Conserve water before we build more reservoirs
This Web only Speakout has not been edited.
Michael Haughey
Friday, March 28, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Re: Article in Rocky Mtn News Saturday, March 23, 2008 regarding the proposed Glade and Galeton Reservoirs north of Ft. Collins March 23, 2008 Hold Your Water!
$431 million dollars to provide water for 20,000 homes? Say it ain’t so!
There is so much we must do first at much lower cost to free up far more water than that without ever thinking about destroying yet another Colorado treasure. First, let’s have an open discussion about the assumptions of water use in those new homes. Any new home in Colorado should be planned with xeriscaping, ultra-low flow toilets, low-flow showers and sinks, plus energy and water conserving clothes washers.
Our legislators are overdue to finally tackle and solve the rainwater re-use laws as well as upgrading codes and health standards to allow use of gray water systems. Those should also be in all new homes. Most water use in residences comes from landscaping, so zeriscaping should reduce the water use per home by about 30%, maybe more. Current codes require 1.6 gallon per flush toilets or better. Conventional toilets before the Energy Policy Act of 1992 used between 3.5 and 5.0 gallons per flush, averaging 4.5. Replacing toilets in existing homes and commercial buildings represents a large source of “freed-up” water.
The average American flushes 9,000 gallons down the drain every year. Estimating 2 persons per toilet, that’s an annual savings of 2,900 gallons per toilet replaced. Using 80,000 gallons per home, saving 20,000 gallons from low fixtures, and another 15,000 or so from Xeriscaping, and we’re left with an allowance of 45,000 gallons per home not counting the additional savings from efficient clothes washers and dishwashers. So 20,000 homes require a maximum of 900 million gallons. Add 40% for non-residential services to support the homes for a total of 1,200 million gallons. How many toilet replacements will free up that much? 434,483. At what cost? Estimating $700 each including installation: $304,138,100, or about $304 million.
Compare that to the $431 million for the destructive reservoir, which assumes that a reservoir can be built for the initial cost estimate. The Northern Colorado Water Conservation District provides supplemental water to 750,000 users, so finding 434,000 toilets to replace should be feasible. So hold your water. We haven’t even begun to use the water that is right under our noses. Lets start there first.
Michael Haughey is a resident of Westminster.
Comments
Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Foresight is required of planners with vision. Think back to the old day of the Denver Water Board. Without their actions years ago, there would not be a metropolitan Denver today. Of course, water as a tool of stopping growth could be the vision of some also. Where do you come in Mr. Haughey?
Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Gene,
That's a very insightful question Gene. Obviously water in the west can be used to encourage or discourage growth.
Certainly, many of us would like to see growth in the Denver area slow or even stop. Others see opportunity in growth and, for them, insuring a steady supply of water is regarded as essential.
For one group water can be a weapon in their arsenal, for the other it can be a tool in the toolbox.
I believe the author is taking a conservative approach to the water problem. I think he is saying: "We might need this reservoir later, but conservation can delay that need".
I believe that we should compromise by acquiring the land while it's cheaper and turn it temporarily into an open space park. We should take the money saved by delaying the actual construction and apply it to water conservation measures and incentives, In this way, we don't impede growth ( much as I personally would like to see it slow down a bit) and should the growth not come, well we have a nice park and smarter use of water.
Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Mikey, guess what!
I INTENTIONALLY use the bathroom fixture that will use up the most water, and then I flush it three times. My clothes washer is over 15 years old, and I wash maybe a pair of jeans or two at a time, on purpose. If I had a yard, I would plant it with water-guzzling plants, put in a swimming pool and leave the cover off all the time, leave the slip-n-slide pumping 24 hours a day, run the tap faucet for five minutes to make sure the water is good and cool, have taken out the water-restricting gaskets in the low-flow shower heads, and buy shares in reservior-constructing companies.
Why?
To tick off little environazi popinjays such as yourself.
Only a greenidiot could see a reservior, which collects and SAVES water, as destructive!
It is none of your business, Mikey-boy, how many gallons per flush someone's toilet uses, but judging by your control-freak attitude, maybe it's best for society that you DO keep your focus in the toilet. If someone can afford it, can pay the bills for it, then it is none of your little business.
