Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Green River Under Threat from Colorado Developer

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

FlyTalk
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

October 12, 2012

Green River Under Threat from Colorado Developer

By Tim Romano

Last week I posted around 30 images from a photo shoot out on the Green River, just over the Colorado state line in Utah. The Sportsmen's Conservation Project hired me to document the A, B, and C sections of this river by floating for three days and camping for two nights. It was an amazing trip in what has to be one of the most beautiful settings for a trout river in all of North America.

Unfortunately, the Green River is under serious threat from Aaron Million, a Colorado developer who wants "to take 81 billion gallons of water each year out of the Green River and Flaming Gorge, and pump it 560 miles to the Front Range of Colorado. That’s 250,000 acre-feet per year."

If this amount of water is taken from the basin, it would have seriously negative impacts affecting local communities, fish and game habitats, and the taxpayers of three states. All for one man to make a pile of money and waste a bunch of water in the process...

I added 35 more photographs to the slideshow this week. Enjoy the images. For more on the issues at hand and what can be done to help stop the proposal visit ourdamwater.org.

Comments (11)

Top Rated
All Comments
from Rhythm Rider wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I'll say Million is the supplier, the consumers of water are the source of demand. Until we (I) as a CO resident, and all arid western state residents stop wasting water the demand will be there. So it's accurate to say "one man make pile of money" but you should add "a few million people can waste water with peace of mind a while longer." That's what CO residents do with water too often.

It's a seriously complex issue, and diversion seems attractive to many when reservoirs are small chocolate milk puddles in CO. I have no answers for ya, but on the flip side people's livelihoods are at stake without water. Farmers and large cities outnumber anglers and those impacted by diversion from a man made fishery. Pretty tough issue, and hopefully a better plan is made to get the water here with less impact on the fishery. One thing is for certain, water has value and it's gonna be sent to CO some day, some how.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jaukulele wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Ultimately, it is up to individuals to conserve water on a personal basis. What Million would be doing, at least from a water usage standpoint, would be greatly increasing the apparent population size of CO. Say each of the 5.1 million residents in CO wastes whatever amount of water they waste. This project increases that amount by about 17,000 gallons per resident EACH YEAR. THAT'S A LOT OF WATER!!!

So, no matter what kind of water usage goes on in CO, I'm sure it's nothing close to 17,000 gallons per resident per year. It will be, though, whenever resident 1 "Million" starts to use 81 billion gallons.

Just awful...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

totally agree with you gents. We as individuals need to use less water. As a whole we are incredibly wasteful.

The problem is when you push something like this through there's no reason why people should learn to conserve. Why should some river/ecosystem suffer just so we can water our bluegrass we shouldn't even be allowed to grow.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejunk wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

good comments, and an additional note: I don't have the source handy, but it is estimated that the average major (ie, large city) municipal water system LOSES ~50% of the water that it takes in before it ever even reaches a customer. the older cities (NYC for example) are worse. it goes beyond personal waste, and into systematic waste. unfortunately, there is pretty much nothing less popular than paying to fix infrastructure, even if it is phenomenally inefficient.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bill Love wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I just worry that sometimes Field and Stream makes these issues appear to be simple. I live far away, and I wont delve into the facts of this specific situation, but is there ever a cost that is too high for Field and Stream? Do you guys really balance the costs to industry, municipalities, people, ranchers with the benefits to anglers and the environment? Or do you always flock to the "side" of sportsman, cost be damned? Serious, neutral question...

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I can't speak for Field and Stream as I'm not an employee, but as someone who makes almost 100% of my money from the hunting and fishing industry I'm for conservation almost all of the time. It IS pretty simple for me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark Orlicky wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Tim, I keep waiting to hear from someone regarding the Environmental Impact of this action. That is, the 250,000 acre feet of water (81 billion gallons) being removed from the West side of the Continental Divide and being added to the East side of it. Or, that much less water to the Colorado River and down to California... and that much more water that ends up in the Mississippi River system. What's that impact going to be? I'll bet the California fruit and vegetable farmers are going to be hurting! Maybe the Napa Valley vinyards, too? I don't know where all the impact will be felt.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

IF you don't have enough water to develop a project you shouldn't be allowed to build it. Period. No discussion. It sickens me that there is such an irresponsible regard for things other than human life, and humanity doesn't have such a good record for that either. Conservation shouldn't be such an arduous endeavor. Greed, a deadly sin that will capitulate the very existence of humanity to follow the way of the dodo.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bill Love wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Tim, I guess you answered my question. Pretty much all the time you are going to lean towards conservation.

My next question would then be, what exactly is this water going to be used for, who is it going to benefit? By which I don't mean the greedy millionare, Million, who is buying this? Is it all for development that has not yet happened, or is some of the development existing? Cause public policy is all about trade offs, and in order to fairly know what should be done we need to know what we are trading for what. I know the Green river, that is a valuable balance in one side of the scale...what is on the other side?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RockySquirrel wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

John Wesley Powell would be turning over in his grave.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from krwheeler wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

This is an old story. Million is still fighting the courts and the Wyoming public. This has been going on for quite a while.

