# The Colorado is not a River anymore



## Gremlin (Jun 24, 2010)

(lower caps) GO AWAY!


----------



## colorado_steve (May 1, 2011)

i think you have too much time on your hands.... get out there and boat

River - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Junk Show Tours (Mar 11, 2008)

I like to think of it more as a lifestyle.


----------



## quinoa (Jul 5, 2009)

*Trivia*

Was the state named after the river or the river after the state? What was it named before the Colorado? What does Colorado mean?


----------



## jvwoods (Mar 5, 2012)

A creek, by definition, has to run to the sea? Has the Colorado River been completely molested, sure. Is it still a river? Yep.


----------



## CeeEee (May 30, 2013)

It was called the Grand River. Common fucking knowledge.

I agree with the OP. Preach on. The Upper is a joke nowadays, and crowded as shit. But that's to be expected.


----------



## jtnc (Aug 9, 2004)

quinoa said:


> Was the state named after the river or the river after the state? What was it named before the Colorado? What does Colorado mean?


The Grand. Thus Grand county, Grand Junction, Grand Valley and Grand Canyon.

Colorado is red in spanish, as in something is colored red. Say the rocks or water in the river in this case I suspect

John


----------



## quinoa (Jul 5, 2009)

Are there crowded rivers in the land of milk and honey?


----------



## CeeEee (May 30, 2013)

Some yes, some no.


----------



## NWO Whiewater (Apr 27, 2011)

Colorado is C_olored_ or _Colorful_ in Spanish

See: Welcome to Colorful Colorado as you enter the State

The Colorado River is a river


----------



## RiverCowboy (Mar 14, 2011)

foreverhard said:


> I wonder how many others (I know there are) have considered that the Colorado river, (formerly known by other names), is no longer a River. I think most would agree that the definition of a "river", or "creek", or "run", or "fork", or "whatever-you-want-to-call-it: WATERWAY" is a vessel that carries snow/water from high places (mountains, hills, plateaus, etc.) to the sea. The Colorado no longer does that, and hasn't for some time. It only carries bought-water from place-to-place; not a single drop of free flow from the highest (formerly) headwaters. I'm thinking it should be now formally known as the colorado canal. Yes, lower caps, "colorado canal". What do you think?


I guess no one caught this one while they were bitching and bashing:
It should be "Yes, lower case".

Lower caps is a big little example of an oxymoron. Regarding his diatribe, give the guy a break. I lived in Grand County for seven years, and I'm a little bummed about the water situation there too. No one with Denver Water or NCWCD wants to hear it, so he had to get it off his chest somewhere...even if he used boater english.


----------



## RiverCowboy (Mar 14, 2011)

NWO Whiewater said:


> Colorado is C_olored_ or _Colorful_ in Spanish
> 
> See: Welcome to Colorful Colorado as you enter the State
> 
> The Colorado River is a river


That makes more sense. If it was a reference to color, wouldn't it have been Colorojo?


----------



## Stiff N' Wett (Feb 18, 2010)

I some what agree its a pretty serious problem. I wish people would have listened to old Major Powell when he said there was not enough water in the desert southwest to sustain a population of people.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

foreverhard said:


> I wonder how many others (I know there are) have considered that the Colorado river, (formerly known by other names), is no longer a River. I think most would agree that the definition of a "river", or "creek", or "run", or "fork", or "whatever-you-want-to-call-it: WATERWAY" is a vessel that carries snow/water from high places (mountains, hills, plateaus, etc.) to the sea. The Colorado no longer does that, and hasn't for some time. It only carries bought-water from place-to-place; not a single drop of free flow from the highest (formerly) headwaters. I'm thinking it should be now formally known as the colorado canal. Yes, lower caps, "colorado canal". What do you think?


When did this happen???


----------



## goldcamp (Aug 9, 2006)

Stiff N' Wett said:


> I some what agree its a pretty serious problem. I wish people would have listened to old Major Powell when he said there was not enough water in the desert southwest to sustain a population of people.


Old Major Powell was clearly wrong here. There are millions of people living in the SW.


----------



## SummitSurfer (Jun 23, 2010)

Yeah but at what cost to the enviorment and local eco systems in the SW?


----------



## DanCan (Jul 22, 2011)

There are hundreds of "creeks, streams, rivers, forks, or whatever you want to call it" that have never run to the sea. They run from a mountain to a lake or pond but no further.

