# New lake planning on stealing western slope water from Green.



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

Can't we just bomb that fucking city?

It's just a big pile of parasites that keeps stealing resources from the rest of the state.

This makes me sick.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

*Water*

I certainly would like to see the area impliment a low water grass policy and landscaping regulations in advance of an agenda to de-water a classic western river. Lots of Kentucky Blue grass driniking the water all through the front range. 

I thought the deal with the pipeline out of the green was dead. Looks like Denver politicians don't see it that way. I will be heavily invested if this pipline ever gets going. There are so many alternatives.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

Agreed ,conservation and efficient use over another diversion. Where exactly is it?

Caleb,I can totally understand why you hate [major understatement] the f'ing traffic on I-70,but the water belongs to everybody not you or even necessarily Colorado.People gotta' live somewhere,but they shouldn't be so wasteful of resources.Doesn't your pet creek steal it's water from the Williams Fork.Not trying to pick a fight,you're cool .I hate the sprawl as much as anyone.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

See that guy in the photo above? He's wearing a pink shirt. You know what that means? He's got power and money, unlike you. So he's gonna take what he wants and there's nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

Agreed ,conservation and efficient use over another diversion. Where exactly is it?

The original pln as I saw it was to pull water out of the green in Wyoming. That puts it above all readily run portions of the green. Probably piping it straight out of Flaming Gorge Res. Last I saw on this, wyoming wildlife said al of the analytics on the amount of surplus water in the Res were off., and thus the whole project was in doubt. Apears the officials in this piece were not in agreement. The reality is they are picking the fight in Wyoming because they have the best chance of pulling this off in an unpopulated state. I would give this a less than 10% chance of ever happening. When the interest of downstream users along the colorado saw momentum on this, Phoenix and Vegas and LA, etc.. will pour money into the battle and quash it. At least thats how I hope it happens.


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

Now, I'm not trying to encourage this and I certainly do not support a pipeline taking more western slope water to the front range. It's BS. 

But I did want to point out that municipal water use accounts for a rather small portion of the entire Colorado River water use. something like 10% to 15%, golf courses and fountains included. And that is with cities like Las Vegas, L.A., Phoenix, etc taking that water. the other 85%-90% is used up by agricultural interests. Industrial Ag should be far more regulated than it is at this point. 

This does not make another pipeline for municipal supply ok though. I think cities should encourage water conservation. that should do more to ensure water for future growth (another issue). It just seems like a few people are in line to get rich because of this pipeline (which at the beginning was privately funded. I don't know if that is still the case), and (relatively) low volume lake. Those same people would not make any money if people conserved water.


----------



## TakemetotheRiver (Oct 4, 2007)

Canada said:


> Agreed ,conservation and efficient use over another diversion. Where exactly is it?


Flaming Gorge Reservoir is in southeast Utah and Wyoming, so both states should have a say, right? It's over 400 miles away from Denver. How can they justify pumping water over 400 miles? 

Digging the hole for the lake is akin to the overpass they recently built here in Durango. They think that if they start the project and spend the money, it will have to be approved and completed. So far, that is not the case with our overpass- it goes nowhere because the state couldn't secure the land on the other side to continue building the highway. We need to look at this lake the same way- just because they've dug the hole, doesn't mean they are automatically going to get the water.

We can still fight it.


----------



## cemartin (Oct 11, 2003)

I wonder if any of these guys have considered confined aquifer storage as a better option in lieu of building a big pond with high evaporation rates. Just seems very costly in terms of the environment and efficiency. Thanks for the word.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

I know where Flaming Gorge is,meant where near Parker.Reread it,mentions Newlin Gulch where ever that is.


----------



## Juan De Confluence (Apr 22, 2005)

*The Alternatives are worse*

Hey guys,

Here is a link to the satellite photo on the official website for the Res.
Rueter-Hess Reservoir - Satellite Photo

It is in between I-25 and the town of Parker, approximately due east of castle pines. 

The reason that the flaming gorge diversion is a preferred solution is that it is proposed as a privately financed enterprise. Therefore it may not be necessary to ask voters to approve a huge bond proposal. Also, the flaming gorge reservoir already exisits, so there would not be any additional Dam building involved. All they need to do is build a pipe from flaming gorge to Parker!!

