Water conservation is all the rage right now, especially because the federal government just offered the Southwest U.S. $4 billion for “water conservation” to try and “save the Colorado River” and its failing reservoirs and hydropower plants at Lakes Powell and Mead downstream in Arizona.
Here in Colorado, municipalities and water districts that rely on the Colorado River are responding to the federal incentive. At the same time, it’s important to critically analyze any proposed conservation program — and associated financial payouts — to see what the actual result may be.
For example, will the program really help save the Colorado River? Or will the program simply facilitate more growth in the number of houses and businesses that put a strain on all of Colorado’s rivers?
First, the City of Aurora, CO, made statewide news back in August when the City Council restricted new turfgrass to conserve water. The city now regulates what kind of grass can be grown in new developments and golf courses, both of which would cut water use roughly in half in new developments, according to the city’s public relations manager.
However, in the very same breath, the public relations manager stated, “The anticipated growth of Aurora is another major factor in urgently acting to conserve water in the state’s third-largest city.” Thus, Aurora is conserving so it can grow, not to cut water use to protect rivers, or the Colorado River itself, from which Aurora gets part of its water supply.
Second, Denver Water recently joined other Southwest U.S. cities in planning to conserve more water by signing a MOU that was sent to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation as a pledge to help the failing Colorado River. The pledge includes replacing non-functional grass, increasing water re-use and recycling, and “continuing water conservation awareness.”
Yet in the same breath, Denver Water did not propose to actually divert less water out of the Colorado River. In fact, at the exact same time Denver Water signed the MOU, they continued their huge construction project to massively expand Gross Dam in Boulder County, a project that will divert a new 4.5 billion gallons of water out of the Colorado River every year. Further yet, Denver Water is planning for more than a half-million more people moving into the metropolitan area by the year 2040.
Finally, the State of Colorado legislature weighed in earlier in 2022 by passing a bill that incentivizes the replacement of turfgrass with drought-tolerant grass. The bill provides $4 million per year for towns and cities across the state to create “cash for grass” programs that reduce water use.
Though once again, the state is proposing to dramatically increase its population by adding nearly 3 million people by the year 2050, all of which will require more water.
Environmental groups have long advocated for water conservation as a solution to protect rivers and as a sustainable path toward water management. Indeed, water conservation is often seen as a moral imperative in the environmental movement where, in theory, water use by humans can be whittled down to make more water available for the rivers, the environment, and the non-human species that depend on water for survival.
However, what if — as is happening now — water conservation serves to fuel and subsidize more growth in Colorado? As such, water conservation may not provide any additional water for rivers or the environment, but actually puts more negative pressure on rivers and the environment.
As the federal government’s “money for water conservation” plan plays out, keep your eyes on the ball. Will U.S. taxpayer money be used to save the Colorado River? Or will it be used to simply fuel more growth while our river systems collapse even faster?
Gary Wockner, PhD, is a scientist and conservationist based in Colorado. Follow him on Twitter, @GaryWockner. Learn more at savethecolorado.org