms are a product of oceans and large bodies of water. Summer storms in colorado pull from different sources. And if a storm doesn't gain its power in part from fresh water sources how else is a storm created over the pacific able to increase intensity all the way to the east coast? Again, I believe I'm able to be swayed with evidence to the contrary but this process just seems logical. (not all logic is backed by solid quanitative evidence and I don't have any, every thing I've said except the geometric anaylsis is qualitative and I'm confident that surface area is decreased with the building of a dam)

I'm off to try that exercise,

Aaron


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

I checked out the exercise and it is correct. More surface area does lead to more evaporation. The point is that dams create less surface area. Think about it this way: if you take two equal amounts of water and you pour one into a container that is 2 inches deep by two inches wide and ten inches long. Volume is 40 inches to the third power. Surface area is 20 inches squared. (10*2=20 and your adding a second dimension) this container represents a river. Now take the same volume of water and put into a container that is representative of a dammed river. Lets say 4 inches deep by five inches long and two inches wide. The new surface area is 10 inches squared. The river container has more surface area per inch to the third power.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

> every thing I've said except the geometric anaylsis is qualitative and I'm confident that surface area is decreased with the building of a dam)


I guess it's nice to have confidence. Too bad you're wrong.

On another note, I recently moved out of the state, and don't have a good local perspective; somehow I doubt that the sentiment exrpessed amongst a bunch of boaters is indicative of the general population. Is ref A expected to pass or be defeated? Or is it just too close to call?

I ask just so I know how much bodily harm to threaten my CO friends with if they vote the wrong way.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2003)

Colorado summer storms early in the season (June and July) are usually a result of the atmosphere picking up moisture from the snow on the mountain peaks and depositing it elsewhere due to temperature and humidity levels changing. If you have noticed, late in July, when the snow is gone, there are fewer afternoon showers. The August storms are generally a result of the moist flow coming off the gulf (monsoon flow).


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

Ok, I'll agree that much of a storms power can come from over land. This however is due to evapotranspiration from plants and the soil; not evaporation from open water (rivers, lakes, and such add little in comparison). The poodreh river does not add significant levels of water from evaporation.

However, dams do increase surface area. Your quantative analysis was fouled from the start...because you are assuming that the river (2*2*10) had the same volume as the lake (4*5*2). No one would design such a lake. It would not be able to hold any more water than the river.

Look at lake powell. It covers 252 mi^2. It is 186 miles long. If you assume that the river was originally an average of 150 feet wide through Glen Canyon, then you get the following surface area:

189mi * 150 ft * (1mi/5280ft) = 5.36 mi^2

The surface area covered by the dam is two orders of magnitude larger than the surface area from the river.

Note that the volume of the river and the lake also differ. The lake is about 25*10^6 acre-ft. If whe assume that our 150'x186 mi river is 40 ft deep across the entire cross section, then we get the following volume:

186 mi * (5280 ft / 1 mi ) * 150 ft * 40 ft * (1 acre / 43560 ft^2) = .14x10^6 acre-ft.

Powell's volume is likely a little less than 25 million acre-ft due to its current low levels, but that would not be significant compared to the orders of magnitude in diffrence between the volumes. Equal volumes should not be a constraint when you compare a lake + river's SA.


----------



## TimWalker (Oct 25, 2003)

*For the guys/gals arguing about surface area...*

I'm not going to argue the surface area of the dam vs. river, mainly because I think you guys are looking at the evaporation problem rather myopically. Rather, I would like to see this debate go in a new direction. It seems that water left in a hypothetically undisturbed water shed, like the Colorado, would have less chance to evaporate (while in the watershed) because it would make it to the oceans rather expeditiously. If damned....I mean dammed, I think the creation of a relatively stagnant body of water creates a rather dynamic problem for you engineering types. Based on the rate of evaporation, you would have to figure out how often a new molecular planar surface occurs. Then figure how long the exposure to the evaporative elements occurs in both models - that is the free flowing model and the dammed model. Then, I think you could solve your problem. Of course, evaporative rates are dynamic based on elemental (wind, sun, etc) exposure. One thing I know - I'm against my money evaporating into some dumb sh!t politicians hands. VOTE NO on A bad idea!!!!


