# The Colorado River is shrinking. Hard choices lie ahead, this scientist warns



## MNichols

This is a long read, but really hits the nail on the head.. 









The Colorado River is shrinking. Hard choices lie ahead, this scientist warns


River researcher Jack Schmidt brings an independent voice to high stakes battle over water




www.sciencemag.org


----------



## MNichols

Not unrelated, from the Bureau of Wreck the Nation





Newsroom | Bureau of Reclamation


Bureau of Reclamation




www.usbr.gov


----------



## okieboater

In my opinion, there are many reasons the Colorado River is not servicing the current demands for it's water.

Probably the main ones are growth of farms, cities and population along the river's path. These and more reasons demand more water than is available.

Back when the dams were built, my guess is plenty of water for that time.

Now, the demand is far greater than ever thought.

Droughts come and go. Recent growth tho is growing faster than river flow allows.

We are currently in a drought situation. Current water demand plus the cyclical drought puts the population in a bad place. 

My guess is changing the weather patterns is going to be difficult. Changing demand is also going to be difficult buy may well be the only solution at this time that works.


----------



## Willie 1.5

" This proposal, called Fill Mead First, could be a first step toward dismantling Glen Canyon Dam and restoring the canyon behind it. (Schmidt’s team concluded the approach wouldn’t save much water and would likely greatly perturb the downstream ecosystem.)"

What am I missing here? The problems with sandbars and ecosystems are related to the dam and the reason for the high flow experiments. But removing the dam would " greatly perturb the downstream ecosystem". 1+1 does not equal 2?


----------



## MNichols

In this case, apparently not? A person would just think losing the surface evaporation from Powell reservoir would save a lot of water, the evapotranspiration rate must be enormous, but then again I'm just a layman


----------



## SpudCat

There wasn't enough water to meet the original water allocations from the Colorado River. This is a f### up that's been known for a long time. Since then the West has grown exponentially. Plus people are short-sighted and greedy. When I lived in Phoenix there were plenty of new neighborhoods with minimum requirements for grass and trees. There are countless acres of pointless grass surrounding corporate buildings. It's a no-brainer. Big trouble lies ahead.

I would not be surprised in my lifetime to see some sort of mass exodus from the Las Vegas or Phoenix area. And it won't be pretty. Home values will crash, people will literally slash & burn on their way out of town, and then scatter to other parts of the West. Say it with me: climate change refugees. This will strain other states and communities in unexpected and difficult ways.

The future is desert.


----------



## SpudCat

MNichols said:


> In this case, apparently not? A person would just think losing the surface evaporation from Powell reservoir would save a lot of water, the evapotranspiration rate must be enormous, but then again I'm just a layman


Yeah, there are a lot of studies on this. Lake Powell loses 800,000+ acre feet of water annually due to seepage and evaporation. Putting all the water in Lake Mead would make a lot more sense from that standpoint. Less surface area, greater depth. Plus Glen Canyon would slowly return to a semblance of its former glory.

LA is another interesting example. There's only enough water locally available to support a population of appx. 50,000 people. The rest is piped in from hundreds of miles away.


----------



## Pinchecharlie

Any articles you guys can link about the history of the dams and why and what not. I have an American education from the 70's so of course it's all a "marvel " or "incredible achievement ". Never really knew the truth??? Tell us more about the movement and its ideology to take down the dams for more water??? Just never lived anywhere near there so don't know what you guys see.


----------



## SpudCat

Pinchecharlie said:


> Any articles you guys can link about the history of the dams and why and what not. I have an American education from the 70's so of course it's all a "marvel " or "incredible achievement ". Never really knew the truth??? Tell us more about the movement and its ideology to take down the dams for more water??? Just never lived anywhere near there so don't know what you guys see.


A couple reads on the topic that may be of interest.









The West’s Great River Hits Its Limits: Will the Colorado Run Dry?


As the Southwest faces rapid growth and unrelenting drought, the Colorado River is in crisis, with too many demands on its diminishing flow. Now those who depend on the river must confront the hard reality that their supply of Colorado water may be cut off. First in a series.




e360.yale.edu












Down with the Glen Canyon Dam?


