Like The Water by Wendell Berry
Like the water
of a deep stream,
love is always too much.
We did not make it.
Though we drink till we burst,
we cannot have it all,
or want it all.
In its abundance
it survives our thirst.
In the evening we come down to the shore
to drink our fill,
and sleep,
while it flows
through the regions of the dark.
It does not hold us,
except we keep returning to its rich waters
thirsty.
We enter,
willing to die,
into the commonwealth of its joy.
Last month's Denver CORE announcement on water issues warned:
"Only .5% of water on Earth is fresh accessible drinking water. About 884 million people worldwide don't have regular access to safe drinking water. Water demand is steadily growing over the last years, while the supply is shrinking and leading to a projection that 47% of the world population will face water shortages by 2030."
Most of us recognize when we put gasoline into our cars, that oil was probably imported and refined. But do we understand the upstream ripple effect when we water our lawns? As I live on well water, I very much appreciate that every gallon I save means less energy required to pump the water from the ground. The Alliance to Save Energy estimates that "between 2 and 3 percent of the world's energy consumption is used to pump and treat water for urban residents and industry." Most of that energy is from fossil fuels that pollute our air quality.
In 2010, American Rivers said the Upper Colorado River was one of the 10 most endangered rivers in the U.S. - most experts agree that more water is allocated out of the Colorado River than typical flows through it. Very little water actually makes it to Mexico.
Yellow line is the new shoreline - 118 feet higher with the dam 125 feet higher which almost 'triples' capacity from 42,000 AF to 114,000 AF
Regular readers of this column know that I had a conversation with then Mayor Hickenlooper a year ago March about the proposed Gross Dam Reservoir expansion. As Mayor he appointed the Board of Water Commissioners. Denver Water plans to raise the height of Gross Dam by 125 feet, adding an additional 18,000 acre-feet (AF) to Denver Water supplies and almost tripling storage capacity from 42,000 AF to 114,000 AF. Denver currently draws about 130,000 AF annually from the Western Slope. The Fraser River may only have 20% of normal flow after Gross Dam is raised.
One acre-foot is about 325,854 gallons - commonly said to provide annual water needs for one suburban family of five in Montana or two Denver-area families. According to a 2001 City of Santa Fe report, "in the desert South West, where water conservation is followed and often enforced, a typical family uses only about 0.25 acre-feet of water per year."
Indeed, using data from 2001, Denver single-family residential daily per capita water consumption was 159 gallons compared to Tucson's 107. As described in my Denver Green Street's "Deep Energy Home Retrofits" article, I replaced various appliances in my home (adopting one-pint flush toilets) and now average only 5 - 15 gallons per person daily water usage. For my indoor swimming pool, I truck in a few thousand gallons every 2 or 3 years - typically less than an inefficient toilet flush each day.
Mayor Hickenlooper told me then that he supported the Gross Dam expansion as the best alternative short of building another dam. He defended Denver's per capita water consumption saying 20% savings had already taken place; Denver uses less per capita than Phoenix (but he didn't know how Denver compared with Tucson which I brought up).
I asked then why not spend the hundreds of millions of dollars set aside for dam expansion on replacing old Denver toilets with more efficient ultra-low water toilets. He said that was a misunderstood issue given that toilet water is recycled and fulfills Denver's downstream commitments. To me this is a poor excuse as I believe water waste is still a water and energy drain.
Hickenlooper did say there has always been arguments between Denver and the mountain community. When I told him I thought Denver residents could conserve more he pointed to poor Western Slope irrigation practices.
More recently as Governor, he supported the newly announced Colorado River Cooperative Agreement which requires Denver Water to obtain approval from Colorado River Basin counties and river managers before trying to divert any more water to the Front Range. There are some admirable water recycling and conservation components but Denver Water (and the front range growth-oriented communities it serves including Arvada's Candelas project, a 1500-acre mixed development with golf course and grassy parks) won a major concession - dropping Western Slope opposition to the Moffat project which includes the Gross Reservoir expansion.
