Thoughts.com Blogs - Would love to hear peoples opinion on this

View Blog

Would love to hear peoples opinion on this

So I would love to hear peoples opinion on this, and any new ideas they might have!

In the 1930’s a few visionary men such as W.D. Farr put forth and effort to build the Big Thompson water project. This project now provides water for thousands of people and farm lands. Since the 1970’s Northern Colorado’s population has more than doubled, but no new water source has been added to meet the demand of this leap in the population growth (Conway). In 2002 Northern Colorado learned the vulnerability of its water supply with the worst drought seen in a long time. It then became clear how important water conservation is to keep our current way of life. But even if every household were to conserve water our current water supply could not keep up with the 40,000 acre feet of water needed (Conway). To help keep up with more recent demands for water a plan has been put forth to put in new reservoirs to capture water coming down from the mountains along the Poudre river, and stored away for future use. This project is being called the Northern Integrated Supply Project or NISP for short (Conway). Bill Jackson, a writer for the Greeley Tribune, writes the NISP project “would supply and additional 40,000 acre-feet of water to Northern Colorado,” “it will prevent the dry-up of a minimum of 45,000 to 60,000 of agricultural land in Weld and Larimer counties.” The NISP project would include two reservoirs; one would be northwest of Ft. Collins Colorado it would hold up to 170,000 acre-feet of water. The other reservoir would be located east of Ault Colorado it would hold up to 40,000 extra acre-feet of water (Jackson). An acre foot of water is enough water to supply two families with a years worth of water (Jackson).
There is much argument from people on both sides of the debate for this project. A few arguments from the side that are for the project including being able to control the water flow of the Poudre river (Jackson). This can be helpful at times when the water level starts to get to high and is in danger of flooding things downstream, and causing a lot of damage to homes and farmland. Another plus to building the reservoir would be have a large stockpile of water for the winter months (Jackson) when all of the snow has not yet started to melt and flow into the streams. Also this large stockpile of fresh water can be used for the hotter and times of the year when there is less rain, all of the snow has already melted, and water use is at its all time high thanks to swimming pools, sprinklers for watering the grass, car washes, and irrigation for farms. The larger reason for building these reservoirs is because if not built 40,000 to 60,000 acres of farmland will dry up this is equal to 60 to 100 square miles of farm land (Conway) this will be unable to support crops growing much needed food for the growing population. The reservoirs will provide more water for the ever increasing population of northern Colorado.
Just as there are good arguments to go thru with the reservoir project there are also many good arguments to cancel the project altogether. To start off the project will cost more than four hundred million dollars (Jackson). This money has to come from our taxes, and many believe that there are far better uses for this kind of money. Another con to this project is that the larger of the two reservoirs won’t be done till the year 2015 located in Glade, and the second smaller reservoir located in Galeton won’t be up till 5 years later (Jackson). Although the money issues of the project are big, but they are nothing compared to the effects that it will have on the environment. Such as in the cases of the Colorado and Columbia rivers, after these rivers were altered to fit human needs studies are constantly done on how the both the upstream and down stream ecology is being affected (Chilton). Other studies done in Virginia, on the campus of Sweet Briar College in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, shows that over the course of time their was larger sediment, and less nutrients downstream of the dammed river. Also the average temperature of the water was higher on the dammed side versus the free flowing stream. The free flowing stream showed a higher level of microorganisms and life in its waters. Where as the dammed side showed less abundance of native life but held more pollutant-tolerant species that had been introduced by man (Chilton). Another big con to this project is stated in Jakob Rodgers article in the Greeley Tribune, is says that the new reservoirs may have a large impact on the quality of our water supply and we will end up needing to upgrade our wastewater and other water treatment facilities, which will cost a lot more money on top of the already large bill for the new reservoirs (Rodgers). The biggest con to this has already been documented on another Colorado River. In the 1980’s a dam was put up on the Platte River for the same reason as the proposed NISP project. It was put on the table during the discussion of the project that is would effect wild life, both in and out of the water. The proposal passed and after the reservoir was constructed (Schneider), and not to long after a drop in wildlife population was seen, including an endangered species the Whooping Crane.
So as an overview the pros and cons of this project include, the project will cost $400 million in tax dollars, and won’t be done till the year 2015 in Glade and Galeton won’t be up till 5 years later. It may have a large impact on the quality of our water supply and we will end up needing to upgrade our wastewater and other water treatment facilities. Doing this sort of thing changes the rivers ecological structure and could endanger some species like what happened on the Platte River, water quality will be poorer for everything downstream including animals and plants. The pros to this project include, people will be able to manage the flow of the Poudre better; more water during the winter months, Colorado will have a stockpile for another drought. If not built 40,000 to 60,000 acres of farmland will dry up this is equal to 60 to 100 square miles, it will provide the much needed water for increasing population without taking away from the much needed farmlands.
While there are many good arguments for the building of this project I believe that the cons still outweigh these reasons, and feel that increased water conservation on both the city and each individuals part in northern Colorado would really help keep the diminishing water supply up. A few things I believe would help are if the city required each household to have a zero-scape, this is a landscape that requires little to no water to keep it looking good. Some plants for this could include cacti or low water grasses, and gravel or mulch instead of water wasting grass.

Works Cited

Chilton, Rachael L., Hackler, Medora M., Smith, Shannon R., Orvos, David R.,
and Ambers, Rebecca K.R. “A small dam with a big impact: geomorphology and ecology of two second-order streams in central Virginia.” The Geological Society of America. 25 March, 2004. July 20, 2008
Conway, Sean. “Reservoir project show solid planning.” Greeley Tribune 29 May:
2008,
Jackson, Bill. “Project Wins Weld officials’ support.” Greeley Tribune 5 June: 2008,
A1 A3+
Jackson, Bill. “NISP offers the chance to better manage Poudre flow.” Greeley
Tribune 11 July: 2008, A1 A4+
Rodgers, Jakob. “Residents choose sides at first fiery NISP forum.” Greeley
Tribune 17 June: 2008, A1 A10+
Schneider, Keith “Colorado Dam Would Ruin Wildlife Area, an E.P.A. Official Says” 30
August, 1989. July 20, 2008