Dam on the Gunnison Defeated - Mountain Buzz

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-20-2005   #1
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 112
Dam on the Gunnison Defeated


chadmckenzie26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-20-2005   #2
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 137
Good news for the Gunny. Good news for boaters. Good news for the fish. Good news for the environment....

Tough shit for the suburbs!!!

Ha ha ha ha

next time maybee developers will think about a water supply before they sprawl all over the plains.

tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2005   #3
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 480
next time maybee developers will think about a water supply before they sprawl all over the plains
That's a laugh
Like it or not, all of us are the result of a sexual act.
Geezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-21-2005   #4
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 21
"The division between the (river) basins is what's hurting this state"
LOL, too funny.
Delbert Grady is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2005   #5
whip's Avatar
Salida, Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 551

Saudi Aurora and the rest of the Denvoid region could rip up their bluegrass and plant cactus and they'd have plenty of ice cubes for their martini's!

No amount of money is worth your free time!
whip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2005   #6
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 342
Everyone knows that we need to store and conserve more water if the south metro area is to have an adequate supply during drought years. It's just a matter of how its done. Building large reservoirs is not the answer. Evaporation rates in reservoirs as well as construction and maintainance costs make reservoirs cost prohibitive. We should be looking to the future with aquifer storage and recharge. Highlands Ranch has already taken this approach. During the worst of the recent drought, many suburbs of Denver were struggling to provide enough water to their customers. This was not the case for Highlands Ranch because they had stored large quantities of water underground during wetter years. Therefore when the drought came, they had a source of water to tap until the drought was over. This is a renewable water source because excess surface runoff can be stored underground to replenish the water used during the drought. Let's face it, the metro area will probably continue to grow. Let's come up with solutions for our water problems. Confined Aquifer Storage and Recharge is a viable option for any place with a large source of surface water and confined aquifers beneath the area. Many places in Denver fit this criteria. As river runners and people who care about the environment, we should advocate confined auifer storage and recharge.
cemartin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005   #7
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 137
Hear! Hear!
Conjuncitve management is the future. But, I encourage all front rangers to advocate responsible development to your local governments. The reason south metro is in such a mess, is because developers are only required to demonstrate a 100 year supply of ground water to build. This 100 year rule ammounts to ground water mining, an unsustainable practice. Wether or not the developers intentionally lied about supplies or just used bad science, the fact is they are running out of water faster than the 100 years promised. It is obvious that new rules are needed. Ones that require a higher standard for a sustainable water supply. This being said there will be ever increasing demands on water in this state. It is important for us boaters to stay vigilant and watch out for the rivers. The union park defeat is only a small victory and there will be more and more water projects coming down the pipe (some good, some bad) which we need to watch out for.
that is all
tony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005   #8
Loveland, Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 510
I had to weigh in on this one. Sorry.

I'm not sure the Union Park defeat is much of a victory at all. This is because not many in the water community took the proposal seriously. It is a proposal being organized and pushed by one person out of Palmer Lake; he's been at it for YEARS. It is a vast and undetailed concept based on several assumptions about existing projects. Also, the guy pushing it is not likely to stop pushing it. He has "been defeated" in the past and will likely keep pursuing this, even though his small water right is now gone.

So, the Front Range bashing as related to this proposed project is undeserved. No municipality was behind it (in fact, all I know of, including Aurora, have refused to support it). Union Park is basically just one "prospector" pushing his own vision of what he truly believes will "solve the water issues on the South Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, and the Colorado." Or, so he told me. Sigh.

Just my two cents.

Kara Lamb
Public Information
Eastern Colorado Office
Bureau of Reclamation
klamb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2005   #9
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 105
conservation, aquifer mgt, etc

I'm a little troubled by some of Curtis' assertions.

I realize that he's advocating smart use of water and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I think most people do.

However, conservation will only get you so far, and if the metro are keeps growing at 4% per year or whatever it does, then in a few years, you've consumed everything you've saved with 25% conservation today.

Also, the notion of banking high flows in aquifers ignores where that water comes from. Every drop we use is a drop that's taken out of a river somewhere. Every drop that falls on the ground is already spoken for. Likewise, every drop that gets banked comes out of a riverand out of somebody's appropriation.

Unfortunately something has to give. the population growth in the metro area (and in the mtns for that matter) continues to grow. Large parts of our economy are based on construction and development. So there's going to be this continual pressure to build dams, or aquifer storage, or other projects that take water out of rivers, eliminating high spring flows (all that water is extra, right?).

Ultimately, the only source of "new" water is to take/buy it from farmers. After all, we all know that water runs uphill toward money. Hopefully, we can change laws to allow this before we dry up too many rivers (most irrigation districts don't allow water transfers out of that basin).

alanbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2005   #10
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 39
"Ultimately, the only source of "new" water is to take/buy it from farmers."

And the water to grow the food will then come from???

A sustainable population growth (say 1.5% rather than the recent 8-13%), not simply hemorrhaging subdivision upon subdivision would be a good place to start.
Western Slope WaterMan is offline   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
Another Dam Defeated chadmckenzie26 Whitewater Kayaking 1 11-03-2005 12:17 PM
Gunnison 7/16-7/17 denverdmk Kayaking | Trip Planner 0 07-11-2005 02:37 PM
A possible(?) new dam near Gunnison? Withdrawn 1 Whitewater Kayaking 3 02-05-2005 11:03 AM
NF of Gunnison -- How much fun is it? Schizzle Whitewater Kayaking 1 03-30-2004 01:25 AM
Ref A DEFEATED!!! earthNRG Whitewater Kayaking 1 11-05-2003 03:05 PM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.