Drought Contingency

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

On the Eastern slope, we’re not really part of that.

It is some muckraking, but Cadillac Desert is a pretty good read. Basically, the entire West is on water welfare (truth), and we’re really sticking it to Mexico in the water treaty by overuse, particularly in CA, Las Vegas, and Arizona. What your feelings are on Mexico aside, if you are a person of law and order or respect treaties, Mexico really has a higher claim than these desert states.

Arizona is particularly egregious. The CAP flows right through the hottest part of the desert (ridiculous), and they waste it. My parent’s development (on a well, but still) is a PGA-level course, and they have fountains that just blast water in the sky. So, yeah, you guys in GJ (or wherever) can’t water your lawns but they can do that. Unbelievable.

[Skip]

Guys/Gals,
i try to avoid a lot of pollitically charged subjects here and other forums I belong to.

[snip]

So do I.




It is interesting to watch the Gaia worshipers realize the mega metropolis from which they derive their power (and wealth) are environmentally unsustainable* and look for solutions rather than do the morally correct thing and shut them down.

Kind of like DeBlasio suing the oil companies over climate change. Who consumed all that oil? Who continues? Turn off the lights already!


* This word doesn't mean what they think it means but in the case of water for Las Vegas applies

[Gman]

I would just keep the $2 as a junk mail waste handling fee. I didn't ask them to send it to me, I have to pay for my waste disposal, and they just made an unsolicited contribution to my trash volume.

Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk

[Mtneer]

Google "Cape Town Day Zero" to get an idea of how bad things can get.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Know how many CFM are diverted annually through tunnels west-east?

OK, educate us. You're citing a pretty massive Ag project (which is indeed water welfare), not Denver showers. But, it is also where you are getting your food, so there's that.

[/I]When you think about it, a lot of the eastern slope (esp. Denver) is far more unsustainable than even Phoenix.

You might have had me interested until here. . I would love to see some serious evidence backing this whopper. You cite one river, which many of the townships (mine included) aren't even on. Beyond how ridiculous that sounds, it is one more significant water source than Phoenix has, the artificial CAP excluded. Or, playing the ever popular "which bucket fills first" game - turn off all these water projects as you say, and decide which city dries up first. The smaller city staring at snowpack directly above it, or the larger city in the middle of the desert sucking its aquifer dry, and dirtbiking across the Salt in August?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Having said all that - I do believe we should not having lawns and raising cattle basically anywhere in the intermountain West. That's just me personally, though. $0.02 That's unsustainable.

[Chaffee2]

Here in Chaffee county we have lost a lot of our water to Pueblo West. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that a rancher or anyone with water rights for that matter can sell "his" water to someone else for forever even years after he is dead.

Case in point there is a section of land near me that will be forever useless for raising crops or cattle. He sold water that has not yet and will not have flowed out the mountains for decades but he sold it and it is gone. PW will continue to grow and produce nothing but houses while land that produced cattle and years past eatable crops is gone forever.

So in other words people who sell "their" water to people downstream just screwed the people upstream forever. Am I correct in that thought or do I just not understand.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

OK, so no evidence but a massive axe to grind. That’s fine. To be truthful though, I’m unsure where your beef is as it seems to generically be E vs. W citing political boundaries. However, there are boundaries and there are higher claims outside these boundaries.

This isn't a case of water welfare. Water rights have been understood going back practically millennia with upstream and original having the biggest claim. Nobody on the other side of a mountain could have alleged water rights.

But, majority rules. This isn't water welfare, it's simple majority theft from minority; as the long standing "rules" precluded this kind of "welfare" in the first place.

The only present justification is our current political boundaries envelop both sides, so the theft of a resource from a minority population (who arguably has much greater need) for free is justified for the majority interest, ignoring all traditions and rules.

Trot, you’re a guy who loves to come on here with all sorts of legal ruminations. Here are your tradition and rules:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
(And if you prefer other than Wikipedia - details are readily available elsewhere).

So...
1) This treaty was signed as a concern much larger than the state of Colorado.
2) I can’t speak to “rules” going back “millennia” but this treaty certainly predates you and I.
3) It would seem that “upstream” doesn’t have the larger claim. Colorado has 1/2 of 1/2, but California has a larger claim. Seems you’d rather they get it than the Eastern slope (which by your own post isn’t even a calculable fraction of what CA is getting), and that’s fine too. There is something to be said about keeping water in the basin of origin and I do agree with you on that.
4) Theft by definition is illegal, but this is the law of the land. On the other hand, we have a conventional word where by law, we legally subsidize those with less in the interest of whatever. You can say this situation is not that word, but it sure fits the definition of welfare. To argue otherwise is somewhat disingenuous. You’re one of the first mods on here to clamp down on discussion advocating the illegal (which you aren’t doing here) - but this current movement of water is the law.

I get that you don’t like it. I don’t particularly like it either, but am of the opinion your anger is somewhat misplaced.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Here in Chaffee county we have lost a lot of our water to Pueblo West. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the fact that a rancher or anyone with water rights for that matter can sell "his" water to someone else for forever even years after he is dead.

Case in point there is a section of land near me that will be forever useless for raising crops or cattle. He sold water that has not yet and will not have flowed out the mountains for decades but he sold it and it is gone. PW will continue to grow and produce nothing but houses while land that produced cattle and years past eatable crops is gone forever.

So in other words people who sell "their" water to people downstream just screwed the people upstream forever. Am I correct in that thought or do I just not understand.

No, I think you have it: correct in thought. This is why these treaties are so serious.
Imagine if we were to shut off CAP or California. Massive populations have made arrangements based on expected flows. “Too bad for them” maybe, but the FedGov is definitely going to step in to protect the masses.

You can argue right or wrong, but in my mind, it is kind of like the Colorado liquor license thing in the sense that unwinding a bad law is going to hurt an awful lot of little guys.

[hatidua]

Water rights is a complicated issue.

Not to hijack, but can we now legally collect rain water or did that get squashed?

I'm not going to ask if you collect water, and you don't need to tell me if you collect water

-and if you happen to drive 56mph in a 55mph zone, I likely won't tell teacher on you for that either.