Water Wars: Learning from the Colorado Water Crisis
- Shannon Harts
- Mar 16, 2020
- 6 min read
By Amanda Vink
It was almost raining when we stomped down to Fish Creek Falls, Colorado. I didn’t have a hood, and I was using my sweater to protect my camera as best as I could. When it wasn’t sprinkling, the sun was threatening to come out. I snapped a few pictures of the distant waterfall.
Our guide stopped us and asked what watershed we came from. I came up empty. I don’t remember anyone ever asking me that question—which is maybe the result of living in a place with an abundance of water.
Lake Erie is in my backyard. I can bike to its shoreline and put my feet in the water any time. Lake Erie is the shallowest of the Great Lakes, a land formation that collectively makes up 21 percent of the world’s source of fresh surface water. A nearby city—Dunkirk, New York—gets its water directly from the lake. I get my drinking water from a reservoir a little farther up in the hills. We get enough rainfall and snowmelt that it’s very rare we’re asked by the village to conserve water—but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be conserving water every day, anyway.
Watersheds are areas of land that drain water in a certain direction. Watersheds can be large—the Mississippi watershed is the largest watershed in the United States, and it channels water over 1 million square miles (2,589,988 square km) of land. Watersheds can also be small. No matter their size, watersheds are an important part of the landscape. They control where water goes and who gets it.
Steamboat Springs, Colorado is a little city that has something for everyone—except, it seems, water.
In Colorado, it’s normal to hear this phrase: “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.” The quote is often attributed to Mark Twain, but it’s a rallying call for many people in the American West—where water is scarce and worth fighting over. And fought, they have.
Life without water—it’s an impossible situation. Unfortunately, the problem is only getting worse.
Studies have shown that the Colorado River is very sensitive to climate change. According to scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Colorado River could lose one-fourth of its flow by 2050 due to warming from climate change.
There just isn’t realistically enough water—not for the current population, and most likely not for the future. Currently, 40 million people rely on the Colorado River as a water source. With growing populations in the region, it’s perhaps not a surprise things have been tense.
While making my way along the smaller tributary of the Colorado River, I saw some artwork scrawled over a wall: “Please Respect the Yampa!” it said.
The Yampa River flows through 250 miles (402.3 km) of Northwestern Colorado, where I was learning more about what it means to live with water scarcity. A friendly guide told us that while tubing, swimming, and kayaking are popular activities in the area, the water level is so low that it’s recommended to not participate in these activities to protect the ecosystem.
“If you want to do those things, head up river to connect with the Colorado River,” she said. In other words, follow the river to its source.
Most of the water in the southwestern United States begins as snow, which runs off the Continental Divide. This flows into four major watersheds, including the Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, and Colorado.
The Colorado River snakes its way over 1,450 miles (2,333.5 km). Its waters flow in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, California and into Mexico.
Many people are familiar with the Colorado River by way of its great achievement: the Grand Canyon. Its waters sliced through sedimentary rock to create the stunning canyon, which President Teddy Roosevelt recognized as a national monument in 1908. Today, the Colorado River generates an estimated 1.4 trillion dollars in economic activities a year.
This water—which is vital to the economy—is not a guarantee, however. The climate of the southwest is variable, and water is not always where it’s needed. Colorado has a semi-arid climate with irregular precipitation. Statewide, the annual precipitation is 15 inches (40.6 cm). Because most of the stream flow occurs due to snow melt, predominantly water flow happens during a three-month period from May to July.
Climate change has resulted in less snowfall. This means less water. It also means that more water from the river ends up being evaporated. That’s because less sunshine is reflected away from the water. This process is called the albedo effect.
The effects are clear. The Colorado River used to flow into the Gulf of California in Mexico. Now, it doesn’t quite make it. The water ends roughly a hundred miles sooner.
This lack of water is leading to more competition among the people who depend on it, testing the state’s historic policies that deal with water rights.
Colorado became a state in 1876. Language within the state constitution grants water rights to claims made earliest. This water use is regulated under the Prior Appropriation doctrine, or “first in time, first in right.” If there is no water left for newer users, there’s no water left. The majority of Colorado’s population lives on the Front Range.
Historically, the Front Range water providers secured vast water rights from the Western Slope, where about 80 percent of Colorado’s precipitation falls. This allows them to pump water across the Continental Divide, permanently removing water from one natural basin and putting it into another.
In 2019, the seven states that use water from the Colorado River agreed upon a plan to manage the flow levels. This came before the federal government imposed mandatory water cuts. Each state agreed to voluntarily cut their water usage. The federal government will reexamine the river after 2026 and follow up with negotiations for further steps. Colorado specifically is not obligated to conserve water—but there are incentives for doing so. For example, many cities pay a rebate to citizens who remove water-guzzling grass lawns in favor of plants that are more suited to the climate.
Experts, however, say more needs to be done.
If people don't have enough water from the Colorado River to use, Jonathan T. Overpeck, a University of Michigan Scientist, told the New York Times that people might turn to pumping more groundwater.
Glaciers from the last ice age left behind this groundwater. It may be a temporary fix, but it’s not a sustainable one.
In addition to water loss, the drier conditions may lead to increases in wildfires within the region. There is another problem: a lack of water means less energy pumped out of the federally-run dam at the top of the Grand Canyon. Electric bills are also likely to rise.
In a rapidly changing world, it’s becoming increasingly clear that perhaps the best course of action is not beneficial for any person. People often scoff when they feel they are being short-changed in comparison to other people. But with current predictions, it’s clear that no one will be getting a good deal.
An example of water conservation in action happened in Cape Town, South Africa in 2018. In January of that year, officials announced the city was three months away from running out of municipal water completely. “Day Zero” was brought on by three years of little rainfall.
The government sprung into action—a series of measures that together added up.
Water tariffs were added and there was strict enforcement on unsanctioned water use—such as use for swimming pools, lawns, and non-essential reasons. The city, in addition, added a new water-pressure system that saved 10 percent of overall municipal water consumption.
Drought-awareness for residents was key. The city even launched a city-wide water map that showed which houses and areas were using the most water. In June 2018, average rainfall resumed—and officials were able to declare the immediate crisis averted. But still, the strategic use of water continues to be monitored—and must be.
We have to come to terms with the fact that our way of life must change—even for people who live next to the premier freshwater lakes in North America.
Climate change affects those of us who live near the Great Lakes, too.
It’s different, though. The past few years, algal blooms have become more common on the surface of Lake Erie. These algal blooms threaten water quality and surrounding ecosystems. They kill fish and wildlife. Winter ice coverage on the
Great Lakes has declined from 1973 to 2010.
It is expected that, going forward, there will be less snow and more rainfall. This is predicted to result in more runoff—and more algal blooms that can contaminate the drinking water. Clearly, this is a problem that needs to be confronted with more strict environmental regulations and swift planning for the future. Climate change will affect us—the question now is how much?
During drought-conditions between 2013 and 2015, California reduced its water use by around 25 percent. This was done by reducing the allowable flow-rate of water from household fixtures, by encouraging water-saving appliances, and by encouraging the installation of water meters to track water usage. When the drought was over, these policies were lifted. Some Californias continued to use less water, others did not.
It’s important to recognize that the government needs to be held responsible for implementing policy.
California implemented these policies because it was necessary. It was successful, too. Now—with water issues coming to a head because of climate change—it’s important for everyone to implement changes before we have to. The agreement between states that utilize the Colorado River is a great start—but it’s likely environmental policy will have to go farther than that.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/climate/colorado-river-water.html
Comentarios