Activists claim that decommissioning the dam will save water and restore a wild canyon. Are they right?




www.hcn.org




FAQ – Glen Canyon Institute (obvi biased toward restoring Glen Canyon)

As far as books go, I really enjoyed this read:








Dead Pool: Lake Powell, Global Warming, and the Future of Water in the West: Powell, James Lawrence: 9780520268029: Amazon.com: Books


Dead Pool: Lake Powell, Global Warming, and the Future of Water in the West [Powell, James Lawrence] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Dead Pool: Lake Powell, Global Warming, and the Future of Water in the West



www.amazon.com


----------



## okieboater

below is a good read concerning not only USA rivers but many world wide
A very interesting read and scary as can be to me when the rivers run dry 
and 
many rivers already run dry IE The Colorado ends in sand bars and weeds almost but not entirely dry









When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century: Pearce, Fred: 0046442085731: Amazon.com: Books


When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century [Pearce, Fred] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century



www.amazon.com


----------



## jerseyjeff

Hoo boy. I am an environmental science teacher as a day job, and last year I had an oh, we are hosed moment, when I stopped to consider all the silt that is flowing into the dams. I think there is a terrifying amount of silt at the bottom of both lakes, and that silt is being counted as part of the percent full of the lakes. If they are just measuring height above sea level, the situation is far worse, and that scares the bejeebers out of me. There is a cool project documenting rapids springing back from the silted in areas, 






Returning Rapids of Cataract Canyon
 






www.returningrapids.com





but that also is showing how much silt is in the system. It is going to be a really heartbreaking summer, followed by another heartbreaking summer, and that is going to be a bummer.


----------



## theusualsuspect

Engineers are well aware of how much silt is behind the dams and the size of the alluvial fan. My friend is a hydro engineer. It’s dialed. Removing Powell is a major undertaking ($1T?) and will not happen anytime soon. It just got its operating license extended. Little over 200 feet to dead pool last time I looked. Removing Powell would only create more dams upstream or expanding existing ones. A lot of problems with the current system and doesn’t seem like any real change will happen without a crisis. We’re there, so we will see what happens.


----------



## ColoradoDave

The idea of fill Lake Mead first is born from people who get water or more likely make money from water being in Lake Mead.

Letting water go down to a lower reservoir would increase evaporation enormously due to the higher heat at lower elevations. Silt allowed to flow down to lower reservoirs would decrease their depth and increase the surface area for the same amount of water. Increasing evaporation even more.

Arizona has already responded to the < 1070' breach, and subsequent mandatory restrictions. They will not cut water to cities or slated growth in them. Instead they will cut back farmers and ranchers.

This means that the nation will feel the effects through higher food prices rather than themselves feeling the effects through having to curtail growth to keep their house of cards propped up. Intuitively this seems like making the problem worse, not better. It's 116 Deg. in Phoenix today and there's not only water problems, but electricity supply problems there too. In the words of Sam Kinnison ' You live in a fu'ing desert. There's no water or food there. There's never going to be water or food there. We can all chip in and move you away from there. We'll bring our trailers. '

Water wars, like any war, can only be won if they are avoided. It is a political matter, not an environmental one. The environment does not care.


----------



## jerseyjeff

theusualsuspect said:


> Engineers are well aware of how much silt is behind the dams and the size of the alluvial fan. My friend is a hydro engineer. It’s dialed. Removing Powell is a major undertaking ($1T?) and will not happen anytime soon. It just got its operating license extended. Little over 200 feet to dead pool last time I looked. Removing Powell would only create more dams upstream or expanding existing ones. A lot of problems with the current system and doesn’t seem like any real change will happen without a crisis. We’re there, so we will see what happens.


I agree that there are no easy solutions, I just get a knot in my stomach each time I see someone pointing at the bathtub ring and saying how bad it is, I want to scream but it is worse. I am glad to know that folks are thinking about the silt, and not ignoring it, so that is a a bit of a good thing.


----------



## B4otter

Go back and read Stegner's bio of Powell, "Beyond the Hundredth Meridian." Century and change later and folks still don't recognize the fundamental difference between East and West - plenty of rainfall in the former to grow crops and sustain a family on 160 acres, impossible in the West w/one-third to one-quarter the rainfall...

