"Bill Stock" wrote
Nice looking place (Google Earth), but I'm in Southern Ontario.

It got down to 41° that night.


Brrrrrr!

It must be difficult to maintain a pond in that climate. By the time you get
it ready for summer, it's time to button it up for the long winter.

BTW: When it gets down to 41 degF here we call it winter. In fact, we call
it arctic. It does snow here occassionally, about every 10 years or so. The
last time was on Christmas 2004. Of course is was a dusting and it was 60
degF by noon, but still it was interesting.

The largest weather problem with ponds here is rain and sun. The rain can
come down frantically every summer afternoon and overlow your pond quickly.
And many fish and plants can't take the summer sun.

Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
================================================== ==============

Most of that water goes to California to maintain
otherwise unliveable cities like Los Angeles and Palm Springs and Las
Vegas
that are built in desert climates.


California is *always* a case unto itself, at least as
far as the PNWesterners are concerned ;-)
(But that's another story...)
Otoh, there's Texas with way too much water,
what a summer they have had!

k :-)

"MLF" wrote in message
...
The largest weather problem with ponds here is rain and sun. The rain can
come down frantically every summer afternoon and overlow your pond
quickly. And many fish and plants can't take the summer sun.
===========================
How about a bunch of tropical water lilies to shade the pond? We use the
hardy ones here and they do a great job of shading sunny ponds.
--

RM....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
Zone 6. Middle TN USA
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö

"Reel McKoi" wrote
The largest weather problem with ponds here is rain and sun. The rain can
come down frantically every summer afternoon and overlow your pond
quickly. And many fish and plants can't take the summer sun.
===========================
How about a bunch of tropical water lilies to shade the pond? We use the
hardy ones here and they do a great job of shading sunny ponds.


That will certainly work. However, it can get expensive. An alternative is
to make sure you pond is deep enough so that it doesn't turn into fish soup
in the afternoon. Another idea is to provide some shade (NOT trees) to keep
the temp down. Lots of plants will do it, or a pergola or other cover.

Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
================================================== ==============

On Sep 18, 4:15 pm, "MLF" wrote:
"k" wrote

The West in the USA is all about water rights. We won't
even talk about energy useage and the proposal to tear
down the dams.
It is a topic that goes on and on and on and on....

Yes, you are correct. However, everyone should keep in mind that the amount
of water now extracted from the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains is
equal to the amount in the rivers. The Colorado River, for instance, used to
flow to the north end of the Bay of California in Mexico. It no longer does,
but rather just dries up in the desert far from its former mouth.

But they say they can knick more out of it!

http://origin.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_6919633

Making more water
Ed Quillen, Denver Post columnist
Article Launched: 09/18/2007 01:00:00 AM MDT

