Mountain Buzz banner

A Trout in Trouble

9K views 51 replies 22 participants last post by  lmyers 
#1 ·
Would be rolling on the ground if the subject wasn't so serious:

A Trout in Trouble

Help save the Colorado. Sign the petition!!!
 
#35 ·
The facts are that Colorado does not have enough water to support everything that Coloradoans would like to do in the future. These future activities include (but are not limited to) ranching, farming, drilling for oil/natural gas, playing golf, and growing grass in residential yards.

The point that some have been trying to make is that you can't talk about water conservation without considering the one use (agriculture) that makes up for over 80% of all water used in the state.

I think everyone agrees that food is more important than golf courses or grass yards in Denver. However, I think it is shortsighted to think we can fully solve our water problems by focusing on solely on residential users who currently make up 6-7% of water usage in Colorado.
 
#36 ·
Ukonom is correct- there is a very important distinction here between consumptive and non-consumptive users. Ag on the west slope does use tons of water, but a lot of that returns to the river. If you have never paddled from Pallisade through Grand Junction, I would actually recommend it. The river loses tons of it's whole flow for a bit as it's all sucked out for agriculture. Then, over the course of the "15 mile reach," it regains almost that entire flow. You can actually see the water seeping through the shale layers. Yes, it it more polluted/saline (it actually forms cool travertine-like formations at the seeps), but it does indeed return. Water used on east slope lawns, on the other hand, obviously never returns to the river.

It is also important to think about the size of the watershed in play with Denver Water's use. The headwaters contains a very small amount of flow relative to the entire state. So, while Denver Water only uses 2% of statewide water, that 2% is a really really significant part of the water in the headwaters. Between Denver's firming projects and the Northern Water Conservancy's Colorado Big Thompson Project, the front range actually takes 60% of the headwaters' flow. Estimates of new projects' predict that this will expand to 80%. yep, 80%.

While paddling from Rocky Mountain NP to Kremmling this summer, it was amazing how the river actually loses water constantly as soon as it leaves the park. You are scraping on bone dry rocks until you hit the Williams Fork and the Blue down by kremmling. Definitely wouldn't want to be a trout in that stretch of river. PS, don't bother trying paddling this section... you have to negotiate with about 20 land owners in order to make the trip through the shallow (really shallow) class II.

Point is, front range water use has an undeniably huge effect on the headwaters region, regardless of agriculture's overall dominance of statewide water use.
 
#37 ·
Ah, ignorance is bliss, is it not?

A vegetarian diet can and does provide all essential amino acids needed for a human. Google it.

I am not saying that golf courses are essential to life, nor am I saying a green lawn is. In fact both can be given up, and it would be better for water conservation. However, so can beef. Hate to say it, but eating a hamburger or a steak is not essential to life either. If you really need meat, eat eggs, chicken, fish, or pork. All use less water to produce.

As for the comment "And the water used for processing is returned to the environment once it is cleaned." from John_Loveland. Well a lawn and golf course both let the water return to the soil. That point has no bearing.

Cattle are not native to Colorado, Texas or anywhere in the USA. Again, hate to be a realist, but the overgrazing of lands is partially responsible for major environmental problems like the dust bowl. To say that their eating of scrub plants and drinking surface water has no impact upon water conservation, is ignorant. Agriculture greatly diminishes water tables.

Look, I am defensive of my position, because it is fact based. The only idea I want to put forth is that Agriculture uses way more water than anything else (actually, technically speaking, cooling power plants is actually #1, but that is whole different tangent). To have the biggest impact upon water conservation we should cut our Agricultural Water needs. The easiest way to do this is by eating more vegetable matter and less meat. And the biggest meat user of water is beef.

Pretty reasonable idea: Eat beef one less time a month and you can help conserve water. If we did this as a population, and reduced our beef eating, it would have a considerable impact.

Just food for thought
 
#40 ·
Wamsley, I don't think I'm a hypocrite. I only cooked beef once in the past 40 days, I weigh 110 lbs so I eat less than the average american regardless of what I am eating, I have no yard or running water to the outside of my house, my car hasn't had a bath in almost a year (other than what fell from the sky), and I have even started timing my showers so I am down to just a few minutes.

I do think getting people to completely change their diet is a harder sell with most people than encouraging less outdoor faucet use. Yes it is easier for dimwits like myself to see water pouring into the yards and streets of Denver as wasteful, as opposed to the lunch I just consumed. I do know we are about to lose another river (Fraser River), and almost half of it will be watering lawns in Denver. The boating, fishing, wildlife, and economic benefits that that river brings our community is just as important as your lawns, and it will be missed. I hoped that water conservation would have been a topic that buzzards could unite on, but alas I see even this brings strife here.
 
#41 ·
Jennifer, I agree with you. Thank you for your last post. All I desired was to get more info out there about water conservation. I would hope that all on this post would agree to the benefits of using less water and eating less meat in order to conserve our water ways. Hopefully someone has read these postings and will make more educated choices about their lifestyle in regards to their water consumption.