The alternatives are worse in my opinion, and include pumpback schemes on the Yampa, Gunnison, and the Colorado river return (AKA Big straw). For some light reading on the topic you can find a draft report on the alternatives here: Look at the last report at the top Colorado's Water Supply Future - Colorado Water Conservation Board 

The surface water of Colorado belongs to all of us, not to the basin where it falls, and the economic prosperity of the whole state is closely tied to what is happening on the Front Range. Conservation is of course the best solution, but will not meet the water supply needs alone. Agricultural transfers are another solution that needs to be explored more fully before we start siphoning the west slope.

We are lucky that AW has a full time staff member working on these issues in CO, Nathan Fey. Please support AW so he can continue his work...

regards
jon


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

It will make a nice lake fill it full of fish put some homes around it, man ohhh man someone ( company) going to make some money.

Water is the most importain resourse we have. (Conservation) is required. Im sure some of you have seen a list on alt-energy? 

Just sayin,,,,


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

cemartin said:


> I wonder if any of these guys have considered confined aquifer storage as a better option in lieu of building a big pond with high evaporation rates. Just seems very costly in terms of the environment and efficiency. Thanks for the word.


Parker Water & Sanitation Dist. (PWSD) has considered Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). Though surrounded by some of the most prolific aquifers in the South Metro area, PWSD just happens to sit in a location where the aquifers are generally poor producers. For example, a couple of years ago they drilled a $1M+ well that only produced about 50 gallons per minute (gpm). This is pretty lousy production compared to nearby wells that pump about 500 - 1000 gpm from the aquifers. The tight geology limits the PWSD's ability to get water _*into* or *out of*_ the aquifers, particularly when high flow rates are needed to meet summer "peak" demands. 

Until they can obtain "renewable supplies" (surface water) to fill the reservoir, PWSD is actually planning to pump their wells during the winter months and store groundwater in Reuter-Hess reservoir, then drain the reservoir during summmer to meet their peak demands. This will subject the "mined" groundwater to substantial evaporation losses but is the only way they can meet the peak demands with water from their wells. PWSD says they will also eventually use ASR to the extent they can, but ASR is just not a good option for them due to the nature of the geology underlying their district.

-AH


----------



## Waterwindpowderrock (Oct 11, 2003)

cayo 2 said:


> Agreed ,conservation and efficient use over another diversion. Where exactly is it?
> 
> Caleb,I can totally understand why you hate [major understatement] the f'ing traffic on I-70,but the water belongs to everybody not you or even necessarily Colorado.People gotta' live somewhere,but they shouldn't be so wasteful of resources.Doesn't your pet creek steal it's water from the Williams Fork.Not trying to pick a fight,you're cool .I hate the sprawl as much as anyone.


Actually, I've got nothing against Denver in particular, I think we should wipe nearly EVERY city off the map!!!!:mrgreen:

The issue imo is the way of life of people in general, they're parasites that destroy their surroundings instead of living with them. I would like to think that people on this site are less prone to this behavior than most, but in any city, this unsustainable way of life becomes more obvious.

The point about the water... is EXACTLY my point, it belongs to the people downstream, the fact that we keep stealing more & more is just plain wrong.

W. fork gets its water from Jones pass, Urad, and Berthoud. The water that comes from William's fork gets diverted into the Vasquez tunnel, then pumped over to Gross res. (I got to know the guy that runs the diversion house @ Williams fork, the tunnel system is CRAZY!!!!)

EVERYBODY on here should read Cadillac desert if you have the time, great book about the stupidity of cities in the west.

btw, didn't take it as picking a fight at all. I tend to be a bit extreme in my responses, but this one I thought was pretty mild...


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

All new housing developments and commercial properties in CO should be without sprinkler systems. Makes me sick to drive by the endless Kmarts and Home Depots with their vast green lawns pissing away water in a semi-desert environment.

As for the farmers. Pay them a couple million each for their water rights. It make no sense to be growing crops in the treeless plains of Colorado.


----------



## teleboater5.13 (Sep 29, 2005)

If you remove the water rights from ag lands what do they have left...DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. 