Unfortunately, I didn't have this 2009 Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Study handy when we spoke last year.
Looking at Table 6 on page 13, even without updating toilets (27% of household water usage according to this study), if 50% of Denver Water customers upgraded to more efficient appliances over 19,000 AF would be saved annually. That is more than the proposed increased Gross Reservoir annual supply! (I defer to smarter people than me to confirm this general argument.) I believed then and now that replacing appliances (especially toilets) can be done quicker and with less money than raising the dam. It would create more local jobs along the Front Range and eliminate 4-6 years of intense logging with road construction that would impact 17,000 residents. Recreational usage will also be severely impacted at Gross Reservoir, Eldorado Canyon State Park, and Walker Ranch.
You may need to adjust your audio due to windy conditions when filming.
Denver Water believes an expanded Gross Dam is necessary for the occasional 30-year drought especially with a growing Denver metro population. Interestingly enough, studies of mandatory water conservation shows there is great elasticity. The Journal of the American Water Resources Association studied the effectiveness of the 2002 Front Range drought restrictions on outdoor water usage. On page 84, the study concluded that "The Greatest Savings (by percentage) Were Found in the Cities With the Most Aggressive and Stringent Mandatory Restrictions...22 percent [reduction] for the four water providers using every third day watering, 33 percent in the three cities limiting watering to twice a week, and 56 percent in Lafayette, which limited watering to once a week." On page 85, the authors suggest "In the absence of drought, the cities of Colorado's Front Range may want to consider adopting outdoor watering restrictions on a permanent basis as part of a long term conservation program."
"(Submerged) Upper and Lower Seasonal Falls"
A provocative read is a thorough critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) by Dr. Clark Chapman, a planetary scientist and former member of the Planning & Zoning Commission of Pima County, Arizona.
Aside from the main point of the DEIS not considering what sustainable water usage is in a near-desert environment, the commentary exhaustively points out the impact on non-human components (e.g. Elk migration and a beautiful seasonal waterfall). The DEIS outlines massive tree cutting. Trees (150 to 1,800 per acre) would be removed by a combination of ground-based systems requiring new roads, helicopter yarding of cut trees, and hydro-ax (rubber-tired tractor) that would reduce trees to small pieces for decay. Not a quiet operation!
Denver Water prides itself on its water conservation programs but a real test is the degree of graduated water rates. Ignoring monthly tap fees (which are a minimum charge depending on water pipe size) but calculating from Denver's 2011 usage rates and Tucson's 2010 usage rates, both Denver and Tucson start out low for single-family basic consumption, $2.41 and $2.06 respectively per 1000 gallons. For more than 40,000 gallons per month, Tucson charges $14.88 per 1000 gallons but Denver only charges $9.64. Tucson's water rates are expected to increase by 8% in 2011, making this conservation spread even more obvious.
Denver Water's 2010 Solutions Magazine is a nice publication. It hits all the right points, letting you know that it's staying true to its fiscally prude, rate-payer funded, no-taxes roots. But wouldn't it cost less than the present value $149 million to $600 million (Colorado Water Conservation Board total life-cycle is a multiple of capital cost) estimated to raise the dam 125 feet higher to retrofit high-efficiency water appliances? Besides creating badly needed local jobs immediately, it would be much easier on the environment and save more water than what an expanded Gross Reservoir would provide.
Since 2009, Denver Water partnered with Green Plumbers USA to replace toilets, showers, and faucet aerators for 120 homes that were using 120,000 to 400,000 gallons annually for indoor water usage. (Most American households use 50 - 100 gallons a day per person for indoor water usage.) Denver Water reports a 50% reduction in water usage.
Let's assume 600,000 homes instead of 120 homes. And say each house roughly costs $300 including the plumber fee to replace two toilets, two showerheads, and a half dozen faucet aerators. (With over half a million homes, I assume somebody will offer a volume discount.) Well, that $180 million is still $118 million to $420 million (depending if you believe the total life-cycle cost is 200% to 400% of the capital cost) savings over the Gross Dam expansion. Creative buyers can probably get highly competitive bids for greater savings. However my numbers are off I hope you get the idea. A large number of unemployed people could be kept busy for a few years; I bet the dam construction would take longer. It's also possible some homeowners are capable of self-installations to speed things up.