As for lawns and cities and conservation, biggest water use in Arizona is to grow cotton and alfalfa, both exported(these days, mostly to China). Utah not much different. Nevada is the driest state in the Union (while we still have one...) but ag and mining still significant water users, altho' not on the scale of Arizona and Utah. Both of which pale when it comes to California...

Consumption and users are one thing, drought another. The Compact was negotiated with bad data, supply over-estimated by about 20% based on recorded inflows for previous 4 decades, which were unusually wet... So too much water was allocated, and now too many users are competing for a piece of a smaller pie.

Jack Schmidt is a treasure. Believe he's still at USU, where he "retired" after long career as water guru for among others, BuRec. Find and read his interview in back issue of BQR (Boatman's Quarterly Review, from Grand Canyon River Guides - it wasn't too long ago, maybe 2019? - issues available online). Ran into a student of his a few years back who asked me how my last Grand trip went. I said "Lotsa' rules. Not much water..."


----------



## MNichols

ColoradoDave said:


> You live in a fu'ing desert. There's no water or food there. There's never going to be water or food there. We can all chip in and move you away from there. We'll bring our trailers. '


That's the mindset that the desert dwellers should have had 50 years or more ago. What really chaps my butt is the plethora of golfin pastures and Kentucky bluegrass lawns they plant around their swimming pools. Then they strip the farmers and ranchers to maintain the golfin pastures.. Hardly an equitable scenario in my minds eye

More bad news this morning








La Niña watch issued for upcoming fall and winter


This summer was supposed to be hotter than normal with less than normal precipitation across Colorado, setting up for a La Niña watch for the fall and winter.




www.denverpost.com





Here's another excellent article on Powell








Lake Powell could become a ‘dead pool’ as climate change, political wars and unabated growth drain its waters


<b>Bullfrog Marina</b> • Ever since the Colorado River began filling Utah’s Glen Canyon and its countless side canyons in 1963, conservationists have been calling for emptying the lake that now supports a recreation economy and power generation.




www.sltrib.com





The pressures on the river raise the possibility that Lake Powell or Lake Mead — or both — could cease functioning as designed. Water levels could become too low to produce power, to go boating, to store water, and, in Powell’s case, to meet downstream delivery demands.
“It is fair to say that the politics of water in the Southwest are more concerned about the future of Lake Mead than Powell. You can connect the dots to say the future of Lake Powell is questionable,” says Doug Kenney, a Western water law scholar at the University of Colorado.

This brings a bittersweet thought to my mind. Should Glen Canyon Dam cease to function, that would impact river running thru GC immensely were the river dependent on native flows. Sure, if the dam were dismantled the beaches and such would eventually return, and the ecosystem would repair itself over time, but as was pointed out, it's unlikely they would spend the money to do that, and instead just pass what water it could pass, leaving the sediment that's crucial to the ecosystem behind the dam. More importantly, to me anyway being a selfish river rat, is the thought of all the shoulder season launches being scrapped due to 1500 cfs flows, the lowest I ran GC was in 2000 when they had the steady 7000 cfs flows, that made some things a royal bitch, and at that time we didn't have Dwaine Whitis's river maps, we only had Stephens guides, with some of the riffles being larger than the named rapids it was pretty hard to figure out where you were. Still had a good time, but I'd sure miss the 18K CFS days.. Couldn't imagine the competition for permits..

Reports from a trip this year when it went down to 4000 cfs weren't encouraging. I did order Dead Pool by Powell, thanks Spudcat. 

At the end of the day, it's hard to speculate what BuRec will do, but at the end of the day, it's going to impact us, both as river runners and human inhabitants of the planet.


----------



## B4otter

Dead Pool isn't going to make you optimistic...

When it comes to water, California is the elephant in the room. That was true during the negotiation of the Compact back in the late teens/1920's, more true in the recent negotiations about what to do with current drought, and will be even more consequential in re-negotiation of the Compact (ongoing). Just a fact...


