Water: Supply and Demand in Colorado: Panorama: Rocky Mountain PBS: a1

Denver

32°

Blogs Health Care Tech Talk Green Living National Parks Super School News The 1930s

Facing the Mortgage Crisis
Colorado State of Mind - Budget Cuts to Higher Education
Women in power: what drives them to lead and what holds them back?
Public lands in the media spotlight
Native American Heritage Month
Health Care

Masterpiece Contemporary: Collision (Part 2 of 2)
Sunday at 9pm

Mystery of Chaco Canyon
Wednesday at 8pm

Movie: Harry and Tonto (1974)
Saturday at 8pm

True Whispers: The Story of the Navajo Code Talker
Tuesday at 8pm

Nova: Why Do We Dream?
Tuesday at 7pm

Water: Supply and Demand in Colorado

posted Friday, Feb. 8, 2008 1:46pm

See more on: Green Living, Agriculture, Colorado State of Mind, Economy

From the February 8 program: Does Colorado have enough water to support an estimated three million new residents over the next 20 years, in addition to new demands from industry, agriculture, tourism and the environment?

Tune In

Colorado State of Mind
"Water: Supply & Demand in Colorado"

Watch Colorado State of Mind
Complete episodes online. Watch now.

What's your point of view?

alexis hmielak
Friday, February 8, 2008 › 8:24pm
The Canadian uranium mining company Powertech Uranium Corp. proposes to pump 20,000 gallons of water a day, for the next 10-15 years, at their proposed uranium mining site 10 miles NE of Ft. Collins. They state that they will be purchasing that water from various undisclosed sources. Powertech is in the exploration stage of mining in which they are drilling thousands of water wells, placing them under pressure and determing the potential yield of uranium by using the insitu leach mining process.

The State of Colorado needs to weigh in and limit this operation due to not only draw down on the Fox Hills, Dakota-Cheyenne Aquifer which is the northern end of the grand Denver Basin, but the potential danger of radiation of the entire aquifer from the activation into solution of radioactive uranium and its daughter products such as radium and thorium, plus other toxic elements such as arsenic, selenium and molybdenum.

The mining of uranium in such a water-hungry state such as Colorado will not only limit future growth but cause a very negative socio-economic reaction which could include reduction in property values, exodus of population and pollution forever of our major groundwater aquifers.

This travesty cannot happen in a state that touts itself as a haven for renewable energy. For more information on the proposed uranium mining go to www.nunnglow.com.

Steven Warfel
Friday, February 8, 2008 › 9:21pm
Remarkable that no one on the show mentioned the three most critical issues:

1. Water is not bought and sold, only water rights. There is no marketplace for water or water futures.

2. The State has no line authority.

3. In a severe drought, which is certain to come, only one thing can make a significant difference: storage.

The above three are interdependent, and will require political will and foresight, which is not likely before the drought arrives. If one viewed this show after the drought arrived, one might laugh or cry. There they were rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic.

Water rights made sense 200, even 100, years ago, but not now. Man made the laws to meet the existing needs; now that the needs have changed we need to change the laws.

Jeff
Friday, February 8, 2008 › 9:36pm
Can someone compare water use of 15% urban-85%Agricultural on a different basis? Like water use per square mile? Urban vs Ag?

Billt
Saturday, February 9, 2008 › 1:15pm
I would agree with the view that we are already in a crisis. As I stated earlier on the immigration program comment, we have already probably exceeded what is a sustainable population.

I have a concern that those who manage our water resources a very limited view of water since the discussion was limited to surface water with only minor references to wells and shallow aquifers. The roles of shallow aquifers, deep aquifers, evaporation, storage, precipitation are interrelated and not well handled by existing law or policy. Failure to consider the more complex water problems makes a difference between an approaching crisis and already being there.

Many ditches and irrigation patterns were established in the state over a century ago. Much of this activity established shallow aquifer storage and land use patterns. Shallow aquifer storage is the stored in the soil down to the point where there is a relatively impervious layer. This storage may supply water to many surface plants in addition to the ones involved in irrigation.

Water does not disappear but comes from some where and goes to some where. Water that evaporates from plants, soil or water surfaces is lost as part of the surface flow as is the recharging of aquifers and so for those who look at only the surface flow, lining ditches, no irrigation or drip irrigation ?saves? water. However, evaporation increases local humidity which decreases evaporation, local humidity will increase local precipitation. The evaporated water may be carried upstream, which will increase stream flow, it may go down stream which will decrease need of stream flow and of course some will go elsewhere and not contribute to any of the stream flow requirements.

Further, water that is stored from irrigation can provides an important buffer in dry years. For example, assume that normal stream flow will store water in the soil at an average depth of 6 inches below average stream depth over an area from the stream over one half mile to either side. With irrigation the distance could be increased to one mile to either side and an average depth of one inch above the average stream depth.

We must consider what happens to farms, homes and plant and animal communities that have been established over the past hundred years or so based on the existence of these shallow aquifers. Many of these shallow aquifers have been depleted in recent years but have not been noted in the water problems.

