Report: Warming to cut Colorado water supply
By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News
Published October 7, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Colorado likely will heat up 2.5 degrees to 4 degrees over the next 40 years, causing stream flows to shrink as spring and summer become hotter, according to a study commissioned by the Colorado Water Conservation Board.
"There have been a lot of reports out there, (but) this one
really focuses on Colorado," said Jennifer Gimbel, director of the water conservation board.
Among the report's findings:
* Summers will become extremely hot, registering as warm or warmer than the hottest 10 percent of summers between 1950 and 1999.
* Little change in annual precipitation will occur, but temperature increases alone are expected to have a significant impact on snow and water supplies.
* Stream flows in the Colorado River Basin will shrink from 5 percent to 20 percent, exacerbating water shortages already forecast because of population growth.
* Spring runoff will arrive earlier, altering the times when farmers and utilities can expect their water to arrive.
* Summer water demand by homeowners will rise because of temperature increases.
* Despite warmer winters, temperatures above 8,000 feet will remain well below freezing, helping preserve snowpack and mountain environments.
The report was compiled by the University of Colorado Western Water Assessment, a partnership between the university, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the CU Cooperative Institute for Research into Environmental Sciences and the Colorado Climate Center at Colorado State University.
It comes as state officials prepare for a major drought conference Wednesday, a three-day meeting in Denver designed to help water utilities and policy officials explore ways the state can adapt to its warming climate.
Though it's not clear how much less water the state's streams will generate, state officials say water utilities must craft drought plans to cope with water supplies that will be less predictable and, often, less abundant.
"We're recommending all suppliers have them," Gimbel said.
Brad Udall, who directs the Western Water Assessment, says the report has important implications for how Colorado manages its remaining water supplies - primarily those in the Colorado River that aren't legally owed to other states, such as Nevada, Arizona and California.
"We need to be very careful about how we use our remaining Colorado River allocation," Udall said. "That water is a moving target under climate change. We don't know how much of it there is or how consistently we can expect it to be there."
As a result, he said, Colorado needs to ensure it can keep enough water in the bank - Lake Powell - so that it can meet its obligations to downstream states while protecting Colorado's portion.
Whether that means Colorado needs to build a major new reservoir in the state isn't clear yet, Udall said.
"If flows decline, the storage we have may work more effectively and we won't need more. Or you could make the case that we need to build storage in order to store more water," he said.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
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.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
October 7, 2008
2:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
What is not mentioned here is that evaporation rates will rise. That means that there will be a bigger need for water for the plants AND that shallow open reservoirs will lose more water. At this time, we would be much better off either injecting water into the ground, AND/OR building deeper reservoirs. The time to start on this was during Owen's time. Sadly, that idiot made a half attempt and wanted us to trust him to do the right thing after he spent 6 years doing all the wrong things. Was not and did not happen.
Ritter MUST start this. One of the first ones is to have the state fund increasing water at chatfield. In addition, one of his amendments is about using severance taxes for mostly college tuition support. I think that it needs to go through, but we MUST push another amendment to convert that into building reservoirs.
The state can also start doing something that costs NOTHING. Our cities demands for water will increase. One of the problem is that cities are much higher in temps than the countryside, which will lead to even higher evaporation rates. So, how do we lower city temps? Get the cities to start installing light colored (preferably white) roofs. These will reflect light. Right now, our dark roofing absorbs light which is converted to heat. In addition, change requirements on parking lots. Do NOT allow them to be big monolithic walmart parking lots. Instead, require them to have green strips every at least every other lane and plant trees in these.
By Ritter and the state taking actions NOW, we can avoid having to make expensive changes later. Come on guys, GET WITH IT.
Start doing the right thing. DO SOMETHING.
October 7, 2008
6:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
Windbourne,
Why do tree's have precedence over lush grass? A lush lawn has so much more leaf surface area that produces o2 compaired to a tree leaf. Also it covers more ground surface to keep it cooler? In the past 20 years the number of decimated lawns in the Denver area has grown to a stagering amount along with heat and ozone? Both trees and grass need h20 and nutrient so which one is better and why?
Also, the evaporation makes cooling at human level which helps us use less fuel.
October 7, 2008
7:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
The forest have died, has this created extra demand for o2 producing leaf surface area? In Denver we never had a need for air conditioners when everyone kept up the lawn. Just in the past 20 years or so. What will generate the o2 that the forest once produced? This is not a small problem, everyone I talk to from other cities have said the same, how many hectors of leaf surface area are already gone?
October 7, 2008
7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Vtwinman writes:
Another reason to vote no on amendment 52.
October 7, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
DenverTea writes:
I love trees. I have always thought we needed more trees. I have said "let us rid ourselves of these ugly unwieldly vehicles adn get rid of some parking lots and narrow some roads and have more Trees"... Heck, we could grow some mighty big gardens where the parking lots are now...feed the city. Plus, put up some greenhouses and solar panels and provide energy to the city, too....could be a much better place. Friendly, go out to the local neighborhood parking-lot-turned-garden, do a little weeding, chat with your neighbors, have some lemonaid. Much nicer than running off to work in the wee hours of the morning to some d^mned miserable cubicle, where after working for 30+ years they take your vacation time, take your retirement plan, then toss you out like so much obsolete office equipment...I have not had this happen to me, but have seen it happen to real good folks who were working hard to support families. Criminal, for this to happen to loyal, hard working people. Just criminal.
October 7, 2008
8:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
UteBill writes:
I'm trying to stop laughing.
What a joke.
Anybody that believes this tripe deserves to be taken...
HA!
October 7, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Warmer air holds more moisture. Precipitation rates will rise as climate temperatures increase, thus the widespread claims that weather patterns will become more violent. Assuming that precipitation will stay the same is a convenient lie to make the projections seem dire. Climatologists need to stop letting their agendas influence their expected results, or nobody will believe them in 10 years.
October 7, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
Not to worry. First of all, how many times can the sky really fall? And the source is: "Brad Udall, who directs the Western Water Assessment". That name has a familiar ring to it, but I'll bet he is bipartisan, wouldn't you say? Anyway, I'll just suggest a Liberal solution. We'll all drink 7 glasses of water a day instead of 8. C'mon, we can do it.
October 7, 2008
9:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
DenverTea, feel better now? Have a glass of water.
October 7, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
In the words of Rush Limbaugh the fact that Global Warming is a hoax is well document. The science is bad. Misleading. Politically biased. What is a fact however is that were it not for the fact that we had them pinned down in Iraq, 'The Terrorists' would have already come over here and killed a bunch more of us. The threat from them IS real. Undeniable. Unquestionable. And we need to spend all of our money to stop them. This running out of water thing is a blessing in disguise because it will make it harder for 'The Terrorists' to poison our water supply.
October 7, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
tjpatriot writes:
Udall is a pretty common name, oh I'm SURE they're not related.
Being a curious person, I have to wonder (at the risk of someday being burned at the stake for blasphemy), what is the "chicken little" party going to do if the climate actually starts COOLING instead of WARMING? There has been an ominous lack of sunspot activity suggesting a currently less active sun. This happened between about 1650 and 1700 and is thought to have caused the "little ice age". So far, this has corresponded to a DROP in global temperature from January last year to January this year of 0.7C . Historically, drops in global temperature can be quite sudden, and can have dramatic effects. I'm dying to know how the environmental extremists and the leader of the lemmings AlGore would spin it. What are they going to say when marginal farmland is no longer able to produce food, and there is a global food shortage? Are they still going to attempt to sit on huge amounts of natural gas, instead of developing it? How are they going to propagate their religion, and it's corresponding set of wacko ideas? I know they will find a creative way to spin it. I'm just dying to know how.
How about, "The Earth is punishing us!" I know it's lame, but they have to start somewhere, and if you look at what they use now, it would probably fly, or at least be a good start.
October 7, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
toocool writes:
Those who offered the "study" are the same kind of folks that endorsed the emergency need to pass the "Buy Out" and will vote for one of the two Presidential hopefulls (fools) that VOTED FOR IT. The number one cause for cooling or warming of the planet is ASTRONOMY, not man, however, man contributes to the planets pollution. Eating salads, calorie count on menu's, over eating, fertilizing the farms, all will not make one dent on weather as the globe swings around the galaxy following mother Sun...get over it, eat beef...water your lawn!
October 7, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Water is so over-rated anyway.
October 7, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
OldSailor writes:
Another good reason to stop all immigration, more people means an increased need for water and also a good reason to go to Xeriscape landscaping instead of watering lawns.
October 7, 2008
11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
slocatch writes:
OldSailor,
The Xeriscape that I have seen looks great, but my question is about leaf surface area. The plants that I have seen in Xeriscape do not look much like O2 producers. They don't let off much moisture and I doubt it if the cool us at all. Not like a lush lawn does. Do you think trees would be better, Xeriscape or lawn?
October 8, 2008
9:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
pfwag writes:
Since the article talks about what will allegedly happen in the next 40 years, what is also not mentioned is that during that same time the population of Colorado is projected to double.
Regardless of whether the earth heats and what the cause of it is, we can be 100% sure that the population will increase. Given the politician's brilliant handling of other problems, will less water and more people result in mandatory "no flush" days?
The CO House District 23 candidate Mary Wagner is the one (?) local politician who is talking about the water problem and population growth and has extensive info (compared to other polticians) on both.
http://www.cohd23.com/Environment.html