----------



## MNichols

B4otter said:


> Dead Pool isn't going to make you optimistic...
> 
> When it comes to water, California is the elephant in the room. That was true during the negotiation of the Compact back in the late teens/1920's, more true in the recent negotiations about what to do with current drought, and will be even more consequential in re-negotiation of the Compact (ongoing). Just a fact...


True that, but AZ in MY minds eye is simply wasteful with the ways they use water, CA on the other hand is more geared to human consumption and farming then golfin pastures and such. CA is way more densely inhabited. Either way, there are going to be some dry folks in those states in the coming years.


----------



## Big George Waters

This is one of the most fascinating and also important threads that I have ever read in quite some time now, because it is bringing to light a very serious problem regarding water, and lets face it: without water life ceases as we know it.

I'm out in Connecticut, and I look at the NOAA U.S. weather maps with all the warnings, etc... and all I see is how the west is literally drying out and burning up, while out here - it's raining almost every day - which is unusual for us, to the point where between the rain and the heat/humidity - everything is getting super moldy outside.

Nobody can tell me that our climate is not changing, because it is - and not just here in the states, but worldwide.

I had a friend named Glen Dickinson, out of Tucson, Arizona [he is deceased now, which is a whole 'nother story!!] and he was telling me 10 years ago how rafting is pretty much non-existent because of the lack of any real waterflows, and I want to say he mentioned that - already back then - it's been like that for quite some time.

He was crazy, but at the same time he lived for the mountains and the water, being outdoors was in his blood.

I seem to think that Lee [at The Boat People] also during one of our many long telephone calls was already telling me years back how in California, it will be dry for an extended amount of time, then it's like all the rain for the month comes down in one storm. Maybe that was not his exact words, but he was also talking about how dry its become.

Lee had a bunch of old rafting VHS tapes, I seem to think I bought out almost his entire inventory - and one of those old VHS tapes was discussing exactly what is being discussed on this thread, I'm going to have to go look for it now and then view it [good thing I got a lot of down time due to a hamstring injury from mountain biking !!]

Sorry for going a bit off topic - but what is being discussed here in this thread to me is very alarming, and of great concern.

Big George + Loki the Dog


----------



## MNichols

Glad you're enjoying it. Also glad that it's not been hijacked to serve someone's political wishes. 

IIRC, it was about 10 years ago when the Salt and the Gila started being sketchy to run due to decreasing flows. The Dolores has been almost non runnable in that time, but that's due to the Indians not letting any water out of McPhee reserviour, but I bet it's gonna get worse. They do releases when the dam is threatened though, which can make for some fun runs. 

Here in CO it's been a weird year, we didn't get much for snow-pack, the entire state was close to average, but not in the drainage's that serve the rivers, cause it was so dry last year, the folks in the know say we lost at least 50% of available runoff to infiltration. It has been raining almost every afternoon, not a lot of precip, but enough to keep the grasses green and lessen the chance of wildfire.


----------



## Pinchecharlie

So basically if the river was as it was before humans. There would be no California, no Arizona? Who else uses it? You guys can be my "cliff notes" lol. Never thought I'd see the day....but remember my dad throwing garbage out the window on the Highway too....not the best stewards of this planet are we.


----------



## theusualsuspect

It’s very simple. Running cattle and growing crops in the desert is the largest user and it isn’t even close. Cutting back on showers or golf courses wouldn’t make a dent. Well documented. USGS says 85% of water used to irrigate crops.
Choice is upending generational ranching and Ag or perseverate about it. Strawberries in February and unlimited supplies of ground beef has a cost. There are plenty of documentaries and articles about water use. Don’t change your lawn, change your diet. 





__





Colorado River Basin Focus Area Study: Water Use | U.S. Geological Survey


Water-use data were compiled as annual total withdrawals by source and aggregated to 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code watersheds from 1985 to 2010 in five year intervals. The new compilation allows for an evaluation of water-use trends in the Colorado River Basin and the effect of use on the water...




www.usgs.gov


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

Read an interesting book, Where the Water Goes and if I remember right it said that Powell can generate electricity at a much lower pool than Mead, so during a prolonged drought they will empty Powell a lot more to keep Mead generating power.

