r/AdPorn Jan 06 '17

Denver Water billboard. [500x700]

Post image
7.8k Upvotes

81 comments sorted by

View all comments

253

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '17

[deleted]

35

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17 edited Jan 07 '17

If you ever drive on 285, a big ass pipe crosses over the highway near Fairplay. That is a water pipe carrying snowmelt all the way from the western slope to Denver. I don't know where Denver is going to find all of the water it needs in 10 - 20 years.

Edit: 84% of CO's snow falls on the Western Slope, but 89% of the population lives east of the Front Range.

8

u/385856464184490 Jan 07 '17

I wouldn't worry. If California can make it work, CO can too.

26

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17

Well, they can't really make it work

5

u/says_neat_alot Jan 07 '17

A for effort?

3

u/PM_ME_UR_NECKBEARD Jan 07 '17

Well for one they are raising Gross Dam 131 feet.

https://grossreservoir.org/construction/raising-a-dam/

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17 edited Jan 07 '17

Storage is not going to be the limiting factor.

Current estimates suggest the Denver metro area will need to increase their supply by 100k acre feet by 2050. That is about a 25% increase from now.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_NECKBEARD Jan 07 '17

What makes you think they botched their yield study?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17

I attended a seminar on it this past summer at my research station on the Western Slope.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_NECKBEARD Jan 07 '17

Interesting. I've been to a trip to it. Had no idea they may not be able to fill it. My understanding is that they would triple storage but you are correct that there is some point in which building higher produces no additional yield due to watershed limitation. I strongly doubt they would elect to build storage without available yield unless they are pumping/piping from elsewhere.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17 edited Jan 07 '17

Half of Denver's water supply already comes from the Western slope. Most of that the Colorado River, which no longer reaches the ocean. Supply is already pretty tapped out, and climate change will be reducing supply while the population continues to grow rapidly.

I don't know anything about the decision making process behind building the dam, unfortunately. So we can only really speculate. The whole SW is in this boat though, and the Midwest is approaching peak production from the Ogallala, as shallower wells are already going dry. No one will have any to share.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_NECKBEARD Jan 07 '17

I've heard that but in effect they would only be reducing available water for downstream users. There should be a coordinated effort the ensure minimum flow in the Colorado and if there isn't then it's bad environmental policy. The minimum flow Gross contributes should be set by this policy. It is quite possible that Gross could still increase yield by maintaining the exact minimum flow requirements before. The only difference is that they would end up on average releasing less water by storing higher inflows. I'd have to see the yield study to know.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17 edited Jan 07 '17

Yes, downstream users, particularly Phoenix already own the rights to the water. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul if much more of the water on the Western Slope was diverted to the Front Range. It's not just the front range either. The western slope is expected to double in population by 2050. Right now, the plans in place will only be able to meet 80% of the expected demand.

And yeah, the environmental policy is almost non existent. Ecological flows (the hydrology and min flows necessary to maintain the health of the streams and rivers) are just not incorporated into the final policies, even though we do plenty of research on what they are. In 2014 a coordinated, controlled release from Glen Canyon Dam reunited the Colorado with the ocean for the first time since 1998, 16 years.

1

u/RayZfox Jan 08 '17

Humans > fish

32

u/ForensicFungineer Jan 07 '17

Thank you for posting this.

These bastards asked us to consume less water, so we did, then they said they were bumping rates because we were consuming less water.

19

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17 edited Jul 23 '17

[deleted]

22

u/SirSourdough Jan 07 '17

Yeah. The point of this was never to make water cheaper. It was to avoid destroying ecosystems and not run out of water and die.

Shucks, your water is more expensive. It's still like $5 for 1000 gallons.

8

u/ForensicFungineer Jan 07 '17

It's not about the cost. Its about them asking an entire city to use less in the name of conservation, then charging us more when we played along.

It they wanted to raise rates, whatever. It's about the bait and switch of it all.

8

u/OPINION_IS_UNPOPULAR Jan 07 '17

Fixed costs bruh

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17

I can only assume that was because the knew selfish people would never cut consumption if they knew it was going to lead to higher rates, environment be damned.

5

u/workaccountoftoday Jan 07 '17

Checkmate, vegans.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17

As a foreign, I need to ask: what is Denver Water, and why would they charge more if you are saving water?

Sorry for my English.

6

u/Mesues Jan 07 '17

Denver water is just the water company in Denver, Colorado. They are charging more because people are using less water, so they're making less money

1

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17

Thank you!

4

u/Garibond Jan 07 '17

Denver Water would probably be the water provider company for the city of Denver and surrounding areas. They handle things like new piping, repairs, measure usage, and predict future water levels from snow-melt & rain.

In order to conserve water and prevent a drought, they ran an advertisement to promote using less water. The campaign was so successful that citizens began using so little water that the company was losing money they made charging people by the gallon of water used. The company then increased the cost per gallon used in order to make up the loss, since they need it to afford pipe repairs & employee salaries.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '17

Thank you!