I definatly do not want to see a pipeline from the Green to CO and know that there are other options that can fulfill these needs (like other reservoir expansions, sorry but we have to give somewhere).

However if you remove the water rights from ag lands the only thing left for these farmers and ranchers is to sell their land to developers for subdivisions. I don't know about you all but the last thing I want to see is some of the biggest sections of open lands in CO to be given to subdivisions. We need to find water sources that do not detract from the current working landscapes we still have. Would you rather eat good, healthy food produced locally or get factory farmed meat from Tyson and veggies shipped in from around the world?


----------



## mjpowhound (May 5, 2006)

I went to a Colorado River Coalition seminar once and was surprised to learn that of all the water in the S Platte drainage (including diversions), only 15% of that is used for residential use, and of that 15%, half was for outside use (ie lawns). I hate sprawl and especially lawns, but it seems to me there is a lot more opportunity with agriculture than residential.

You get a lot more bang for your water buck with produce than with meat. Something to think about as you plug your nose while driving by another factory farm in eastern CO.


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

Juan De Confluence said:


> "The surface water of Colorado belongs to all of us, not to the basin where it falls"
> 
> Perhaps, but if it does, it is only by function of the corrupt history of the creation of a Western water regime which reversed centuries of prohibitions on trans-basin diversions.
> 
> ...


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

I love how they are building an empty reservoir without water rights and its supposed to be paid for by future growth (tap fees) from houses that don't exist yet, and those houses are to be bought by people who haven't moved to Colorado yet.

Can you say stock market bubble? Its precisely these kinds of schemes that landed us in this economic mess. They're going to run out of money long before they get close to flaming gorge. Just don't let them get a big federal bailout.


----------



## Nathan (Aug 7, 2004)

If there wasn't water rights to fill the reservoir how did it get permitted? The article seems to be leaving something out.


----------



## ibyakn (Jul 18, 2007)

Engineering at its absolute finest. Band-aid thinking at its absolute worst. We simply dress a bit better than neanderthals.


----------



## rafterbrooks (Nov 6, 2004)

Here is something YOU can do people. I live in Fraser at the top of the water chain. Yep, Denver, Northern Colorado, Southern Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico all want MORE water from a river that doesn't have any. YOU people need to spread the word about conserving to YOUR neighbors and friends and start doing something instead of talking about it here. There is a meeting December 1,2,3 in and around Denver and Boulder and Grand County. I will be in Grand county at the meeting. WE all need to do something. Make your voice heard! What we talked about is scary. Denver wants their water and there just isn't any more. WE need to act instead of bitching. Get out there and be heard!


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

We need a monster pipe from the mississippi river to the front range. The mississippi river does not get lower than 50,000 cfs even at the lowest flows of the year. Cali also needs to get on the desalination bandwagon. 

Pessimists say that this is too costly, but they ingore the true costs of water and never include the external costs.

Simply put, there is more than enough water to supply the west, we just have to think outside the box and figure out a way to fund it. Simply putting up our hands in the air and saying the water ran out, lets shut it all down is not the answer. 

Piecemealing projects one by one ignore the realites of what an integrated water solution should look like. Cali needs water and produces a large chunk of our domestic food on farms. Western farmers and ranchers need water to thrive and there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to figure that out. 

There are solutions, its simply time to thing big.

We still gotta keep the pipe from lake dillon to bailey though... I like high water bailey.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> We need a monster pipe from the mississippi river to the front range. The mississippi river does not get lower than 50,000 cfs even at the lowest flows of the year. Cali also needs to get on the desalination bandwagon.
> 
> Pessimists say that this is too costly, but they ingore the true costs of water and never include the external costs.
> 
> ...


Pipe the Mississippi to the Front Range? Nuts. Just look at the destruction of the wetlands downstream from New Orleans and how that makes hurricanes even more destructive in the Crescent City. Remove water from that river and that problem gets worse. All to accommodate more Kentucky Bluegrass in endless suburban sprawl? Nope, the tough solution is to get realistic about the actual carrying capacity of the arid land west of the 100th meridian.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

What's really needed is a major west slope to east slope diversion into the headwaters of Clear Creek so I can boat after work all season long. I just flushed twice to make this dream a reality.


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

keep it up and it will be dryer than a powder-house. 