The U.S. Department of the Interior has discovered a way to produce
more water from the overworked Colorado River.
(I learned of this not from my own dogged journalistic investigations,
but from Phil Doe of Littleton, who chairs a group of troublemakers
known as the Citizens Progressive Alliance.)
At issue last summer was a pipeline from the San Juan River to serve
Gallup, N.M., and portions of the Navajo nation. Before it can be
built, the Interior Department has to issue a "Hydrologic
Determination" that there will likely be enough water available to
make the project worth building. After all, there's no point in
constructing 267 miles of pipeline if there's no water to put into the
pipes.
On June 8, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne sent a letter to New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. "The finding in the Determination is that
there is likely to be sufficient water to support the proposed
contract," Kempthorne wrote, which "removes any Department of Interior
concern about potential limitations of water supply."
The San Juan River is a major tributary of the Colorado River, which
is governed by the Colorado River Compact. The compact was drawn up in
1922, and it was based on the best data available then, which
indicated an average annual flow in the Colorado of about 17 million
acre-feet.
The problem is that those statistics were compiled during years that,
in the grand sweep of things, were unusually wet. More recent studies
put the average closer to 13.5 million acre-feet per year.
So we have a river that was allocated on the basis of 17 million
annual acre-feet, but rarely carries that much water. In our state's
water jargon, the river is "over-appropriated," meaning there are more
legitimate claims on the river than it has water to supply.
And that was before this pipeline was approved by Interior. So how did
Interior determine "that there is likely to be sufficient water"?
Take two logical statements, combine them into illogic, and you can
make water - at least if you're the Interior Department.
Logical Statement 1: The lower the evaporation from the surface of
reservoirs in the Colorado River basin, the more liquid water in the
system. No argument there.
Logical Statement 2: The lower the levels of the reservoirs in the
Colorado River basin, the less surface area there is to suffer from
evaporation.
So, the reservoirs are smaller and thus they lose less water, and
therefore, there is more water available. Believe it or not, that's
how our Interior Department determined that there was water available
for this New Mexico pipeline.
No one seems to have asked, "Why are the reservoirs smaller?" The
answer to that question would be something like, "Years of drought,"
and that would imply that there isn't enough water to go around with
current uses, let alone adding another diversion from the river.
Consider Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam near Las Vegas. That's hot, dry
country, and so the reservoir drops 6.4 feet a year on account of
evaporation, which works out to 791,000 acre-feet a year - enough
water for more than 3 million people.
Move up the Colorado River to Powell Reservoir (also in a hot desert),
and there's an estimated 884,000 acre-feet a year lost to evaporation
and seepage into the surrounding sandstone. Let's figure only half the
loss is evaporation, and that's 442,000 acre-feet - enough for at
least 1.7 million people.
In other words, the combined evaporative loss from just these two
reservoirs is enough water for all 4.7 million of us Coloradans. So if
we were to remove the dams, the reservoirs would shrink away and
evaporation losses would diminish. Thus there's more water for
everybody in our arid West. So if it works this way, as Interior now
argues, why did it build dams in the first place?



In essense
we are taking all of the water out of the river and have turned it into a
long skinny lake. Most of that water goes to California to maintain
otherwise unliveable cities like Los Angeles and Palm Springs and Las Vegas
that are built in desert climates.

I guess my point is that the issue of water is very important. And whether
you get it from a river, ground water, or an aquifer, make sure you use it
wisely.

Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
================================================== ==============

why did it build dams in the first place?

On our rivers they were built for generation of
electricity (a lot of which we send to California).
They are being threatened with being torn down
for fish migration. Salmon.
Mine DH works for a nuclear power plant...
(easier on the fish except for that glow in the
dark thing - does make them easier to find
in the back of the fridge).

k :-)

"MLF" wrote in message
...

"Reel McKoi" wrote
How about a bunch of tropical water lilies to shade the pond? We use the
hardy ones here and they do a great job of shading sunny ponds.


That will certainly work. However, it can get expensive. An alternative is
to make sure you pond is deep enough so that it doesn't turn into fish
soup in the afternoon. Another idea is to provide some shade (NOT trees)
to keep the temp down. Lots of plants will do it, or a pergola or other
cover.

Michael
New Orleans, Louisiana USA
================================================== ==============
I started with a few hardly water lilies and now I have to compost what I
can't give away. But the hardys are cheap at Wal*Mart - $4.88 for the last
ones I bought. In the spring each can be divided into several plants. But
one healthy well fed lily can cover a huge area.
--

RM....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
Zone 6. Middle TN USA
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:39:25 CST, k wrote:

No, general irrigation.

Hmmmm. Random thoughts.
There are sooo many issues involved with
irrigation in our area. Goes way beyond keeping a few
plants alive. Our area of 100,000 people is in an area
of 7.5 inches of rainfall a year. We need irrigation.
People are making changes in landscaping, with the
current low water landscaping trend, but there
are some things that we need. Imagine 650 elementary
kids turned out for recess on dry, sandy sagebrush.
I don't think my asthmatic children would have survived.

I know Kathy, let's all move to where Derek lives! ;-) ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:23:08 CST, Derek Broughton
wrote:

established). Except, of course, for the ponds... We all make concessions
to our principles :-)

Yes, we do. And people shouldn't jump to conclusions or assumptions over a
simple curiosity question. Nor climb upon a high horse else they fall off.

I personally, would water a tree next to my house in a drought area unless
there were restrictions against it. ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:22:17 CST, chatnoir
wrote:

It is not remote or confusing! You imply since you have 3 rivers near
you, you are not depleting the aquifer! In fact that was always the
attitude in Colorado! If they drill near the river, they get all the
water they want!

