Mountain Buzz banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I don't know if anybody has read Kate's posts at the old board. If not then you should do so. There's plenty of trash that gets thrown around on this site and that's all fine and good, but this is a topic that matters to us all. I assume that a few of you out there are of voting age, so make sure you are registered and get in your licks to stop this thing. If all the paddlers and fisherman in this state go in and cast their one vote against, it will make a difference
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
More info on the Da*m Referendum

Please take a minute or two to go to www.votenoona.com and check out reasons to not support the big dam bill. Also look at all the groups that oppose the referendum.

Thanks,
Kate
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Right On! NO ON A. Get your lazy butt to the polls!

Everybody rouse your lazy butts and find yoru way to a polling place in November. A is a scarry arse bill that serves the water interests in the state without setting any specific rules as to where and how the $4 Billion dollars of our money will be used. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Denver, Auora and Colorado Springs will be jockying for more water projectes (spelled DAMS).
We don't need any more dams in Colorado. We need more sensible water usage (let your lawn turn brown and title it "An expirament in water conservation and native plant growth in a suburban setting"), not more water storage.
Vote NO on A.
Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
I need to be educated here. I see the primary three rivers in Northern Colorado, Poudre, Colorado and Arkansas as all being enhanced by dams. They take the season that could be as little as two to three weeks long and stretch it out. While it may not go as big, it certainly helps comercial boating and keeps my hobie active longer.

I guess I'm not against setting aside money to enhance water storage, where I would be against many specific prodjects.

I would think we kayakers from a selfish prospective would like the storage to take place in select locations as high as possible. Thus allowing for maximum season down stream. Also allowing for the maintanance of minimum flows to protect fish populations.

A couple years ago a post on this site spoke about reverse pumping into aquifers as a means of water storage. This struck me as an awesome solution. No environmental impact and no loss due to evaporation. If anyone knows where there is more information on this subject I would love to see it.

Fill me in on why I'm misguided on the storage issue.

Ken
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,408 Posts
I cant really say that the ARK season is extended by having the Pueblo reservoir, anyway the big question is where to store. If a reservoir of any circumstance is going to be around 5 or 6 miles long then that is 5 or 6 miles of river lost. We don't have that many rivers to lose at this point. My real problem with A is that after we approve the money, which will be the most debt the state has ever incurred, we get no say in what they will do with it. In my opinion if the Springs need more water then Pueblo res needs to be revamped and increase the size of it but I would like the opportunity to vote on it issue by issue.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Education:
Rivers in this state would not run dry.
Think about all that water never being released.
The world's major source of fresh water is rain, dams reduce a rivers surface area and prevent evaporation causing rain fall to decrease. Low snow packs and drought have been our states latest problem. Bigger snow pack means rivers run all year.
The colorado river doesn't even reach its natural destination any more because of dams and unnatural irrigation systems.
Dams due irreversable damage to the environment.
Private water rights would be supported by our tax money.
The fish population in this state has become almost completely non-native and dams prevent natural spawning and other migration of fish.
Water is in the process of being commodified meaning water (which is becoming scarce) goes to the highest bidder.
If you want more info on the water crisis here in colorado or across the world I can recommend many sources.

Cheers,
Aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Damn Dams

One only need to visit Lake Foul (Powl) to see how horrible a damn is to an ecosystem. Dams may extend some seasons as we see on the Platte (and I do love the long season) and on Gore, but in the long run they do nothing but harm to the environments they are created in.
The Grand Canyon, one of the most unique environments on the North American continent is being destroyed by the dams up-river. The natural flood and ebe that has formed and shapped the canyon has been serriously disrupted. Unique and endangered species are being lost every year due to the derth of nutrients and sediment that would normally be brought down by the spring floods. The dams cause most of the sediment to fall out of suspension and never reach the Grand. The water comming out of the bottom of the dam is far colder than it would be naturally at that point; this does some pretty horrible things to native fish populations as well.
Then there's the issue of waste. By stopping water in one place in a big pool, you increase the surface water exposed to sun. This water evaporates. Billions (that's right, BILLIONS, with a B) of gallons of fresh water are lost every year to evaporation from dams in the desert. They also waste the natural resource of the location. None of us who are reading this post will EVER see Glenn Canyon in our lifetimes. It is GONE forever. That is a terrible, terrible price to pay so that we can have a place to run our speed boats and have green lawns in the middle of the Tuscon desert.
Instead of new water projects (spelled DAMS), what we need is more responsible water management. We don't need more water, we just need to use what we have more wisely. We don't need more blue-grass lawns and 2 hour showers.