Although the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not been released, Denver Water is already widening Gross Reservoir trails according to my local sources. These trails will become logging roads. While it's not too late to write to government agencies, what can you do personally about conserving water and protecting upstream communities?
- Surfrider offers 15 easy steps to conserve water.
- If you want a bigger challenge, try the 49 ways to save indoor water shared by the American Water & Energy Savers.
- The New York Times reported recently that Phoenix residents have begun spraying green paint on brown lawns and using artificial turf.
- IBM believes urban agriculture groups will grow plants vertically, recycling unused water. Leak detection is another major municipal opportunity to save water.
- Need to teach your kids on why we should save water? Fresh surface-water sources constitute only 0.0067 percent of total water. It's precious!
- Still need a sobering global perspective? Read this.
Front Range residents live in the high prairie - Denver's annual rainfall is darn close to Santa Fe's semi-arid average of 15 inches per year. Let's try to conserve as Santa Fe or Tucson residents do. To the Denver Board of Water Commissioners, I recite these lines from Wendell Berry's poem "Like The Water" as I urge you to not expand Gross Dam Reservoir
"Though we drink till we burst, we cannot have it all,"
About Greg Ching - Street Scene Columnist
Greg Ching, Chief Sustainability Officer of The Solar Gardens Institute, was given credit by Representative Claire Levy as the inspiration for the Colorado Community Solar Gardens Act.
As a Community Sustainability Services Consultant he led projects from high tech to high touch. Greg is a former software engineer & sales executive now Colorado Licensed Massage Therapist specializing in Phenomenal Touch ® and Watsu ® bodywork. You can learn more about his diverse consulting background on LinkedIn.
Comments
Greg Ching
Sunday, April 15, 2012 9:27pm
Greg Ching
Tuesday, February 7, 2012 10:48pm
A wonderful and informative documentary has been made by first-time filmmakers living next to Gross Dam. You can watch the entire film on-line or offer to host a screening in your home. Check out http://nowatertowaste.com/film.html as it's well worth your time watching!
Greg Ching
Tuesday, November 1, 2011 11:29pm
Check out beautiful pictures taken by David Bahr around Gross Dam Reservoir. These locations will either get submerged or impacted by the years of logging and construction. Free eBook with printed book option at cost...donations toward legal defense appreciated. http://www.bahrimages.com/news/AnUnnecessaryExpansion.html
David Bahr
Friday, June 3, 2011 12:09pm
Hickenlooper has been misled or is being disingenuous about “toilet grey water” meeting downstream commitments and therefore precluding any need for conservation. If Denver saves some percentage of water by installing low-flow toilets (and showerheads, etc.), then that will allow the same percentage of Denver growth without needing an expansion of Gross Reservoir. The additional growth would still meet the (unchanged) downstream commitment. And if we conserved so much water that we couldn’t meet the downstream commitment with grey water, then we could use the saved fresh water for that commitment – all without a new reservoir.
It’s also a specious argument to claim that Denver doesn’t need to conserve just because the Western Slope has poor irrigation practices. Denver should lead the way.
It’s also a specious argument to claim that Denver doesn’t need to conserve just because the Western Slope has poor irrigation practices. Denver should lead the way.
Allen Gordon
Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:52pm
The issue of growth is touched on briefly here. Even with conservation, continued growth means a continued increase in water consumption. In a resource poor region, growth cannot be sustained. The example of Douglas county a few years ago which underwent the highest growth rate in the country. Their hundred year water table was decimated in just a few years to the dismay of the new home owners, who were promised the availability of water in their shallow wells. The developers were of course very happy to sell access to the developers' deeper wells.
http://nowatertowaste.com/showings.html?task=view_event&event_id=4