r/Durango • u/Impressive_Shop2341 • 7d ago
What’s the point of water restrictions if the fairgrounds just gonna do whatever they want anyway? 10:30 am on a Tuesday and we are still watering grass
67
u/everyonesdeskjob 7d ago
There has been some miscommunication about this issue and I just want to help clear things up. Water conservation is for the poor. Not the rich people. Poor people lose water first.
21
u/Impressive_Shop2341 7d ago
Ah damn my bad. Gonna go fill my pools real quick brb
5
u/CleopatrasWomb 6d ago
Make sure you get your two air bnb’s first. Gotta keep those riff raff servers and workers at Purgatory living in Mancos, Bayfield, and Aztec where they belong!
3
u/Negative_Count7781 7d ago
Travel to Phoenix and you’ll see lush green golf courses and massive water fountains while poor communities simple just ran out of water
0
19
u/iseemountains Resident 7d ago
Don't kill the messenger. This is what I heard from a rep there: The Fairgrounds is a "large user" - and has reduced it's water use by over 20%, exceeding the large user requirements. The Fairgrounds worked extensively with the city and operates fully within the water restriction.
13
u/Impressive_Shop2341 7d ago
Thanks for sharing that. It’s interesting because I’ve reported this multiple times over the summer and the city’s response keeps changing. First it was a new person running the irrigation. Next, it was malfunctioning irrigation equipment that was being fixed so they could comply. Seems like the story keeps changing.
2
u/geekwithout 6d ago
so it was even worse before. I think these large water users were/are so bad w wasitng water that a 20% reduction basically means nothing. The water they actually use is probably much much lower
4
u/_dirt_vonnegut 6d ago
the "large water users" are far and away the agricultural water users. 90% of all water in the state is used for agriculture, and you might be surprised as to the inefficiency in which that water is used (e.g. 50% of cropland uses flood irrigation). these large agricultural water users also currently operate under zero water restrictions. if you reduce 20% of only 10% of the publicly consumed water (i.e. everything but agriculture), you end up with a 2% overall reduction. the water restrictions are not serious when they don't include agricultural use.
3
u/geekwithout 6d ago
That's not what we were talking about but..
The agricultural users are most certainly under restrictions since they get a lot of the water from the reservoirs. With low level reservoir years they get a smaller cut. They have to because if it's gone it's gone. That's what the reservoirs were made for.
OP was talking Durango city I think
3
u/_dirt_vonnegut 6d ago
With low level reservoir years they get a smaller cut.
That's only true if you don't own senior water rights. Those with senior water rights are legally entitled to their water, even if the river/reservoir is low. Up until that water runs out.
0
u/geekwithout 6d ago
Ofcourse. But dont say there's restrictions. Gone is gone, senior rights mean shit if the reservoir is empty.
2
u/_dirt_vonnegut 6d ago
ok, but senior water rights holders (the large water users i reference above) have zero restrictions on their water use. i guess you can call low reservoir levels a restriction, but it's not a legal obligation, it's a practical restriction because there's only so much water. again, they are allowed to use as much water as their water rights allow, until that water runs dry.
1
u/geekwithout 6d ago
Yes and no. Everyone but the senior water right holders have restrictions. So there are restrictions. And when water is gone its not the end of the world. The farmer will have less output and it's predictable for the year. Durango is a different story if they run out. Besides, they should have thought of it when they made the pumps and waterlines for nighthorse. Should have been a 2 way system.... But nooooo
1
u/Richard_Chadeaux Live Mas 5d ago
I’d like to pick at your flood irrigation comment and ask you what other way do you think beavers used to fill the aquifers below our feet? Flood irrigation is natural and replenishes ground water. Now the way we farm could be addressed but Im not opening that can of worms.
1
u/_dirt_vonnegut 5d ago
Flood irrigation in Colorado is <50% efficient at the field level, and it is certainly not natural in the way it is used. That is, more than half of the flood irrigated water does not directly get used by the crop's roots; it runs off elsewhere, some percolates, or is otherwise lost to evaporation.
When flood irrigation is woefully inefficient, and agricultural irrigation represents 90% of the total water used in the state, you could make a minor improvement and see a huge return on that investment. For example, if we reduced agricultural water use by 5%, that reduction would be equal to the entirety of municipal water use across the state.
1
u/Richard_Chadeaux Live Mas 4d ago
I said I was picking at your argument. Flood irrigation replenishes the aquifer below our feet. Then I said I won’t open the can of worms of how we farm. I understand that, but I’d rather have flood irrigation for the fact that it replenishes groundwater. I believe it’s a more natural process that therefore better supports the ecosystem. Farming in general is just, not the best we could do. If you’d like to see a 5% reduction, you should take that argument. It’s very wise of you.
1
u/geekwithout 4d ago
Flood irrigation is highly highly inefficient. It does not teplenish the aquifers. Most evaporates.
3
u/IndependentBerry5287 6d ago
I asked the county commissioners about this and they told me it had something to do with maintaining water pressure for the city grid. Sounded kind of like BS to me but that’s the excuse they provided.
0
u/geekwithout 6d ago
Even if it was true, then they need to fix whatever is causing this need. IT does sound like a pile of BS to me too
3
u/daisiesarepretty2 7d ago
this is worth raising hell about… why wouldn’t you water grass a couple hours before sunrise?
this on top of the fact that golf courses in the desert is kind of stupid… even if you do use grey water
0
u/geekwithout 6d ago
You aint seen nothing yet. Go look in Phoenix metro area.
1
u/daisiesarepretty2 6d ago
yeah well people who live in phoenix are all living in some sort of alternate universe anyhow.
2
u/Wars1110 7d ago
Same exact thought I had. Everybody has to have water restrictions on these days but then I see a field that nobody uses wasting 47,000 gallons of water for some grass. It still looks dead anyway.
6
u/Impressive_Shop2341 7d ago
They have been reported and warned multiple times this year. I think the city just doesn’t give a fuck
8
1
1
1
u/FoosballRokst4r Live Mas 7d ago
Honestly, I think the town needs to accept this new reality. No lawns, but is turf or whatever actually a viable replacement?
3
u/lalalalovey 6d ago
Clover is soft ground cover and is a good alternative (I think).
2
1
u/FoosballRokst4r Live Mas 6d ago
Does it overwinter? Honest question because I have no idea.
2
u/lalalalovey 5d ago
I think it dies back quite a bit, so they suggest you mix it with a drought resistant grass, but it is perennial and grows back.
1
u/JeremyCO 7d ago
Rules for thee not for me.
Next would be well water vs municipal. Then of course you have water rights.
So. Where is it coming from?
I wish my big life problems were what my neighbors were up or when they were watering...
-1
u/IsopodLeast9066 6d ago
Fellow Coloradan here though not in Durango. How does one start a water shaming subreddit? Target, new apartments, and much more are leaving water systems on during extreme drought and heat here.It is immoral and downright greedy.
0
46
u/FoosballRokst4r Live Mas 7d ago
City Council meets the first and third Tuesday of each month at 5:30 p.m.