Please, save Colorado from more debt, more environmental degridation and more dams, Vote no on A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
This isn't about kayaking. It's about rivers, and putting money into the hands of those that don't respect them!
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
double-a-ron said:
The world's major source of fresh water is rain, dams reduce a rivers surface area and prevent evaporation causing rain fall to decrease. Low snow packs and drought have been our states latest problem. Bigger snow pack means rivers run all year.
Your "education" has it backwords. Dams increase the surface area of rivers, causing more evaporation. Lake Powell looses around 8% its water each year to evoration. I doubt many rivers loose that much to evaporation in 190miles.

Evaporation from rivers is not a significant source of rain/snow. If you look a weather map then you'll see major storms come from the gulf of Mexico, Pacific ocean, or other large bodies of water; not the Arkansas river.

I fully agree with your other points. Vote no on A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
We have enough water capacity as it stands now. Moisture in Colorado follows cycles.

I just received a mailer from Bill Owens which contains disinformation. This is a political "severe drought" scare tactic. Certain groups are taking advantage of the "drought" cycle. It is a panic push, to move money, to the interested parties, to accomplish narrow business goals. Once they get the money, we the people, will have no say on which projects are a go or no-go. Exposure to undesirable projects is high.

Look at the endorsers of A:
Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry
Dairy Farmers, Livestock concerns, Cattlemen Association,
Corn growers, Bankers Association, Carwash Association, ect.

They are agri-business and developers.

Go look at the NON-endorsers: http://www.votenoona.com/ It is plain to see who benefits from A.

If the goal is to "improve water conservation," shut off the sprinkler more often.
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Another aspect of this is that they want to use the money to enhance existing facilities. This could include things like expanding Spinnea (sp?) res by flooding Waterton canyon. This would be a loss to those of us who enjoy the area but a 'benefit' to water storage. Money would not be an issue because they would already have it in their hands which would bypass many of the hurdles that they have to go thru now to get approval for such projects.

Just another angle to think about......
 
K

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I see a number of arguments here.

1.) Dams in any form are bad
2.) We need more sensible water use.
3.) Natural flows are best.

Here are my thoughts. I again ask for feedback.

Dams are a function of the massive population growth in the West. The fact that the Colorado no longer reaches the gulf can be attributed largely to water usage. (Population / agricultural)

We need more sensible water use. I totally agree. This focus should be legislated through local and national means as to legal irrigation methods and urban planning to stop the waste of this resource.

Natural flows will not exist in the future. We will continue to grow in population and flows on western rivers will be effected.

If stagecoach, Dillon, Turquoise, and other lakes were made 10-20 feet deeper as a result of this legislation would any boatable runs be effected? The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water.

Many mentions are made that if this money is set aside we lose control of what the money will be spent on. Would we not be able to stop any action that effected viable white water in the west?

As I think about this I would rather see storage at the source (High mountain lakes) than massive dams in Arizona and Utah. In the alternative I still think the idea about reverse pumping into aquifers is intriguing. (Does the science exist to support the theory?)
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
In response to!
"Your "education" has it backwords. Dams increase the surface area of rivers, causing more evaporation. Lake Powell looses around 8% its water each year to evoration. I doubt many rivers loose that much to evaporation in 190miles.

Evaporation from rivers is not a significant source of rain/snow. If you look a weather map then you'll see major storms come from the gulf of Mexico, Pacific ocean, or other large bodies of water; not the Arkansas river."

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). Next point, Dams reduce surface area and stagnate the water. A dam is much deeper than a river and a river is continuosly churning (chundering in kayak terms). Waterfalls for example throw water into the air. Rivers also due this when they are allowed to flow. Dams also saturate more ground in a condensed area than rivers. This is important because that water cannot evaporate. Now don't get me wrong if you can produce a source to dispute anything that I said I will read it and take it into account. Anyone interested in more water issues globally and locally here are some sources to understand the coming water crisis. "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow available at the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), "Water, Culture and Power" by Donahue and Johnston Island Press 1998, Check out the recent editions of the denver post (last sunday- Owens vs. Salazar in a debate over referendum A) and finally their is a lot of literature examining the sources of colorado's recent drought.