Another great book, The Emerald Mile talked about how Martin Litton fought the damn at Dinosaur and they agreed to not fight the Glenn Canyon Dam if they axed Dinosaur. He later explored Glenn Canyon and realized he and the Sierra Club made a monumental mistake as Glenn Canyon was so amazing.

I'm all for them leaving GCD there, but draining the lake, blasting out the side channel plugs and building a damn at Dinosaur. The silt collects where the Colorado meets Lake Powell and it cleans out at a pretty fast rate once the lake recedes. So much that was under water is recovering much faster than expected. There's a lot of trash, but it can be cleaned up.

This drought sucks, but two positives are that a lake like Powell shows people how dire the problem is and right now there is so much that was under water that we can now explore.

I highly recommend both those books I listed.


----------



## Willie 1.5

David bower not Litton.

Build a dam in dino? Have you floated lodore or yampa?


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

In the book it said Litton was the one that explored Glen Canyon after their handshake agreement. I last read Emerald Mile about two weeks ago, but maybe I don't remember correctly.

I have not floated those upper areas, but has anyone here floated the Glen Canyon section before it was submerged? I've seen pictures of both areas and I find Glen Canyon to be one of my favorite areas to explore in the world and that's just what we can explore right now. There's so much to see and do there since there are so many side canyons, most of which are still underwater.


----------



## Willie 1.5

Odd you share anecdote about Bower's regrets about trading glen for dino before seeing it, then offer dino without seeing it....


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

So you have floated or hiked through Glen Canyon before it was submerged and this is how your opinion is more valid?


----------



## Willie 1.5

I have not gotten to explore glen, I have floated lodore and yampa, two rivers unique unto themselves not to mention rainbow park and the mItton park fault. Never claimed my view is more valid, just pointing out a contradiction in your post


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

But then it is also a contradiction in yours. Neither of us have explored both.

I'm just sharing my opinion. I'm certain the dam will remain were it is, perennially near empty for the rest my lifetime.


----------



## Willie 1.5

Please explain my contradiction I don't see it. I never advocated removal of glen...


----------



## AbnMike

theusualsuspect said:


> Strawberries in February and unlimited supplies of ground beef has a cost. There are plenty of documentaries and articles about water use. Don’t change your lawn, change your diet.


Pretty much this. The climate changes and always will. Humans tend to look at the immediate and not long term. If it didn’t change my backyard in CO would still be covered in ice and the Sahara would be a rainforest.

We are likely exacerbating change but change it will and always has otherwise I’d be snowshoeing instead of it being 103 degrees.

But to manage through the change we definitely need to change how we utilize resources and food is the main one. I never understood wanting a tomato in January - even if it was grown below the equator it still had to make a trip here and sacrifice taste for shipability.

We try to limit meat to 1-2 times a week and buy locally raised and processed. We eat food in season, not oranges in June and tomatoes in December.

If everyone did this we’d manage longer but in the end population explosions over the next decades will surely do our species in as will resource wars in poorer countries and China building ten coal plants a day or whatever it is.

Good discussion but as a collective we are too short sighted and immediate thinking to make real change - as the discussion above about how wet it was when the dams were built here. We don’t fathom they might not be wet in the future, or, even, they the drought may end in ten years.


----------



## MNichols

I raise my own beef and chicken, supplement that diet with wild caught fish and seafood, don't much care for tomatoes in January, but as it's 104 here today at 8,000 ft in Colorado, I think something's up... Lived here for 17 years before I bought a swamp cooler and have been using it religiously for the past four. It's getting warmer, the seasons are getting later and later, and the precipitation is half of what it was 10 years ago. Something's causing this...

As an aside, I don't have a problem with water being used to irrigate crops which equals food for me. It also equals an income for the farmers. Agriculture is a huge boon to the US, but what I do have a problem with is your average golf course sprinkler head emits between 3 and 5 gallons per minute of water. They run for at least 30 minutes a day. An average golf course has 1800 to 2,000 of them. At 5 gallons per minute * 18 that's 10,000 gallons of water a day. Everyday. And in places like Arizona they even irrigate in the winter time, cuz it cools down to 70 lol. I find this wasteful. I don't care about the morons that go out there and whack their little egg with a crooked stick and then drive a little truck after it, and then whack it again. Not my thing, and certainly not my thing to pay for this, much more than a day's worth of skiing lol but I do have a problem with them keeping these golfing pastures alive when we're in a water crisis. I won't go into swimming pools, and Kentucky bluegrass lawns, but when I drive through big cities and see them watering in the middle of a rainstorm, or watering so heavily that water is running down the gutters, I feel absolutely zero compassion for them...