As an avid boater and fisherman it does suck to lose water to these important headwater streams. I have kayaked the Fraser and it was good. I have spent countless days on the Upper C boating, fishing, and enjoying life. I hate to see that diminished.

I hope that we Americans can begin to shift our ways of living and become less consumptive and more sustainable. If everyone tries, we could get there.

Stop watering the lawns, eat less meat, and if its yellow let it mellow!
 
#42 ·
Wamsley,
I totally disagree that reducing meat consumption will reduce western water usage. If you want to reduce your meat consumption, do it because its an ethical choice or mistakenly beleive its a health choice. But don't lay a vegan lifestyle on others as the be all and end all to the destruction of the Fraser and the Colorado River.

Denver Water and Northern Colorado Water are all about domestic and/or urban and/or industrial water usage. While I am an inveterate supporter of Ag, I think trying to farm west of the 100th meridian is a fools errand and unfortunately the farmers who were led down this path 100 years ago by homesteading laws are now stuck.

Denver and the entire front range - Where the bulk of the population resides - can reduce water usage significantly by eliminating lawns (I have) eliminating water intensive landscaping (I have) shifting to "links course" type of golf courses that have patches of green interspersed with natural xeric landscaping and by paying more for the water they buy. In the end though it will be ag that dies a slow death, not the least reason because they can sell their water rights to Denver and retire.

We aren't going to solve this problem with a "holier than thou" Vegan mantra. Sorry to be somewhat offensive, but I beleive veganism is elitist. If you were poor and hungry and didn't have enough protein in your diet like so many people in this world (and I have travelled around the world and know a thing or two about food cultures), you would not hesitate to eat an egg, a fish, an elk steak, a pork chop, ground beef, or as they do throughout the world (and think of it as delicacies), intestines, chicken paws, tripe, liver, beef hooves, sweetbreads, and all other manner of sources of protein that we stick up our noses at (excuse the grammar).

I am done with this post, I thought the subject was enlightening, instead its put me in contact with more vegans....my least favorite idealogy
 
#43 ·
It seems probable to me that if the ag uses downstream of denver didn't take/use as much water as they do, then denver wouldn't need to go west of the divide and suck so much of that water. Correct, at least in theory and disregarding the added complexity of water rights.
 
#44 ·
Reducing or eliminating red meat consumption will save water. In Cadillac Desert the author states that, to produce 1 pound of beef, 300 gallons of water is used. Also on average reducing how much meat you consume has more of positive impact on the environment than if you stop driving a vehicle.

Rivercowboy your a bad ass, everyone I know that eats bear is a bad ass. So are some great vegan athletes, that are far from stupid, a few would no doubt kick your ass. Great Vegan Athletes | Great Vegan Athletes




I recommend reading this book.

 
#49 ·
Easy, buddy.

I apologized to Laura already for the way I must have come across. Consider it an apology to you as well if you took it such a way. No man, vegan or otherwise, needs to worry about kicking my ass (multiple reasons not to try). I think I explained my defensive position well enough to her, but I'll say it again: I don't "consume" commercial red meat. I float and fish, I hike and hunt. They are natural resources, that when managed appropriately by stewards of the land such as ourselves-not just land managers-will exist for every generation to come, without any more impact on water than each species has always had.

Paul
 
#50 ·
I have been trying to stay out of these post but I just can't hold back any more. I work for a major ag irrigation company and an avid river runner.
I believe many people see agriculture as the "big bad water users". Irrigated agriculture sees the problems, it is not just there green lawn thats at stake, it's their livelyhood. That is why irrigated agriculture is the most efficient form of irrigation there is. Your typical lawn applies water at an efficiency of approximately 50-60% at best. Pressurized ag irrigation ie. center pivots etc. your looking at 80-90%.
People forget that farmers and ranchers are what put the food on the table. Your not going to have time to run rivers if you have to manage crops to feed your family.
Yes, conservation is needed and agriculture is conserving. Don't hate the American farmer, there doing there part, I would say better than anyone.
Good farming practices, protecting soil, using less fuel, less fertilizer, and yes less water makes growers more profitable. This is why farmers aren't the enemy.
 
#51 ·
That is why irrigated agriculture is the most efficient form of irrigation there is. Your typical lawn applies water at an efficiency of approximately 50-60% at best. Pressurized ag irrigation ie. center pivots etc. your looking at 80-90%.
I don't buy those numbers. I grew up in Kansas and spent many years assembling center pivot irrigation systems. They use lots of water, and spray it into the air where much of it evaporates and sublimates into the atmosphere. There are efficient ways of irrigating crops, but it is drip irrigation, and unfortunately you don't see it promoted. Seems to me it wouldn't be a bad idea for the government to help subsidize the development of drip irrigation more....
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top