Cheers,
Aaron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
ken again wrote:

Dams are a function of the massive population growth in the West. The fact that the Colorado no longer reaches the gulf can be attributed Largely to water usage. (Population / agricultural)

This is very true. The problem here is the fact that growth has not been limited in any substantial way. 'Unlimited' growth that has been seen in the West is due to the fact that we have an abundance of land and an apparent abundance of water. When we realize that we don't have an unlimited set of resources growth will stop on its own. Unfortunately, this point will be reached only when most of the rivers are damed and there really is no 'surplus' water heading for the ocean.

If stagecoach, Dillon, Turquoise, and other lakes were made 10-20 feet deeper as a result of this legislation would any boatable runs be effected? The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water.

You are overlooking the downstream impact of dams. There is the issue of fish spawning inturupted by the physical presense of the dam, water temperature issues and flow issues. Many western fish depend on cold spring floods that eventually taper off to provide shallow warm waters for their reproductive cycles. Dams completely foul this system up. They mediate floods and then releas COLD water from their bases (there are dams that have syphon systems that move warmer water from the top of their resivoirs, but they are not terribly common on large projects).
Further control of already injured watersheds is not the answer. Besides, how much value do you put on one week extra of boating? There's some serrious karmic issues there.

Your reverse pumping of aquifers is intriguing from an engineering stand point, but it still takes water from natural sources (the rivers) and moves it from its natural setting thus disrupting the environment.

I know this has all been said before, but what we all reall need to consider is what A is really proposing. A gives the water board a blank check and the voters absolutely no say in how that money is spent. It creates debt for the citizens while providing funding for private buisiness projects. Many engineering and construction companies stand to make mountains of money off this bill.

I personally have no desire to create (more) debt for myself and have no say as to how that money is spent.
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
double-a-ron said:
In response to!

Next point, Dams reduce surface area and stagnate the water. A dam is much deeper than a river and a river is continuosly churning (chundering in kayak terms). Waterfalls for example throw water into the air. Rivers also due this when they are allowed to flow. Dams also saturate more ground in a condensed area than rivers. This is important because that water cannot evaporate. Now don't get me wrong if you can produce a source to dispute anything that I said I will read it and take it into account. Anyone interested in more water issues globally and locally here are some sources to understand the coming water crisis. "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow available at the International Forum on Globalization (IFG), "Water, Culture and Power" by Donahue and Johnston Island Press 1998, Check out the recent editions of the denver post (last sunday- Owens vs. Salazar in a debate over referendum A) and finally their is a lot of literature examining the sources of colorado's recent drought.

Cheers,
Aaron
This is funny, cause even thou your points all all valid, well not exactly. Damns DO NOT Reduce surface area, they increase it by a large margin. Yes waterfalls do aid in evaporation, but minimally, they throw liquid molecules into the air, they only way they evaporate is through surface area, and I promise, surface area gained from a waterfall is tiny compared to surface air gained by a damn. Yes damns saturate more area than rivers do, but subterrainian flow of water is again minimall, once the damn is at full capacity, then the ground saturates quickly, then all water loss is regulated to what can flow out of the ground into the local aquafer. As for books try environmetnal engineering science for some facts on evaporation and such. Don't mean to argue, but this is what i believe actually happens, or at least what i have learned. Still, when all is said and done, damns suck, vote no.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
The "big picture" issue here is growth management. Until Colorado gets a grasp on regional growth and sprawl, demand for water will not diminish. Forget about evaporation and surface area and think about toilets flushing and lawns sprinkling on the front range. That's the issue. Agricultural lands are diminishing.

Many states have enacted "concurrency" statutes that halt growth when adequate public facilities are not present. That won't happen in Colorado. Rather than using sound planning principles, the politics in this state will dictate more growth. I am not saying growth is necessarily bad, but there are many ways to address the need for water without spending billions of public tax dollars (to benefit private corporations) for projects that will negatively affect other economic sectors (tourism, for example).

Why do Bill Owens and other Republicans support the issue? Because the organizations that put them in office support it. Personally, I am tired of all the special interest cash-n'-carry, pay-to-play politics in our country. If Gary Coleman were governor of Colorado, we'd have playparks in every back yard.

When this thing passes (which it most likely will), here's how we get the feds to pay for the dams instead of the state...have the CIA draft phony forged documents about a terrorist threat in Cotopaxi...a group of dirty fundamentalist militant islamic oil-well owners with brown skin who are hiding weapons of "nuculear" mass distraction and will "threaten the American way of life" "by any means necessary." Make sure to use the word "mushroom clouds" now and again for emphasis. Then the president will have congress sign a check for billions so we can flood the crap out of Cotopaxi. Bechtel and Halliburton can build the dams and make millions. After we shut down all of our schools and we are all out of jobs, we'll have all day to kayak on what's left of our rivers. Yee haw!!
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
It's nice to see, and probably not suprising, to see that everyone seems to agree on the central point-- namely that ref A is a bad idea. I think whatever your opinions on dams and water management, ref A lacks oversight.

