U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 14, 2009 05:30 PM UTC
10 Comments
This may seem like a great idea and a way that Coffman is pandering to the conservation/environmental community BUT, I could easily see this becoming some sort of offset that developers and water managers use to claim they have instituted water conservation measures before seeking new water sources. The bottom line: conservation is a good idea but severely curtailing unnecessary development south of Denver is an even better one.
Stats from 2000:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004…
Total water use in CO: 12.6 billion gallons
Water used for irrigation: 11.4 billion gallons (90.5%)
Add to that the 30% of residential use for irrigation (love that Kentucky bluegrass!)
Maybe we should be giving tax credits to farmers that conserve instead of homeowners.
Or maybe (more radically) we should stop subsidizing ethanol.
Or maybe (most radically) we should raise cows where it rains enough for grass to grow without irrigation (most irrigation water goes to alfalfa and pastures).
While Coffman’s proposal is nice, it won’t do squat to increase available water.
That would be like asking Californians to live where there’s enough water to supply them. Stupid idea, really… </snark>
Something like 85% of the water in CA goes to ag, most of the to cows.
I don’t have anything against ag, we’ve all got to eat after all, but a 10% savings in water on the farm nearly doubles the amount of water available for urban users. It’s kind of hard to argue against that sort of math (though people do all the time).
Mike Coffman has now, officially, done something in Congress. It only took him 4 months, but he finally got around to it.
Any news on the Independent Ethics Commission investigation?
In 2030, apparently,
as I recall, just a couple of years ago, one acre-foot could serve the needs of a family of four for a year.
So, are we assuming that the demand per person will be cut in half in the next 20 years ?
That sounds ambitious.
.
RSB complains that he didn’t also cure heart disease.
He literally didn’t do anything. For months.
When Rep. Coffman cures cancer–or does the legislative equivalent–I’ll give him the accolades he deserves. So far he’s giving Wayne Allard a run for his money for the title of most useless Colorado legislator in recent memory.