----------



## jeffro (Oct 13, 2003)

Excelent ideas tim. That might make a good doctorate thesis!


----------



## 217 (Oct 27, 2003)

Well this discussion could very well get out of my league, but that is good. Compare the conversation on this site to recent threads at boatertalk and be happy that people are civil here. Thanks for the discussion, I have some profs. who i need to go discuss this with. This is all important because water is becoming more scarce and many people throughout the world are in a position of tension due to commodification of resources such as water. For example, the palestinian/isreal conflict is more about water and natural resources then it is about religion. Many wars will be fought very soon over water. The solution, even locally, is not to allow big business to exploit this "commodity" for huge profit margins with little overhead because those being exploited are paying for it with tax dollars. Blank checks like this destroy communities. They kill ecosystems and they take away from social programs like education and healthcare that are being removed on a daily basis. We should be creating laws based on the best science available while reorienting ourselves to believe that clean/available water is a human right and wasting water is a crime against humanity and our world. Please conserve and vote for those with these ideals!!  

Aaron
P.S. lets enjoy it before it all gets damned (pun intended)


----------



## Marco (Oct 16, 2003)

*Vote NO on A*

Referendum A is indeed a bad deal for CO boaters. The Colorado Water "Conservation" Board would have the financial green light to go ahead with what ever project they please. Note that only 5% of the bonding authority is set aside for conservation and repair of existing projects. The CWWA opposes referendum A, and has made a financial contribution to the Vote NO on A campaign. Here are some more links for info: 

http://www.votenoona.com/    
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_2344418,00.html 
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_2329889,00.html 


This will be a close vote, so be sure to get the word out to all friends & family. 

Paz- 
Marco


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

If you believe that many wars will be fought in the near future over water, I think you can expand that statement to resources and most wars are fought over these. Religion is just generally used as a way to excite the masses to take the resources. If population growth continues unchecked then it only makes sense that more people, less resources are going to lead to conflict.


----------



## Gordon Banks (Oct 29, 2003)

*State Ref. A - Bonds for Water Projects*

If you are a boater make sure you get out and vote against Ref A by next Tuesday's election. Also, make a point, to remind another boater voter, that they need to do the same thing.

If Ref A passes and the 4 billon becomes available for water storage projects you can be sure that your future Colorado boating experiences will decline, including:

1. You will live in a state (similiar to areas of California now) where many rivers run only at 30cfs all year long.

2. You will lose a few existing runs under some of these future water storage projects.

3. Water developers, not nature, will decide when you get to boat (ie; turn the water on).

4. The biological health of our creeks and rivers will decline. Waterways thrive with naturally and consistent seasonal flows, not with artifically scheduled dam releases related to human consumption and politics.

5. Ultimately, more stored water, means more population growth for Colorado.

Let the water flow to California.


----------



## zbaird (Oct 11, 2003)

anyone have an idea of how the non boating community is voting. all who i talk to and try to convince either dont vote, for which i have been hounding them to at least go and vote no on A, or they dont know what it is all about. it seems the uninformed voter would vote yes thinking more water for CO must be good. hopefully this is not the case and we have been informing enough people how shitty it is. i know people in my classes are tired of me hounding them to vote and vote no. guess i'm just looking for how much more hasselling i need to do. death to anyone who votes yes!!!!!!!!!


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

I was surprised that the Independent here in Colorado Springs recommended a no vote. Pleasantly surprised of course. Havent seen any other articles on it.


----------



## el gordo (Oct 10, 2003)

> anyone have an idea of how the non boating community is voting


The Pueblo Cheiftan published results (Wed 10/29) of a POLL showing Pueblo voters are against A. Also, the Denver Post (Thu 10/30?) showed similar results. I didn't have the opportunity to read the Colo Springs Gazette this week, so I don't know about their poll. These are only polls though, not votes. This will be close. Be sure to make time to Vote NO on A.

Also, Dave Karan posted an interesting discussion on A; see under "Paddle Clubs" or use the link below:

http://mountainbuzz.com/viewtopic.php?t=113


----------