For a good history of water development and use in the west, you should check out _Cadillac Desert_. There's a scary lack of forethought that seems to have gone into most large water projects in the west, and I think some of the same political forces are still at work. Although an increasing amount of our water supply is used by the general population, especially along the front range, I believe about 80% of all the water used in the west goes to agricultural users. Regardless, conservation and smarter, sustainable usage is a better and cheaper answer than building more dams.

And because I can't leave it alone: The surface area of a resevoir is far, far greater than a river. Look at it this way. At steady state, when the resevoir is full, the flow of the river into the resevoir must be equal to the flow out of the resevoir (or the volume would be changing). So the same amount of water passes through the resevoir as would pass through the river if the resevoir weren't there. A resevoir covers several acres, a river does not. Therefore, you have a much greater surface area:flow ratio for the resevoir, and much higher evaporative losses.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
No worries I love to discuss these things,
Absolutely ref a is bad.
Back to surface area: Two things, first whether moving or not water that is 2-40 deep has more surface area per gallon than water that is hundreds of feet deep. Secondly, the idea of surface area isn't limited to just rivers. Watersheds are huge area of land with sometimes large areas of snowpack (here in colorado, utah, montana, idaho, wyoming, ect.). the run off of snowpack melt is condensed with dams were it is allowed to flow freely with natural rivers. Dams condense water into small areas this by definition increases surface area. Evaporation also takes place with rivers and I don't mean on the small scale of water falls. I was just using that to illustrate and provide visualization of my point. Conservation is key not dams! If you have any suggestions on particular books about environmental engineering please recommend. Reader friendly because my studies are in political science and economics and not engineering. Finally, You argued that major storms come from larger bodies of water, Those bodies of water are all river feed, It may make up a small part of for example the pacific but either way stopping those flows hurts fish, and ecosystems. It is too bad that those flows are being replaced instead by global warming, further damaging ecosystems. Any other comments and discussion are welcome.
Cheers,
Aaron :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Many mentions are made that if this money is set aside we lose control of what the money will be spent on. Would we not be able to stop any action that effected viable white water in the west?
Spoken like a true laywer. I like to spend my time enjoying the river, not fighting special interests money and their army of attorneys.

No, we would not be able to stop them. $2 billion is a significant amount of money, and once approved, will have a life of its own with the vultures to feed on the carcass. --They are swarming right now, I can see them very clearly...look! --
The NON-endorsers do not have the resources to waste on attorney fees, fighting bad projects. There is barely enough to fight Ref A.
Vote NO on A.

Ken, with respect, your thinking is reversed. Vote NO on A first, then we don't have to fight bad, narrow minded, water projects.
Vote NO on A.

Natural flows will not exist in the future. We will continue to grow in population and flows on western rivers will be effected.
Ouch! That is fatalist. --"Uh-oh, here come the class III rapids, hey...let's just give up and swim!"

Natural flows will continue to exist in the future, if the river community fights narrow, corporate, selfish business goals. Vote No on A.

The extra flows might give us an extra week of prime water.
--Let's just sell the whole damn state for a extra week. What do you think we can get for the Poudre?

As I think about this I would rather see storage at the source (High mountain lakes) than massive dams in Arizona and Utah.
--"Hey Joe, what's the plan for the weekend? Oh, I'm going to float the 10th Mountain Division Dam-to-Dam route, how 'bout you?"

We need to stop dams in AZ and UT as well. We have enough dams already. No more. And we have enough gambling as well. Does this country have to dam every mile of river, and put a slot machine at every bus stop?! Enough is enough already, sheeeesh. Vote NO on A.

This proposal is a revenue bond, right. So, charge (revenues) aggressive users of water more. Exponential pricing structures. That's the referendum to support. If residential users consume greater than 8,000 gallons on average per month, quadruple the cost (per 8,000 gallons). Commercial/industrial users will be charged quadruple for excessive consumption, over 50% of the Dec/Jan average. Money/cost changes behavior. Vote NO on A.

Ken, I think, your thoughts, are unthinkable. Vote NO on A.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top