Looks like someone is jumping to a big Assumption. I don't know what they
do/did in Colorado, but in Washington, cities have what are called
designated water rights that are closely watched. My city pulls straight
from the Columbia.

In fact, they are draining the river illegally and
violating numerous river compacts! People living near rivers in
Colorado often drop pimps in the river and use it to irrigate even
though all the water in the river isallocated and they don't have any
nallovation! So, I think saying you kive near so and so rivers makes
it very relevant!

I strongly disagree, not on this thread, where no one suggested, but
yourself, that someone do anything illegal. Are you implying I am? After I
said every drop of my water used is metered? That's really stretching it,
imo. ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:19:49 CST, k wrote:

why did it build dams in the first place?

On our rivers they were built for generation of
electricity (a lot of which we send to California).

k :-)

The Columbia Basin Project, starting with the Grand Coulee Dam, served 3
purposes, electricity, irrigation and major flood control. Plus put 1000s
of unemployed people to work after the great depression.
http://users.owt.com/chubbard/gcdam/html/history.html
~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:19:49 CST, k wrote:

why did it build dams in the first place?

I wish to clarify, kathy & I do not live in Colorado, we live in Washington
State, where the Columbia, Yakima & Snake Rivers meet. I personally have no
personal knowledge, nor do my comments refer to the Colorado river and its
situation.

I do use water "wisely" when you pay for every drop, you tend to do that.
But I'm more likely to use water miser appliances and toilets, take shorter
showers, wash the car at a recycling car wash, than let my landscape die. I
also use a lot of drip irrigation.... but that's me. Oh, and I drive a
Prius when not riding my high horse. lol! ~ jan
------------
Zone 7a, SE Washington State
Ponds: www.jjspond.us

~ jan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:39:25 CST, k wrote:

No, general irrigation.

Hmmmm. Random thoughts.
There are sooo many issues involved with
irrigation in our area. Goes way beyond keeping a few
plants alive. Our area of 100,000 people is in an area
of 7.5 inches of rainfall a year. We need irrigation.
People are making changes in landscaping, with the
current low water landscaping trend, but there
are some things that we need. Imagine 650 elementary
kids turned out for recess on dry, sandy sagebrush.
I don't think my asthmatic children would have survived.

I know Kathy, let's all move to where Derek lives! ;-) ~ jan

I'd happily just send you some of the rain...
--
derek

~ jan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:23:08 CST, Derek Broughton
wrote:

established). Except, of course, for the ponds... We all make
concessions to our principles :-)

Yes, we do. And people shouldn't jump to conclusions or assumptions over a
simple curiosity question.

Huh? You asked if water rates were really high, and I made a political
statement that I feel they should be higher. afaik, having helped write
the charter, politics isn't excluded.

Nor climb upon a high horse else they fall off.

Talk about holier than thou.

I personally, would water a tree next to my house in a drought area unless
there were restrictions against it. ~ jan

And I personally wouldn't have planted a japanese maple. I _don't_ know how
suitable a japanese maple would have been in the region that triggered my
response, but it sure isn't a native plant.
--
derek

chatnoir wrote:
It is not remote or confusing! You imply since you have 3 rivers near
you, you are not depleting the aquifer! In fact that was always the
attitude in Colorado! If they drill near the river, they get all the
water they want! In fact, they are draining the river illegally and
violating numerous river compacts! People living near rivers in
Colorado often drop pimps in the river and use it to irrigate even
though all the water in the river isallocated and they don't have any
nallovation! So, I think saying you kive near so and so rivers makes
it very relevant!

Being shrill does your cause no good. Every sentence you wrote ended
with an exclamation point (!). That tends to make you sound like a
lunatic, where people won't take you seriously.


Conserving water is a concern in some areas (CO is probably one of
them), but it isn't everywhere. Where I live, we get ~40" of rain per
year - what we don't use ends up in the Gulf of Mexico. I plan on
putting in a water well w/ a 55gpm pump.

Fwiw, I believe cities need to begin investing in their own desalination
plants and piping in their fresh water from the oceans. The days of
entire cities pulling water from rivers needs to come to a screeching
end. But that's a thread for another newsgroup...

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."