Hurricanes are actually good for the wetlands, it helps the system just ask fishin folks in Vennis, delcrox. Is bad for folks that build near the water or in low lying areas such as Nola, 8-12' below sea level. Its not the water, it the wind that rips (no pun intended rip) your ass off. The water comes and goes just like the tides, that how the fish move and eat. By the way, we all know living by the water has its pit-falls we build anyway.

1. water conservation is a start.
2. Desalination for Calif and NV. 20%.
3. look at carring caps of arrid land.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Riparian said:


> Pipe the Mississippi to the Front Range? Nuts. Just look at the destruction of the wetlands downstream from New Orleans and how that makes hurricanes even more destructive in the Crescent City. Remove water from that river and that problem gets worse. All to accommodate more Kentucky Bluegrass in endless suburban sprawl? Nope, the tough solution is to get realistic about the actual carrying capacity of the arid land west of the 100th meridian.


Sorry, but I disagree. I'm from new orleans and intimately familiar with the issues there. Wetlands have shrunk because we built levees along the entire mississippi river corridor and prevented the annual cycle of flooding and deposition of silt, which is the main line for wetlands to get renewed. New orleans is below sea level and will get destroyed any time a big hurricane hits it. It doesn't matter if you have tons of wetlands or not, when the cat 5 storm comes, she's gonna be underwater. Taking a couple thousand cfs out of the mississippi won't change new orleans' fate, the way silt gets deposited, or the things that need to be done to make that situation better (if anything can be done...)

Also the mississippi carries enourmous silt loads and peaks over 1 million cfs. Taking a couple thousand cfs out of it (a fraction of a percent) wouldn't even be noticeable by the time you hit new orleans.

What makes more sense... one big pipe to collect water from our largest freshwater river in the country without having to build a huge dam, or... dam up every rocky mountain headwater river from idaho to new mexico and fight over it for the rest of creation and still not have enough for what we need?

The pipe and pumps would be enourmous and expenisive and one of the biggest infrastructure projects the US would undertake. Its this kind of thinking big and wholistically that will get us out of the piecemeal BS that currently cripples our ability to innovate and move into the future.

In my mind running a pipe across kansas and the eastern plains of colorado would be much less environmentally damaging that damning up every single colorado headwater river with any substantial flow. The cost would be staggering, but I bet its less than the iraq war. What would you rather have... fresh water for ever or blow up iraq?

From a big picture perspective, cali uses a lot of the colorado river compact water, and they sit right on an ocean with an unlimited supply of water. You just need to get your mind wrapped around desalination and that demand simply goes away, and its sustainable. Cali, with water shortages and high population will eventually get around to desalination. Power the desalination plant with renewable wind/solar/and wave energy, and you have a renewable water supply not dependent on drought years forever.

As a nation we've got our priorities wrong, and way too many people have the mentaility that "it can't be done". We've become a nation of naysayers with the foresight of a blindfolded jackass. At some point in time folks will have to wake up to the fact that we are going to have to do something different on a national and global scale. And that little turf wars over a pipe to the green river, or a reservoir in parker completely miss the big picture. Our current solutions are bandaids at best and miss the big picture.

It makes sense to do these types of projects, but in a completely capitalistic fractured society with a change of heart every time a new president gets elected, we won't ever get there.

Instead of wondering what this suburb will do in 10 yrs, we need to figure out what the country should do in the next 100.


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

In a high country news (i think) article, or somewhere else, a guy had done some research, and the amount of water that would be needed and piped across the plains fits within the margin of error of the volume measurement of the Mississippi. It's a negligible amount of water for that river. Not advocating, just adding some info.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

That totally makes sense. the Front Range water gap is about 500k af/yr by 2030 per SWSI...691 cfs year-round. I'm guessing it would take about $10B to $20B to build the monster, but if can extend the CC season, I'm all for it.


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Deep south, The water can be piped in from the mississippi or the moon this is america it can be done. Hell we can dig a trench, build a bridge, fly to the moon, look at our gas line grid, thousands of miles of pipelines all over the US. Water one day will carry a real value, I don't just mean we need it to substain life as we know it, but a value like oil, natural gas. (yep it will have to come to that) there is the ticket, if you folks need it bad enough and companies can make some money, it shall be done!