----------



## AbnMike

MNichols said:


> ... It's getting warmer, the seasons are getting later and later, and the precipitation is half of what it was 10 years ago.


Definitely agree on golf courses. We bought a house with too much grass and I’ve been converting spaces to trees and shrubs to consume less water and our trees and garden are on drip. I water the grass the minimum to keep it alive and at 2 am.

On the less rainfall thing I just read in the paper during dinner that tree ring science shows precipitation the last 100 years is far more on the western slope than it was 5000-6000 years ago so rather than changing into something new the climate could be changing to something it was before - at least the western slope micro climate.

Who knows. Again I think we tend to think in observational periods of our lifetimes and not in eons - the earth operates on an eon scale.

At any rate I’m still trying to be the best steward I can be from paying attention to food and not being an over consumer of anything. 

Which is why I always buy used rafts too!


----------



## jamesthomas

We could have ten wet years starting this week. I have lived in SW Colorado since 1999. Yes it seems dryer and hotter but 20 + - years ain’t shit in geologic terms. Are we making more demands on our resources and being overall dumb-asses, you becha. Sometimes I think Mr Smith was right.


----------



## DidNotWinLottery

I think what is truly scary is we have a better understanding of climate now, and multi hundred year droughts have occurred in the SW in the past. And that was certainly never considered in water allocation.


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

There's never been such a rapid climb in the Earth's temperature since tens of millions of years ago. This is definitely not just a normal cycle and it is no longer a question if humans caused it.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

One wonders...rather then piping water out of the Colorado watershed over the continental divide...why one wouldn't bring water from a large river from the east. Sure, it'll be a huge project making a tunnel/pipe line like that... but surely a river like the Mississippi or Misouri river could spare 10-20k cfs and barely feel it. Obviously its gotta go uphill and that'll raise energy costs...but at some point, not incredibly far into the future, water on the Western side of the divide will be insufficient for the needs of the people living there. Heck...even pumping water over the divide from the east isn't a completely crazy idea. Power it with wind turbines or solar and its kind of a no brainer.


----------



## Pinchecharlie

I saw a deal on PBS about Israel's success with desalination??? Dunno a single thing about any of it but maybe California could supply its own water and that's a huge burden lifted? Of course it will cost one hundred gazillion so....th we res that. We couldn't possibly use our money for something like that. Iam sure someone will tell me how bad that is for the ocean right? 








PBS NewsHour | How Israel became a leader in water use in the Middle East | Season 2015 | RMPBS


Israel's new water technology could yield political gain in the arid Middle East.




video.rmpbs.org


----------



## AbnMike

ScarecrowPlayboy said:


> There's never been such a rapid climb in the Earth's temperature since tens of millions of years ago. This is definitely not just a normal cycle …


Literally not true. The last glacial retreat was only 22,000 years ago and occurred due to rapid warming, which is why we don’t have glaciers in Utah and CO anymore and they’re still retreating in Montana.


The quaternary glaciation period is still considered to be ongoing and it started almost 3 million years ago.

“ During this last glacial period there were alternating episodes of glacier advance and retreat. Within the last glacial period the Last Glacial Maximum (when the US was a sheet of ice) was approximately 22,000 years ago. While the general pattern of global cooling and glacier advance was similar, local differences in the development of glacier advance and retreat make it difficult to compare the details from continent to continent (see picture of ice core data below for differences). Approximately 12,800 years ago, the Younger Dryas, the most recent glacial epoch, began, a coda to the preceding 100,000 year glacial period. Its end about 11,550 years ago marked the beginning of the Holocene, the current geological epoch.”

