Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2003   #21
Posts: n/a
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2003   #22
Posts: n/a
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2003   #23
Posts: n/a
if its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2003   #24
pnw, Washington
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,404
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.
gh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2003   #25
Po' Student
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 24
Send a message via ICQ to Txoof
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...
I was working on a flat tax proposal and I accidentally proved there's no god.
-Homer Simpson

Txoof is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2003   #26
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 97
SA of rivers


"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:
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.
jeffro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2003   #27
Posts: n/a
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.

  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2003   #28
Posts: n/a
Leave the state then spaltshot. I don't want anyone else to move here. It's to crowed here in Denver anyway.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2003   #29
Posts: n/a
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2003   #30
Posts: n/a
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.
  Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
time to tear out some dams... The Eddy 0 11-08-2006 06:24 PM
Can dams be positive? cosurfgod Whitewater Kayaking 3 10-22-2003 05:36 PM

» Classified Ads
Dagger Nomad Medium Lime

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Jackson Karma (Medium)

posted by Paddling Life

Brand Spankin' New 2016 Jackson Karma Creek kayak!

Jackson Karma Small...

posted by Rendezvous River Sports


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.