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

I would certainly include more efficient agriculture under the heading for efficient use.Like MJ said beef is extremely wasteful and inefficient way to produce nutrition.Also totally agree with desalinization from renewables,eventually critical.Actually cities that were properly designed from arcological [ architecture/ civic design fused with ecology] principles would be the most efficient system.Oh ,can't do that it is social engineering.LIKE DEVELOPERS MAKING SELF SERVING SHORT SIGHTED DECISIONS ISN'T.


----------



## vincent (Oct 16, 2003)

I reciently recieved a permit to leagaly capture rainwater for residential use. This year is the first year that it is leagal to do so. Now my family of four uses only 10 gallons of pumped well water per day. This is not very difficult, and in having this experience, I find it difficult to support costly, high impact projects to bring in more water. I understand that the majority of water is used in other sectors, but I would guess that possibilities for greater efficiency are many.


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Vincent, Your kidding right a permit to catch rail water that falls from the sky? please explain this to me, I just can't belive that you need a permit is some lib's making this happen?

We have been collecting rain water ever since I can remember. Off the roof or in a tub. The roof water is used for your garden, flowers ect. ect,,.


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

true story
http://water.state.co.us/pubs/pdf/RainWaterBills.pdf
...definitly the libs too. the libs are worried about the tribs and who's got dibs.


----------



## Canada (Oct 24, 2006)

This need developed when some guys in texas started setting up huge sections of roof, and runnning the water through a filter and selling it. I saw it on 20-20 or 60 minutes? I would be stunned if this was eer enforced on a residential level.


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

In Colorado and a lot of the west (at least originally, it's changing though), rain is considered part of the watershed once it hits something, even if that thing is a roof, and you direct through gutters to barrels, therefore making it illegal to collect it. It's silly, but it's true. The fact that some people in Colorado can now collect rainwater, even by permit, is a step in the right direction by the water policy guys.

I know people can collect in Arizona, but am not sure about all the other states.



Neil Gustafson said:


> Vincent, Your kidding right a permit to catch rail water that falls from the sky? please explain this to me, I just can't belive that you need a permit is some lib's making this happen?
> 
> We have been collecting rain water ever since I can remember. Off the roof or in a tub. The roof water is used for your garden, flowers ect. ect,,.


----------



## adm (Oct 20, 2003)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> Sorry, but I disagree. I'm from new orleans and intimately familiar with the issues there. Wetlands have shrunk because we built levees along the entire mississippi river corridor and prevented the annual cycle of flooding and deposition of silt, which is the main line for wetlands to get renewed. New orleans is below sea level and will get destroyed any time a big hurricane hits it. It doesn't matter if you have tons of wetlands or not, when the cat 5 storm comes, she's gonna be underwater. Taking a couple thousand cfs out of the mississippi won't change new orleans' fate, the way silt gets deposited, or the things that need to be done to make that situation better (if anything can be done...)
> 
> Also the mississippi carries enourmous silt loads and peaks over 1 million cfs. Taking a couple thousand cfs out of it (a fraction of a percent) wouldn't even be noticeable by the time you hit new orleans.
> 
> ...


+1 I like what your sayin.


----------



## islandertek (Apr 4, 2008)

I just hope the tap water in Parker will taste better than it does now, and won't smell like a bottle of bleach!! :mrgreen: Maybe I'll get lucky and there will be a drop or a little play wave feeding into Cheery Creek!!:mrgreen: Hell, I could get even luckier and get a hometown small play park or micro creek run!! That would be sweet!! 

I've been wondering when they were going to finish that thing, and where they were going to get the water from????


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

well, I agree with Neil on this one ,what a dumbass law.Maybe on large commercial scale it should be prohibited,but for home/garden use?Wouldn't you just use less from the grid?



Nick, Cherry is flatter than a pancake out there,uphill isn't it!Maybe they'll build you a spillway.Ever check out Castlewood Falls when it is cranking,class 5 huck with unrunnable runout,big ass landslide,don't think it's been done, but think it could be.Get out immediately.Come run the town run with me sometime,poach a ten footer on Kennedy.


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

http://c0278592.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/original/296330.JPG


----------



## CanyonEJ (Jul 28, 2008)

cayo 2 said:


> well, I agree with Neil on this one ,what a dumbass law.Maybe on large commercial scale it should be prohibited,but for home/garden use?Wouldn't you just use less from the grid?


The law goes back to the Mining Act of 1872 when the precedent was set for water law in the west.


----------



## islandertek (Apr 4, 2008)

cayo 2 said:


> well, I agree with Neil on this one ,what a dumbass law.Maybe on large commercial scale it should be prohibited,but for home/garden use?Wouldn't you just use less from the grid?
> 
> 
> 
> Nick, Cherry is flatter than a pancake out there,uphill isn't it!Maybe they'll build you a spillway.Ever check out Castlewood Falls when it is cranking,class 5 huck with unrunnable runout,big ass landslide,don't think it's been done, but think it could be.Get out immediately.Come run the town run with me sometime,poach a ten footer on Kennedy.


The resy sits up hill from Cherry Creek, so I would hope they would have a run-off into the creek!! I have always looked at the creek at Castlewood when I go climbing out there. It would be sick to drop that and do the small boulder garden at flood stage!! 

I'd def be up to run a 10 footer on Kennedy!! Where's Kennedy???? 

Let's get together and boat sometime this season! I have definitely progressed since I paddled with you last season on Union Chutes!! I did a low water Black Rock run the day of the Vertical Challenge party in honor of "COUNT". I also just got back from Fossil Creek, AZ!! I ran the 20 foot waterfall and powerhouse at the bottom. We ran all the 6 and 8 footers in between (super mank bony)!! That stuff is like "Pumice" stone!!! It was fun!! Hope to hear from you!!

Let me know when you want to boat!! 

Cheers!

-Nick
303-204-1527
[email protected]


----------



## Palo Duro (Jun 12, 2009)

Canada said:


> This need developed when some guys in texas started setting up huge sections of roof, and runnning the water through a filter and selling it. I saw it on 20-20 or 60 minutes? I would be stunned if this was eer enforced on a residential level.


Leave it to sum guy/gals in Texass to make a few bucks filtering water. Hey, thats what water treatment plants do, kinda.

Wayback when, I belive miners channeled water and used it to wash the surrounding soils out of the iron ore, gold, ect.

If it make sence, somebody won't like it.


----------



## gwheyduke (Jul 3, 2008)

*Is Conservation the Answer?*

Or is it just less drunken one night stands?

As water use falls in Front Range, it explodes elsewhere in Colorado - The Denver Post


----------



## mjpowhound (May 5, 2006)

Why does Aspen use so much water? I wonder if this is household use or includes agriculture? Either way, I don't see how Aspen could use so much more water than everybody else. That data looks off.


----------



## gwheyduke (Jul 3, 2008)

I don't know much about how they came up with the numbers but I would guess it is a combination of two things:
1) Golf courses everywhere.
2) A "resident" population that is pretty small, but counting water use for all of the tourist population too. 

There is talk of a proposed development south of Chatfiled reservoir called Sterling Ranch which is suggesting a water use of 85 gpd per person. As I understand it, it would include an indoor and outdoor budget and having your water source shut off off if you exceeded these budgets more than three times in a row. I'm not sure home owners are okay with that... but i guess time will tell.


----------



## rwhyman (May 23, 2005)

islandertek said:


> The resy sits up hill from Cherry Creek, so I would hope they would have a run-off into the creek!! I have always looked at the creek at Castlewood when I go climbing out there. It would be sick to drop that and do the small boulder garden at flood stage!!


The new res is downstream from Castlewood.


----------



## gwheyduke (Jul 3, 2008)

More on Million's project to divert water from the Green River to the Front Range. 

The Pueblo Chieftain :: Million defends Flaming Gorge water proposal


If you make some assumptions and do some math, Million is suggesting that municipalities pay ~ 36,000 to 38,000 dollars per acre foot of water, while agricultural interests pay ~ 400 to 900 per acre. 

I'm not a farmer, so I don't know what they can afford, but I would guess that 900 dollars for an acre-foot of water is still pretty pricey. As for the municipalities, if you live in an area served by these guys you can expect your rates to go up, and a lot more than just 20% a year...


----------