Let me guess: You have a sanctuary to St Algore in the basement and you baptize it with greywater!!!
Flush flush flush....I love the sound of environazi wailign and gnashing of teeth over my water usage and bathroom habits...
Posted by bropous on March 28, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh, and guess what, Mikey?
The reservior WILL be built, no matter what YOU do.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!
Fill it with your tears that Denver might actually continue to grow, like any normal, healthy city. A city (or metropolitan area) must grow, or it stagnates. Shut the door on new development, and watch the tax base and business community shrivel up and die. Which, of course, is what a lot of envirowhackos want to see.
However, the officials in charge have more sense that idiots who worship the Earth. The reservior WILL be built, and additional reserviors will be built as well, and the Denver metropolitan area will continue to grow, as well as the entire Front Range urban area. People move here because of the mountains, and those who are now here who want to lock them out by restricting growth will end up killing the local economy if allowed to retard growth.
Posted by greenleaf on March 28, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bropous,
I hope you aren't as negative, sarcastic and insulting when you aren't shielded by anonymity!
You obviously didn't read my posting very well. I gave my interpretation of what I believed the writer to be saying. I made no negative comment about the reservoir and even proposed a compromise to unite the two concepts.
All I see you doing is using your written voice to scream out unproductive insults in an attempt to bully and kill any reasonable discussion.
As I said to you in another forum today: you can do better and you should do better!
Posted by Elwood on March 28, 2008 at 10:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene, Nice letter, but your original premise is wrong in that only 10% of the water going down the drain is consummed. the other 90% is treated and returned to the river for use by downstream users. This 90% is used to exchange back upstream for more fresh water, so that by recducing the amount returned to the river, you are reducing the amount the city is able to divert into the treatment plant for use.
The same problem exists for the storage and reuse of gray water/runoff. If less water is returned to the river by the city, the city gets less return flow credits and can divert less water upstream. To change the law, there must be no injury to those water users downstream and senior to the city. The cost of renegotiation and reengineering the return flow calculations would be very expensive.
Another thing, If you delay the building of the reservoirs, you make the right to store water junior to other rights being filed currently and therefore reduce the amount of water legally available to fill the new reservoir.
Build the reservoirs now and start filling them while we still have the water to fill it or the water is taken by Nebraska or Kansas.
Posted by Coco on March 28, 2008 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good grief bropous! Whew, what a rant. Can't you see the logic in Michael's suggestions? (Silly question.) Despite the green lawns and golf courses, the Front Range is a naturally semi-arid region. Since you're so enamored of growth, you ought to be one of the first people to realize that we simply do not have the water to continue on our present course. Michael made some very intelligent, concrete suggestions; ones that any of us could use. You, on the other hand launched into a ridiculous tirade that added absolutely no value to a relevant topic.
Posted by GWM on March 28, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bropous, you spew LOUD acrimony in all your posts regardless of the topic or thread. Jez man/wowman, take a breath. Can't you say anything at all without hate and venom?
Posted by Gene on March 28, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Elwood,
Believe you misread my comments. I applaud the Denver Water Board for their actions years ago, and I believe we should build new reservoirs now. I am not against growth. I have nothing against conservation, only when it is the argument against growth.
Posted by Elwood on March 28, 2008 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Gene,
I meant to address my post to the author of the letter, Michael Haughey.
Posted by SASQUATCH on March 31, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Households use about 5% of the water, the vast majority of the remainder is consumed by agriculture. So let's flush all the ridiculous chatter about toilet bowls, lawns, showers and bird baths. And as long as we grow very thirsty corn to produce the failed ethanol program, we will always need more water. Conservation away from the farm is total BS; we need more reservoirs.
Posted by thomas on March 31, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your estimated costs ($700 each) for toilet replacements is grossly high. San Jose, CA installed more than 20,000 toilets for less than $200 per toilet, That cost included: parts, labor, marketing and the recycling of the old toilet.
Posted by DoubleChubbyChuck on April 1, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have my own reason for wanting this resevoir built, so I can use my boat on it. I'm sure all you think thats selfish, but tough sheet. I pay more than enough to finance your damn social programs, now I want mine.
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.