Colorado after the drought

The lessons of the drought that shepherded in the 21st century in Colorado are many, but only some have been heeded.

That’s the conclusion of a variety of experts asked about the state’s response to the deepest drought in modern Colorado history.

The drought, which lasted roughly from 2000 to 2005, drained reservoirs, fed the state’s largest wildfire, stoked a devastating forest beetle infestation and wilted farms.

For many Coloradans, it was their first true experience with what it means to live in a semiarid climate. For Front Range water providers, it was a stunning wake-up call that their water supplies were stretched perilously thin.

As the sense of crisis ran high, the state, lawmakers and water providers began a series of studies and discussions. There was a lot of talk about how to capture more water coming off the mountains and where to store it.

Eyes turned east toward irrigated farmland and west toward the state’s headwaters in search of more water to support Front Range growth that even the drought couldn’t slow.

Water providers, including city-owned Colorado Springs Utilities, sought to spark conservation by imposing watering restrictions and tiered water pricing.

Individual water users responded well to the crisis, a recent study found. Water providers and government officials? Less so, say some experts.

Culture of conservation

As the landscape of the Pikes Peak region browned and turned brittle, retiree Edward Aubrey decided to do something about the backyard of his west-side home.

The steep, featureless slope held little charm, serving mostly as a drainage path in wetter times for the homes above him.

Looking for a creative outlet, Aubrey began visiting garden shows to get ideas for building a pond. Eventually, he looked west to the rocky beauty of Pikes Peak for inspiration.

Today, his yard features two burbling water ponds, clumps of native grass, a mix of hardy mugho pine bushes and Austrian pine trees and meandering paths of moss rock. Large, weathered stones, strategically placed, pay homage to the beauty of the nearby mountains.

It all flows pleasingly. It’s easy to maintain. And each of the three landscape zones around his house require just an hour of watering a week.

Aubrey didn’t start out to experiment with xeriscape gardening. But, in the end, the results were visually stunning and water-efficient.

“If you look at the mountains around us, they’re just big rocks — and they’re beautiful,” he said recently. “I wanted to duplicate what Mother Nature has provided us.”

Across Colorado Springs, other water users motivated by restrictions and rising prices began to change the look of their landscaping, replacing thirsty plants and grasses with rocks and hardier vegetation.

Others discovered that their yards, even those covered with bluegrass, could survive with less watering.

Summer residential water use dropped in Colorado Springs and up the Front Range. Whether motivated by environmental concerns, a sense of resignation or water bills that reflected new water pricing, residents conserved.

A recent survey by Boulderbased Western Resource Advocates showed residents of the largest cities in Colorado cut their water use by an average of about 15 percent from 2000 to 2006.

Colorado Springs residents, according to the survey, slashed their per-person, perday water use more than any other Front Range residents, a whopping 32 percent from 2000 to 2006.

Ann Seymour, water conservation manager for Colorado Springs Utilities, thinks local residents have embraced the notion they must conserve water, drought or no.

In fact, the utility recently released for public comment a more ambitious conservation plan for the years 2008 to 2012. It increases conservationeducation programs, focuses on water savings by commercial and industrial water savings and suggests some modest regulations.

The proposal projects enhanced conservation efforts will save about 29.7 billion gallons by 2017, which would translate to 7.6 percent of the utility’s annual water production.

Neil Grigg, an engineering professor at Colorado State University and a water consultant, said conservation savings in cities along the Front Range have varied, and it will be up to individual water providers to decide what incentives will work for their community.

But he said the emphasis on conservation — including higher-priced water above certain usage levels — is sending the message: Water in Colorado is a fickle, ephemeral commodity that has a real value, much like natural gas or oil.

Storing the surplus

Conservation may well be one of the lessons of the drought that has been heeded. It’s not enough, however.

“Conservation is critical, but it is not the solution by any means,” said hydrogeologist Julia Murphy, owner of Colorado Springs-based Groundwater Investigations.

Murphy said large water providers who depend on surface water, those that supply water from aquifers under the Front Range and individual well users on the plains all face different challenges.

But she said the drought should have sent a clear message to all of them: “Our reservoirs are inadequate to address the demands.”

Building new reservoirs or even expanding existing reservoirs is fraught with political, financial and legal hurdles. Many experts are toying with the idea of storing excess water in underground aquifers.

Colorado Springs Utilities is experimenting with the concept in the Denver Basin. The caretakers of Upper Black Squirrel aquifer, which supplies water to much of eastern El Paso County, are interested in the Cherokee Water District recharging the dwindling aquifer with treated waste water. And promising underground storage sites have been identified elsewhere on the Front Range.

Still, today the technology is more promise than reality.

“I think the drought should have sent the signals that it is not a temporary condition and that in Colorado, we must store the surplus when you have it to use in drought years,” said Kathy Hare, a member of the board responsible for ensuring the long-term health of the Upper Black Squirrel alluvial aquifer. “That’s an area we have made no advancements since the drought. We really need to deal with it.

“So far,” she said, “it’s business as usual. And that’s sad.”

Beyond the rhetoric

Simply increasing water storage isn’t enough, many experts say. You have to have the water to store.

The drought and subsequent studies, Murphy said, highlighted the need to capture all the water the state is entitled to under compacts with other Western states and build the pipes and pumps needed to convey it to the Front Range, particularly to groundwater users now tapping the nonrenewable Denver Basin aquifer.

So far, she said, there’s been little progress beyond simply talking, with divisions still evident between various water users. Murphy has seen it first-hand as a member of the Metro Roundtable, one of nine groups established statewide and charged with finding solutions to Colorado’s water problems.

“Some of the older people, I call them the elders, come up to speak and tell us they had the same conversations 10 or 20 years ago,” she said. “There needs to be a step toward progress. Solutions have to be analyzed to bring water in.”

That isn’t going to be easy, since additional water will have to come from either the Western Slope or agricultural users.

Although legislation enacted during the drought makes it easier for water providers to lease water from willing farmers, few are eager for the public reaction if the eastern third of the state was gutted to feed suburban sprawl.

And neighbors to the west who have seen water diverted to the Front Range for years are reluctant to see more flow out of their basins unless they benefit from a project.

Murphy, unlike some experts, thinks additional water will come from the west, not the east. She says it’s crucial for Colorado’s future to bridge the gap between those who have the water and those who need it.

“We need to find a way to collectively come together and make it work for everyone,” she said. “That’s very idealistic, but it’s the right approach.”

One question seldom asked is whether the state can sustain its rapid growth in the face of water problems.

Neither the El Paso County Commission nor the Colorado Springs City Council has shown any desire to dampen the housing growth that has led, in part, to the proliferation of rural wells and the city’s proposed $1 billion pipeline and reservoir project called the Southern Delivery System.

Even if growth slows during the next two decades, Colorado is flirting with a water crisis should drought reappear, experts say.

Grigg, the CSU engineering professor, said Colorado’s water problems have been identified.

Potential solutions have been thrown on the table. Now it’s a matter of compromising, paying the cost — and combating human nature.

“Nobody likes to plan for a crisis. It’s built into human nature,” he said. “When the crisis is over, we go back to the way we were before.”

CONTACT THE WRITER: 636-0197 or bill.mckeown@gazette.com