• Front page
• Receive letters on your RSS reader

Everyone who lives on the Front Range of Colorado is responsible for the availability of water that is used on the Front Range.
We learned many, many years ago that as people move into our area, there is a tremendous increase in all phases of the infrastructure required for their needs. The bulk of this additional expense has always been passed onto the farmers and local businesses.
It is wrong to blame farmers for using water to produce food for us. Most of the water the farmers use returns to the river anyway. Farming has always been the greatest industry of the state. They give us food and contribute immensely to the income of local businesses. It is totally wrong to destroy this fabulous industry just so people can drive their clean SUVs to beautiful golf courses.
Had we been allowed to build Two Forks Dam when it was proposed, much of our water problems would have been solved by now. To build it now will probably cost 10 times as much as it would have 25 years ago. What a terrible travesty it was to have this fabulous project stopped by people who are now trying to eliminate the farmers.

S.H. “Bud” Scott, Brighton

READER COMMENTS

Try using some common sense and get rid of all the Kentucky Bluegrass lawns. Denver is basically a high desert. Live with the facts and quit trying to make Denver into SoCal. Xeriscape instead of grass. Quit trying to Californicate Colorado.

clyde is at least partly right: non-native grasses, trees & flowers (particularly those brought in from areas more which naturally have more water) account for most of the water use in the metro area. HOWEVER, one of the things that needs to be renegotiated is the water we "owe" downstream to other states. Why, in years that Colorado is facing drought, are we expected to send the same amount of water to Arizona, Nevada & California - shouldn't they have to deal with drought conditions too?

Mary, how selfish are you? Those states down river paid fair for the water we owe them.

Why Colorados right to water in this state has all but been sold to others. Are you suggesting that we back off from our legal obligations to them? Why Mary you are such a hypocrit. It is fine when it may suit you to break legal obligations but God forbid someone else break a legal obligation and you are all over them.

Stop water the wasted land on golf courses , or charge a much higher tee time fee to off set the water they waste. Forced cities like Aurora to back off their green lawn tickets. Allow a little brown in town (for the lawns no more illegals).

How is increasing tee fees going to save water? The logic of that escapes me. And yes we need to conserve water, but it's a little late to do that don't you think? Radical problems require radical solutions. Who needs lawns anyway? Only the people who are blind to the fact that there is not enough water to indulge your left coast wants and whims for lushness in a desert such as the wasteful and dangerous overindulgence in Palm Springs and the other resorts for the rich and famous.

why build two forks when we could put a bigger dam around I25 and speer. It wouldnt be as deep but sure could be wide and streatch all the way back to chatfield. oh wait that would displace city folk and they wont stand for that. it is better to run people out of their mountain homes and off their land to let city folk have pretty green lawns.
but then again look at all the water those damn farmers waste watering crops.

Increaseing tee fees would not save water , it would however relieve the tax burden on home owners by redirecting the monetary burden to those who waste more water on frivolous affairs. Is it really neccessary to have lush green golf courses? No not really other then the fact those who play golf think of themselves as great athletes as they climb into thier golf carts and head to the 19th hole.

if water is so scarce, how come the state stills water all the concrete around the capitol building and all of the concrete around the denver county and city buildings?

And who might be playing the corn ethanol game? Based on the recent Cornell U./U. Cal study, "farmers" who grow water thirsty corn for participation in the ethanol game require about 8,500 gallons of water for each gallon of resulting ethanol.

8,500: 1. Is that a good trade-off in a semi-arid climate? If a gallon of water is worth, let's just say $0.025, then that equivalent resulting gallon of ethanol should sell for at least $213 (excluding transportation, handling, profit margin, etc. ).

Do your own arithmetic. Somebody is screwing somebody bigtime, and water is more than just a casual player.

Pat Schroeder championed the stop on Two Forks, because - if memory serves- a snail darter?
That opened the flood gates for a sea of alleged endangered species that are now used by bad people to stop YOUR usage of millions of acre feet water and land.
Here's how they do it. They target your water or land and claim it holds the secret to the survival of a yet unfound gummer snail. Then they pound a stake into your land, water, heart and future, and without their having to first provide one whit of verifiable , factual, truthful information, you are issued an immediate stop usage order.
Their actions are akin to a doctor who claims he must first chop off your ear to see if there's wax in it.
We have the water. Rightful usage of has been further exasperated by the taking of water application from hydrological engineers, and handed to judges who know drip about it.

Regards ethanol, farmers who grow corn - cannot receive more water then have water shares. BUT - ethanol plants are huge consumers of water, and they're scrambling like son-of-a-guns to find/get it.

If the rice growers around near-desert Imperial Valley, CA (can you imagine growing rice next to cactus?) are successful in suqandering water, then I'm sure that the local corn-ethanol crowd will be equally successful in consuming and squandering more than their share of H20 as they cash-in on a non-economic taxpayer subsidy.

Oh well, its only water.

Hank, I think they have a high or perched water table where they grow rice in California. I don`t think that is irrigated but they may use river water.

Check Wikipedia on this. I think the Imperial valley has left over water from years of irrigation, water that doesn`t drain away.

Bud, if the powers that be can eliminate the farmers, it will be that much easier to starve out the rest of us when the agenda gets to that point.
And everyone should mention all the water that Greenwood Village wastes every summer on DTC Blvd. Millions of gallons I would estimate.
10:32 am is right about the people here getting ripped off, the thieves are the greedy, prosperous multi-national corporations who have no morals.

Hank agree, but not all ethonol plants are of high water content. Switch grass is one example.

Right now the technology is not there to effectively extract the good from switchgrass to create ethonol. But by using crops such as corn and other High water usage plants, we can gain the technology to use resources such as switch grass.

Expect 2Forks dam to get more pub in yrs to come. That poor little endagered critter was basically eliminated during the Hayman fire.

Again, I reiterate...crop growers water is regulated by the number of shares they own.
They cannot take more than they own.
McMurphy comes closer to accuracy in that subscriberships into the European Union are - quite frankly - the ones stealing our water.

There are no snail darters in Colorado; you are thinking of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Two Forks was stopped, quite rightfully, because it would have destroyed a spectacular canyon that provides immeasurable scenic and recreational benefits. I'd far rather face mandatory water use restrictions and higher rates than use such a shortsighted and destructive path in the name of supporting non-native plants and wasteful people.

Posted by on October 5, 2007 01:06 AM

You are correct on snail darter, but there was a butterfly, mouse or some sort of critter that was on endagered list in that area. The Hayman fire took that critter out. That fire also did damage beyond compare and still doing a great job of messing stuff up in that area.

Response to the writer who used the word: non-native. If we were to take that literally - then the first critter we'd have to remove from public lands would be feral horses.
Response to the writer re: Hayman fire. Sounds as tho' you live there, and are going through a nightmare. It is indeed a tragic situation. Unfortunate that our good people with the forest service have been blocked from "managing" our forests, and have instead been strapped to desks handling FOIA requests to "interested public."

POST A COMMENT

• Health care
• Slow security procedures at DIA
• CSU editorial
• Blue Ribbon Commission for Healthcare Reform
• “Ask First Centennial” ordinance
• Why are lost hikers not charged when found?
• Columbia University’s hypocrisy
• Moveon.org’s ad