Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Water group offers vision of how Front Range's future will flow

Predictions call for higher prices, efficiency rules

By Jerd Smith, Rocky Mountain News

Published September 19, 2008 at 11:42 a.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

CORRECTION:An earlier version of this story should have said that the cost of a single-family home water tap in Aurora is $20,800.

In 50 years, housing developments will be packed tight, water prices will be sky high and cities such as Denver, Fort Collins and Colorado Springs will share their expensive water systems instead of insisting that everything remain separate, as they do today.

Or that's what a powerful new coalition of cities, known as the Front Range Water Council, believes must occur to stave off looming water shortages.

Council members include Denver Water, the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Colorado Springs, Aurora, Pueblo and the Southeastern Water Conservancy District.

"We know there is a better way to do things," said Eric Wilkinson, manager of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, which serves Fort Collins, Loveland and Greeley, among others.

Wilkinson's comments came Friday at a meeting of more than 200 water managers and elected officials. It was the first time the council has presented its vision to the powerful Western Slope water establishment, from which most of Colorado's Front Range derives its water.

"You're going to see more water conservation," said Mark Pifher, manager of Aurora Water. "You're going to see mandatory efficiency devices and you're going to see 'full cost' water."

He said a water tap in Aurora for a single-family home costs $20,800 today, which is several thousand dollars higher than the price tag even five years ago.

"That's going to become the norm in the future," Pifher said.

Slashing water use by raising prices, reducing lawns by placing houses shoulder-to-shoulder and mandating energy-efficient clothes washers and shower heads will help the Front Range cope with water shortages, Pifher said.

"You're going to see urban planners and city councils pack (houses) in close because it's more cost effective and efficient," Pifher said. "As costs escalate, people are going to rethink where they want to live and how much water they want to use."

Beyond cost, though, Pifher and Wilkinson said the Front Range would have to team with the Western Slope to build at least one major water project that could supply both sides of the Continental Divide.

And they said they would like to see the state rethink how much water it provides for the fish and kayakers. "I know that's controversial," Wilkinson said.

But as water supplies tighten, Wilkinson said, it will be important that cities use environmental supplies at least temporarily, particularly in drought years.

Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River District, the largest utility on the Western Slope, said Colorado should take an ultra-cautious approach to developing the state's remaining supplies, giving a small amount to the Front Range, a small amount to the Western Slope and the environment, and setting some aside for energy development.

No major projects should be built until better science on global warming and chronic drought can be developed, he said, something likely to take another 30 years.

"Why don't we start small, see what we can develop, and in 30 years or so re-evaluate where we are? We have to use what we've got with great love and care," he said.

Looking ahead

How water shortages could reshape the Front Range by 2058:

* Cities will be super-dense to shrink lawns and shorten water pipelines.

* Water prices will soar to pay for new water systems and force conservation.

* Regional water utilities will be formed so costs can be shared and reduced.

* Large swaths of irrigated farmland will go dry.

* Rules governing existing federal reservoirs will be changed so that cities can use them, instead of building new facilities.

Comments

  • September 19, 2008

    12:18 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    hlucki writes:

    Looks like water managers need to tread lightly with Colo. River supplies

  • September 19, 2008

    1:56 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sensible writes:

    keep the H2O in CO

  • September 20, 2008

    2:44 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ManginoTorreta writes:

    "You can kiss our water good bye if McCain is elected. He wants it for Arizona and nothing will stop him as President."

    What's amusing is that McCain said the same thing this summer that liberal academics who will vote for Obama have been saying for several years now--that the Colorado River Compact is outdated, unrealistic, and needs to be re-worked. And your contention that McCain is somehow going to try and "steal" Colorado's water is baseless and unrealistic, because he knows as well as anyone that there would be 12 Senators filibustering any bill that managed to make it out of committee that even implied such a thing.

    Colorado and Arizona already get the short end of the stick in this deal because they are required to send 4.5 million acre feet to California and 1.5 million acre feet of the Colorado River to Mexico every year, regardless of the annual stream flow. So in drought years, the rest of the basin is left to fight over whatever might be left--it's rare that the river hits the 16 million acre-feet that the Compact is based on, and California is going to fight tooth and nail on ANY changes to be made because unlike the rest of the states, their annual allocation is guaranteed.

    The western states are going to hit a point sooner or later where they have to decide just how much growth they can handle and whether the infrastructure is appropriate for their desires. If they end up having to pack people's homes in like sardines as the article suggests, they better have a darn good public transportation system in place, because there's no way the roads can handle everyone. It's barely holding together as it is, and even raising taxes isn't going to solve the problem over the long-term. The one element that could change the equation is the transfer of water rights from rural to urban use, and that is going to be tough unless the prior appropriation laws are modified on a national scale.

  • September 20, 2008

    5:46 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    big_D, Arizona has water restrictions already in place in a lot of areas, I was restricted to 700 sq. feet of grass when I bought the new house, didn't plant a blade, stayed with desert landscaping. we changed out all 2,000 rooms in the Hilton in laughlin to water saving toilets.
    The front range is going to be in dire trouble if they think they are going to get water from the farmers, they will fight it tooth and nail. But they will also have to change their ways, raising corn for ethanol, using lots of water won't fly. And a sugar beet that takes 48 gallons of water for each, to get a cup of sugar won't cut it. we could make buddies in Cuba for sugar, but the politicians don't want to make big business mad. the ogallala aquifer that covers part of Colorado and goes all the way to texas has lost at least 30 feet of water in recent years, and unless these politicians get off their duffs and make people conserve, it will go dry. I drilled wells in SW Nebraska 30 years ago, and know it's coming. they better act now,or go thirsty.

  • September 20, 2008

    7:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    INC writes:

    roger44,
    I agree, Switch grass and Hemp require negligible amounts of water to produce Oil. In comparison to sugar beets and corn.

  • September 20, 2008

    8:28 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sensible writes:

    Anybody that thinks McCain is going to steal Colorado's water is a fool.

    Everybody knows Obamamamama is the Messiah, and only he can control the forces of nature.

    All hail the ALMIGHTY, Obamamamamamama!

    McCain/Palin '08!

  • September 20, 2008

    8:37 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Sensible writes:

    On a more serious note:

    McCain, being a long time Senator from Arizona, understands the Colorado Plateau water issues probably better than 99% of the U.S. (especially compared to a Chicago city boy).

    I trust him to be a Steward of the West's water and its vital uses.

    McCain/Palin '08

  • September 20, 2008

    9:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BJG writes:

    Government federal, state or local will always wait until the moment of looming disaster to blame someone else for problems
    that need to be solved.
    Many of us in Colorado heard about the water problems years ago, yet nothing has been done about it. Subdivisions that have homeowners assoications that insist on "green" grass. Laws against gray water usage and frowning on eco-friendly homebuilding in the city....much of Colorado and the Denver area specifically is high mountain desert...live appropriately.

  • September 20, 2008

    11:17 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ManginoTorreta writes:

    "Many of us in Colorado heard about the water problems years ago, yet nothing has been done about it. Subdivisions that have homeowners assoications that insist on "green" grass. Laws against gray water usage and frowning on eco-friendly homebuilding in the city....much of Colorado and the Denver area specifically is high mountain desert...live appropriately."

    BJG, this is one area where I think conservatives and liberals in this state really ought to be able to agree. If xeriscaping was mandated, it would likely not only decrease the initial tap fees in the long run due to less demand, it would be environmentally sensible, which the liberals would appreciate, AND save money in water bills, which would make the conservatives happy.

  • September 20, 2008

    12:27 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Buckwheat writes:

    Probably wouldn't have to worry as much if they could have put Two Forks Project thru. What was it now, a stinking Snail Darter or something stupid like that?

  • September 20, 2008

    12:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Darwin writes:

    MT: I agree with what you said except for the following; "...would likely not only decrease the initial tap fees in the long run due to less demand,... ". I think we all remember the plea to cut back water usage (which we collectively did) only to see water prices increase because " water customers cut back usage of water to the point that we need to increase prices because we don't have enough revenue coming in". In fact my water district now has a fixed maintenance fee where I pay a fee whether I use a drop of water or not. I'm paying hundreds a year more now the "we consumers cut back water usage".