Another major problem that does not appear when only looking at surface runoff is the depletion of deep aquifers. This is a somewhat more recent development than the use of the streams and shallow aquifers, but is proceeding at an alarming pace. Towns and agricultural practices are based on the aquifers that are dropping of rates of 10s of feet a year and are reaching depletion depths of 600 feet in places. These aquifers represent water that has been relatively stable over long periods of time, perhaps over 10,000 years or so in some cases. Some have supply sources that allow for fairly rapid recharge while other have very slow lateral or vertical recharge currently. Some have functional run out and others will in the next 10-15 years. This deficit must be accounted for in the whole water equations to determine whether or not we are in a crisis.

Some other the medium aquifers that recharge along the uplift in the foothills and mountain will be effect fair quickly by precipitation changes and water diversion.

We have large natural storage areas in these underground aquifers. Water quality is a concern when attempting to inject these aquifers. Failure to recharge them will lead to natural filling which may take thousands of years or may occur quickly from breakthroughs in rock faults, clay and sand layers. Most of the recharge will not be noticed at first, being slow seeps, with slow vertical and lateral transfer. Rapid flow could happen if the breakthrough is to an underground stream. The most probable point of breakthrough is along existing surface stream courses. If one assumes an aquifer area of 5 million acres with a loss of 100 feet with a specific storage of 1 % this would yield 5 million acre feet or about enough to consume the North Platte for 5 years. If one uses a less conservative estimate of specific storage of 20% then this would consume the North Platte for 100 years. Since a large sinkhole on a major water course would without doubt create a crisis, data about the probability of such a failure should be developed and thought about recharging the deficit usage must be considered.

Loss of farm land to meet water needs does not seem like a good idea. The economic impact of lost tax base and farm related commerce would be a major impact for people in farming communities and agricultural counties, but would be a problem for all people in the state. For a sustainable population a state the size of Colorado, agriculture should at least come close to meeting its net food production, ideally a net exporter and source of revenue. We may export cattle and import oranges, but both in terms of food value and revenue there needs to be a balance.

Climate change is also an important factor. In the past the have been cycles with wet and dry years. Some cycles are measure in years, some in decades, some in centuries or longer. Added to that is forced climate change brought on by human activities or natural events. The earths wobbles, sun spots, volcanic activity all play a complex role. When looking at sustainability, the calculation needs to be for the decade when there will be low precipitation, and warmer than average times.

Resource allocation is a complex issue. I have noted only rough estimates and likely missed some important considerations. The show needs to bring some of these considerations forward, since I think we, the public, need to be aware of the currant and coming problems. Law need to follow the science and laws of nature.

Steven Warfel
Sunday, February 10, 2008 › 7:17am
"Loss of farm land to meet water needs does not seem like a good idea."

85% of nothing is nothing. Drive NE of Denver and you will sees miles of subdivisions where farmers have opted for early retirement. If their water was going into storage it would be precious, but alas there is no market or storage facility available. When the drought comes the S. Platte will dry up and all that ag water will only be found in textbooks and tables.

Billt
Monday, February 11, 2008 › 6:11am
I agree with Steven in both of his posts. The superficial discussion is a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is dangerous discussion because it seems like something is being done about a much larger and more complex problem.

I think we are in a crisis because we have already struck the iceberg to use the Titanic analogy. The damage is mainly below and unseen by most. The depletion of storage in shallow and deep aquifers and in microclimates is not as easy to see as the drop in levels in reservoirs such as John Martin, Dillon, or Mead. We have borrowed from these reserves to fuel development an amount of water that probably amounts to at least several years of total stream flows.

The water borrowing is like the subprime crisis. The crisis was going to happen, but would happened sooner if the economy slowed. The water problem is happening and has been happening for some time. It has been at least a decade since I remember the sign in a restroom: ?Please flush, Kansas needs the water?. A few more dry years will make the crisis more obvious, but the ship is sinking.

Now is a good times to at least put on the breaks. The lending crisis is slowing growth. If you think there is a loss in property values now, wait until there is not enough water. Just ask the residents of Mesa Verde.

anonymous
Saturday, October 4, 2008 › 6:30pm
wouldn't it be nice if every person was allowed the minimum amount for survival (enough water for one shower and drinking needs daily). This minimum amount would be charged the same as water is now but any water used above the minimum would be charged more, much much more. The extra money could be put toward preserving aquifers, storing water, or recycling water. Until water is equal to money in importance, people will abuse and waste water.
If someone wants to keep a emerald green lawn that never would have grown here naturally, then they can pay for it. Same for golf courses, they can easily adjust green fees to pay for their grass.

How about a system to catch rain water/ snow and store it for watering the garden?

Jeff
Friday, February 8, 2008 › 9:36pm
Can someone compare water use of 15% urban-85%Agricultural on a different basis? Like water use per square mile? Urban vs Ag?