I was living in Wyoming when this tom-foolery started. I think that Million ought to take is "millions" and shove 'em up his pipe line. If Colorado doesn't have enough water for their own citizens, they maybe ought to cut back. They don't have a right to steal water from Wyoming.l

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from jaukulele wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Ultimately, it is up to individuals to conserve water on a personal basis. What Million would be doing, at least from a water usage standpoint, would be greatly increasing the apparent population size of CO. Say each of the 5.1 million residents in CO wastes whatever amount of water they waste. This project increases that amount by about 17,000 gallons per resident EACH YEAR. THAT'S A LOT OF WATER!!!

So, no matter what kind of water usage goes on in CO, I'm sure it's nothing close to 17,000 gallons per resident per year. It will be, though, whenever resident 1 "Million" starts to use 81 billion gallons.

Just awful...

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

totally agree with you gents. We as individuals need to use less water. As a whole we are incredibly wasteful.

The problem is when you push something like this through there's no reason why people should learn to conserve. Why should some river/ecosystem suffer just so we can water our bluegrass we shouldn't even be allowed to grow.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ejunk wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

good comments, and an additional note: I don't have the source handy, but it is estimated that the average major (ie, large city) municipal water system LOSES ~50% of the water that it takes in before it ever even reaches a customer. the older cities (NYC for example) are worse. it goes beyond personal waste, and into systematic waste. unfortunately, there is pretty much nothing less popular than paying to fix infrastructure, even if it is phenomenally inefficient.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Rhythm Rider wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I'll say Million is the supplier, the consumers of water are the source of demand. Until we (I) as a CO resident, and all arid western state residents stop wasting water the demand will be there. So it's accurate to say "one man make pile of money" but you should add "a few million people can waste water with peace of mind a while longer." That's what CO residents do with water too often.

It's a seriously complex issue, and diversion seems attractive to many when reservoirs are small chocolate milk puddles in CO. I have no answers for ya, but on the flip side people's livelihoods are at stake without water. Farmers and large cities outnumber anglers and those impacted by diversion from a man made fishery. Pretty tough issue, and hopefully a better plan is made to get the water here with less impact on the fishery. One thing is for certain, water has value and it's gonna be sent to CO some day, some how.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from timromano wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I can't speak for Field and Stream as I'm not an employee, but as someone who makes almost 100% of my money from the hunting and fishing industry I'm for conservation almost all of the time. It IS pretty simple for me.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark Orlicky wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Tim, I keep waiting to hear from someone regarding the Environmental Impact of this action. That is, the 250,000 acre feet of water (81 billion gallons) being removed from the West side of the Continental Divide and being added to the East side of it. Or, that much less water to the Colorado River and down to California... and that much more water that ends up in the Mississippi River system. What's that impact going to be? I'll bet the California fruit and vegetable farmers are going to be hurting! Maybe the Napa Valley vinyards, too? I don't know where all the impact will be felt.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from fflutterffly wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

IF you don't have enough water to develop a project you shouldn't be allowed to build it. Period. No discussion. It sickens me that there is such an irresponsible regard for things other than human life, and humanity doesn't have such a good record for that either. Conservation shouldn't be such an arduous endeavor. Greed, a deadly sin that will capitulate the very existence of humanity to follow the way of the dodo.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bill Love wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

Tim, I guess you answered my question. Pretty much all the time you are going to lean towards conservation.

My next question would then be, what exactly is this water going to be used for, who is it going to benefit? By which I don't mean the greedy millionare, Million, who is buying this? Is it all for development that has not yet happened, or is some of the development existing? Cause public policy is all about trade offs, and in order to fairly know what should be done we need to know what we are trading for what. I know the Green river, that is a valuable balance in one side of the scale...what is on the other side?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RockySquirrel wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

John Wesley Powell would be turning over in his grave.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from krwheeler wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

This is an old story. Million is still fighting the courts and the Wyoming public. This has been going on for quite a while.

I was living in Wyoming when this tom-foolery started. I think that Million ought to take is "millions" and shove 'em up his pipe line. If Colorado doesn't have enough water for their own citizens, they maybe ought to cut back. They don't have a right to steal water from Wyoming.l

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bill Love wrote 1 year 27 weeks ago

I just worry that sometimes Field and Stream makes these issues appear to be simple. I live far away, and I wont delve into the facts of this specific situation, but is there ever a cost that is too high for Field and Stream? Do you guys really balance the costs to industry, municipalities, people, ranchers with the benefits to anglers and the environment? Or do you always flock to the "side" of sportsman, cost be damned? Serious, neutral question...

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment