National Geographic
Menu

As Climate Change Reduces Colorado River Communities Must Prepare

Santa Fe in winter
Santa Fe has taken steps to slash its per capita water use. Photo: Joe Enenbach, My Shot

Now that a red flag has been raised by the Colorado River Basin Study – a federal and state cooperative analysis published in late 2012 – that there will be water shortages across much of the U.S. Southwest, the handwringing has started.

Our cities, farms, and rivers face a slow-motion disaster; what are we going to do about it?  Suggestions submitted to the study include:

  • The controversial and expensive:  towing icebergs, operating large-scale desalinization plants on the Pacific coast, and importing water hundreds of miles and lifting it more than 2,000 vertical feet from the Missouri River (see Brian Richter’s recent post on these schemes)
  • The politically challenging:  making whole-cloth changes, or even modest tweaks to Colorado River laws and policies (known as the Law of the River) to address aspects of 21st century water needs – including the needs of rivers – impacted by climate change (although these were considered generally too challenging by the report’s authors); and
  • The low hanging fruit:  water conservation in every sector, re-use in urban settings, and watershed management.

Despite listing out plans for “Next Steps” in the Basin Study, the federal and state authors have yet to take discernible action to encourage any of these approaches.

Fortunately, some communities aren’t waiting for advice, and they certainly aren’t waiting to get caught unprepared by a dry future.  Leaders in these forward-thinking places have already taken real steps to add resiliency to their water supply in anticipation of the havoc that climate change will wreak.

A new report on “smart choices” from Carpe Diem West documents progress on this front in ten communities across the West.  Much of what these communities are doing falls in the category of the low-hanging fruit, and could be implemented broadly – without delay – by Colorado River water users:

  • San Antonio has reduced per capita water use by 42% since 1994 – well exceeding the goal of a 1% annual decrease in per capita use that cities using Colorado River water reportedly find challenging.
  • Santa Fe took on water conservation with even greater gusto, reducing per capita use by 40% in just ten years.
  • In Colorado, water users and the Colorado Water Trust cooperated to provide ‘drought emergency’ instream flows for the Yampa River and avoided negative impacts to hydropower generation and the businesses that depend on healthy river flows, and even managed to provide additional water for irrigation use downstream. (See Sandra Postel’s recent post on the Yampa project, part of our Change the Course campaign).
  • Salt Lake City found a way to bolster protections for their local water supplies by investing in watershed management.  They accomplished this by adding a surcharge to their water bills.  Ratepayers are charged an additional $1.50 a month, and the money goes to purchase lands and development rights in local watersheds from willing sellers so that they can be managed to increase water supply resiliency.

The federal and state officials responsible for the Colorado River Basin Study would do well to study these “smart choices” and make some of their own.  Instead of more studies they should implement “next steps” that create incentives for more communities to invest in solutions that are immediately available. 

Comments

  1. Dale J. Borup
    United States
    March 30, 2013, 5:35 am

    Research and development of Desalination, use of its byproducts, national/international water distribution networks, combined with alternate energy generation holds the answer to much of our water problems without having to drain aquifers and ruin the environment.

  2. FanEnough
    Orlando, FL
    March 26, 2013, 6:51 pm

    With the oceans rising, large-scale desalinization is now a doubly attractive option. Removing large amounts of water from the oceans, reducing the salinity, and distributing the water systematically to places in need, seems like an excellent and economically-viable idea, considering the shoreline damage that will also be avoided.

  3. Al Bore
    Earth
    March 26, 2013, 2:43 pm

    Why won’t science say climate change is as real as comet hits are?
    Science agrees climate change is a real possibility and science agrees that comet hits are a real eventuality. Science has NEVER said their climate crisis was as certain as comet hits and has never even said it will happen, only might happen and could happen.
    Not one single IPCC warning isn’t swimming in “maybes”.

    All of science agrees; “Climate change is real and is happening and could lead to a climate crisis.”
    Help my house could be on fire maybe? How is 27 years of “maybe” supposed to be consensus and if “maybe” is good enough to condemn your own children to the greenhouse gas ovens of an exaggerated crisis then you don’t love the planet you just hate humanity.
    Not one single IPCC warning isn’t swimming in maybes.
    If they can’t say climate change is as real and eventual as comet hits are, it only proves their legal exaggeration and real planet lovers welcome the good news of a crisis not being a real crisis after all.

    Science says comet hits are real but climate change is…………………only possible.
    As long as science says a comet hit crisis will happen but a climate change crisis only might happen, count me as a former believer. Climate change would have been a comet hit of an emergency but not one IPCC warning says it “WILL” happen, only might happen as opposed to a comet hit crisis that they firmly say “WILL” happen. “MAYBE” is not a crisis.