DanCan


----------



## DangerousDave (Apr 11, 2007)

*Rivers and creek do not have to run to the ocean*

There are a number of rivers and creeks in the Great Basin that end up in a lake with no outlet or sink into the ground. The same is true in the Great Divide Basin in Wyoming but it doesn't get much water.

There are also a few rivers and creeks in eastern Idaho (Big Lost, Little Lost and Birch Creek drainages) that sink into the ground. These do end up in the Snake River Plain aquifer and eventually discharge into the Snake.


----------



## caverdan (Aug 27, 2004)

Besides the natural ones.....there are tons of other ones too. Examples are the best rivers in the West.... like.....Green, Yampa, San Juan, Gunnison, the list goes on and on. Too many to reclassify or rename. But the Colorado and it tributaries will not be blocked for ever.....only briefly in geological time.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I agree that names and language matter and influence how we perceive things. The Colorado definitely lacks many of the wild elements we ideally attribute to the word River. In name it definitely more of a canal.

At the same, if we forfeit the name River than why should anyone continue to protect it? Canals are lost causes and don't inspire. Maybe continuing to call it the Colorado River is an act of resistance and maintains some hope that we can develop more sustainable behavior in the future? Besides renaming it canal makes the changes about the waterway and removes accountability from us humans who reduced its wildness to the current state.

Phillip


----------



## UserName (Sep 7, 2007)

Oh ye of little faith... Give it time, this River will reach the sea again. All in good time..


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Georgie White was asked once what she thought of Lake Powell, after it had been in place a couple of years.

Basically what she said was that she hated to see Glen Canyon under water, hated that the Grand Canyon never had the extreme flows any more, and hated that the Park Service seemed to always find something new to regulate, but in the end she said, a lot more people benefit from Lake Powell (irrigation, power, and recreation) than benefited from a free flowing Colorado.

And, as has been pointed out, this situation is only temporary; eventually the river always wins.

I'd just like to be somewhere around Crystal when that fucker lets go........


----------



## GoodTimes (Mar 9, 2006)

Schutzie said:


> I'd just like to be somewhere around Crystal when that fucker lets go........


Amen to that....a sight to behold, I am sure. The vid/pics of Crystal from '83 are a bit scary.....


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Schutzie said:


> Georgie White was asked once what she thought of Lake Powell, after it had been in place a couple of years.
> 
> Basically what she said was that she hated to see Glen Canyon under water, hated that the Grand Canyon never had the extreme flows any more, and hated that the Park Service seemed to always find something new to regulate, but in the end she said, a lot more people benefit from Lake Powell (irrigation, power, and recreation) than benefited from a free flowing Colorado.
> 
> ...


I personally don't buy into the more is better argument, in this case the # of people benefiting. I think Abbey's comparison to such philosophy being akin to cancer is accurate. 

Temporary in geologic time is correct, but not in my lifetime. Not much compassion for that argument when it comes to my desires, which I admit aren't worth much to others.

I would also state that the benefit currently derived is short term, not long. I think our dependency on such system has all sorts of assumptions built into place (like the above more is better) that are worse in the long run, at least from a sustainability standpoint. 

More is also limited to those with better political access.....not sure most Mexican citizens would agree they have benefited from the way the US uses the system....pollution and flow wise. I guess it depends on if you are tapped into the top, middle or bottom of the system.

Not sure I take much advise from Georgie White either. No disrespect to the self-made woman but her legend doesn't bode well from many standpoints.

Phillip


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I doubt many states public access water laws apply to canals.....


----------



## Stiff N' Wett (Feb 18, 2010)

goldcamp said:


> Old Major Powell was clearly wrong here. There are millions of people living in the SW.


Yeah millions of people living off the the lakes that were damned to water their golf courses and fill their pools. All those millions of people that settled down there is one reason why we have such a water problem in the west.


----------



## planetsandman (May 23, 2011)

In surface water hydrology, the term is stream. All rivers are streams, but not all streams are considered rivers, just as all canals are streams (albeit man-made) but not all streams are considered canals (thank the water god(ess)s). We rank them by the Strahler Stream Order, and measure the output as streamflow (cfs). And if you don't want to run aground, you need to find the stream channel. But rhetoric is important, and I would call them all the 'Virgin Mary' if it would protect just one more kilometer of free flowing water....


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> I personally don't buy into the more is better argument, in this case the # of people benefiting.
> Well, the point is, you could leave the river(s) uncorked, and a bunch of yakkers and bouncy boaters would benefit, maybe, but the rest would wonder why the hell someone doesn't do something about all that water just running off to the ocean, you know, while their livestock and crops burn up. Or float off in the spring floods.
> Temporary in geologic time is correct, but not in my lifetime.
> Indeed; we all want what we want when we want it, and to hell with the rest.
> ...


...


----------



## F.A.A.C. Slim (Jan 14, 2010)

What's in a name? That which we call the Colorado River would flow as uncertainly each season?........chill and thrill to what you get each year and count your blessings you can pull a $20 from your wallet, buy gas and drive to a put-in and escape on the water.....key to happiness my man is to want what you have and emphasize the WANT part...


----------



## teletoes (Apr 16, 2005)

Can we at least stop calling reservoirs "lakes"?

Powell Reservoir
Mead Reservoir
Dillon Reservoir
Twin Reservoirs
Navajo Reservoir
et al


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

> But the reality is, as we bitch and moan about those rascals, we do it living a life style that would not exist without those fucking dams and the people who built them.


Not sure most of us actually get benefits from places like Powell though. In fact, I can say, as a resident of SW Utah that the water agencies current actions are trying to hurt us here. They want us to stop using a local water source and pay exuberant fees to tap into Lake Powell for water that exists on paper but not in reality. Pretty little mess here actually. Or consider how artificially cheap water has made places like Vegas even more hungry for growth, enough so to create a massive legal over aquifers elsewhere. Not sure that benefits most of us in all honesty.

Power? Most of it goes to California, as the SW is stuck with their pollution. Ever notice how fast our horizons are changing? Its one of the ironies of CA as they get to claim alot of green measures because so many of their power sources aren't there. Over the last decade the Colorado Plateau has become increasingly polluted.

Agriculture? Maybe. I buy mostly from regional sources east of CA for that reason. Was part of a CSA locally that allowed me to get veggies, meat, cheese and eggs locally. Still get a portion from there. Still don't buy everything local or regional which sucks but trying to improve. When you actually research food though you realize not a ton of it comes from southern CA, at least what we purchase. But still some. Most of my grains come from the elsewhere which has made me realize how much I need to educate myself on other regions. 

How else is my lifestyle made possible by damming the CO? 

Or take a systems analysis of another river, like the Great Miss. It has huge benefits for local crops, etc. But it also has huge negatives like dead zones in the Gulf that use to support major fishing and harvesting for generations. Or that it has helped stratify regions economically in a manner that locals have little control over now. 

Might want to think about just reducing arguments against the simplified "more is better" argument as "bitching and moaning". Its a complex subject that has lasting influences beyond such simplified rhetoric. I recognize that my comments on the internet don't change anything themselves but I do learn alot by engaging in these conversations. I think others do as well. Few instance, a new generation of students and citizens are making documentaries to expose the issues posed by these dams. Who knows how that is going to influence people down the road. 

And trust me, I see the other side of the argument, but that does not mean I can't still stand by a differing opinion. I recognize how diverse the stakeholders are in water law and do my best to empathize with local interests. And like many others I have "made peace" with Glenn Canyon Dam, largely through spending human-powered adventures on the lake (sea kayaked its length solo over two trips). 

Recognizing what we can't change in the present doesn't mean letting go of resistance and the hope of creating more sustainable solutions in the future (near or far). And part of that balance for me is no longer accepting the discourse of the "greater good" that has for so long defined the ecologically destructive placement of these dams on the CO. Hence my ideas that the benefits are shorter term than many explain (talking human not geologic scale). I place great value on the ecological worldview that informed many of my decisions over the last decades which means I am in direct conflict with the modern zeitgeist.

But I fully recognize those are my ideas and defined by my knowledge and experience. I seek out disparate views to better understand the limitations of my worldview all the time.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

teletoes said:


> Can we at least stop calling reservoirs "lakes"?
> 
> Powell Reservoir
> Mead Reservoir
> ...


Agreed. I try and do so as much as possible. Gets people's attention. Not sure it makes much difference in the long run but its my way of highlighting their destruction. Seems fair to counter the whitewashing the use of the word "lake" used by the agencies.

Phillip


----------



## tommycolorado (Jun 24, 2009)

ever hear anyone refer to Green Mtn Reservoir as Green Mtn Lake? Didn't think so...


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

teletoes said:


> Can we at least stop calling reservoirs "lakes"?
> 
> Powell Reservoir
> Mead Reservoir
> ...


Actually the Twin Lakes are natural lakes that were expanded by a dam on the outlet berm. Also, while Dillon is certainly a reservoir, a better name would be Bailey Flow Fortification Project.


----------