Humans don’t have a good concept of time. And we are arrogant and think we are the be-all. In geologic time we are a blip. Our existence doesn’t even occur but for a fraction of the latest ice age which is a multi hundred thousand year period of warming and cooling and sheeting and retreating. And just one in a series of ice ages.

It’s like when Kathleen Parker wrote in the Washington post a couple weeks ago about the west’s wild horses and how humans and horses have coexisted for millions of years. Strange since we have only not been monkeys for 200,000 years….

Like I said above our activity is likely exacerbating ongoing …stuff… but when you consider geologic ages last for periods of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, 150-200 years of human activity weighed against millions of years of periods of change is likely small potatoes, esp if we step back to the big picture. Cavemen didn’t cause the US to not be ice and that was barely a blink of an eye ago in earth terms. We didn’t exist when the Sahara was a rainforest (which is why there’s so much oil under that area) and that, too, was a quick nap ago in earth terms.

We are far more likely to starve and dehydrate ourselves out of existence than anything else.








Last Glacial Period - Wikipedia







en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## ColoradoDave

Not sure if the swings will get wilder or that the general amounts will get lower. No sure anyone knows. Next year could be wicked flooding.

As an IK'er I am just thankful for any rarer runs I get in now. Dolores below McPhee in 2016, Little Grand Canyon San Rafael 2019, also Muddy Creek in Utah 2019. who knows how long before they will run again. I don't think any one of them went over 20 CFS this year.

Another strange human phenomena is the number of people migrating to the west from areas that are swarming with water, Like the Upper Midwest. That's some messed up politics, for sure. Really no excuse except people in charge not really caring.


----------



## AbnMike

I hear you Dave. I’m actually considering a move to where water is a given, of course there are trade offs like harsher winters but I also don’t want to be stuck owing more than my place is worth because the water dries up.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

AbnMike said:


> I hear you Dave. I’m actually considering a move to where water is a given, of course there are trade offs like harsher winters but I also don’t want to be stuck owing more than my place is worth because the water dries up.


You don't necessarily need to go to a super cold climate to live in an area with a ton of water flowing in rivers. The Southeast has a ton of rivers to run and they get seasonal flooding most years. Same goes for the Pacific Northwest. The main tradeoff in the Southeast is humidity and the PNW the constant rain/clouds.


----------



## DannyClark

theusualsuspect said:


> It’s very simple. Running cattle and growing crops in the desert is the largest user and it isn’t even close. Cutting back on showers or golf courses wouldn’t make a dent. Well documented. USGS says 85% of water used to irrigate crops.
> Choice is upending generational ranching and Ag or perseverate about it. Strawberries in February and unlimited supplies of ground beef has a cost. There are plenty of documentaries and articles about water use. Don’t change your lawn, change your diet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colorado River Basin Focus Area Study: Water Use | U.S. Geological Survey
> 
> 
> Water-use data were compiled as annual total withdrawals by source and aggregated to 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code watersheds from 1985 to 2010 in five year intervals. The new compilation allows for an evaluation of water-use trends in the Colorado River Basin and the effect of use on the water...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.usgs.gov


I’m usually a lurker, but I’ve gotten sucked into this one lol. I’m probably going to regret it. Anyway, spot on point documented across dozens of different socio-economic interests. There’s an obvious cost to feeding billions of omnivores what they want when they want it. Or at least the economically fortunate ones. But there’s an even deeper root cause I rarely hear anyone discussing. Cough _population control_ cough. We breed like rabbits (or lemmings, your call). In the cold, in the heat, in the wet, in the dry, in times of plenty, in times of famine…we procreate. Most with what appears to be little more thought than “that’s what we’re supposed to do” lol. 

Global population 1776 estimated to be less than 1 billion. Current population estimated to be 7.9 billion. Billion. 
Population of the United States in 1776 was estimated to be 2.2 million (a contentious number considering the situation of Blacks and Native Americans and if/how they were counted in that number, admittedly). That’s it. Makes me scratch my head how people think a document crafted to govern 2.2 million people, interpreted literally, would be effective at governing 320 million today. But I digress. So, we’ve grown our population (US) roughly 145 times in 244 years. That’s a lot of mouths (and connected a-holes) But the real fun happens when you start hypothesizing the root cause of that…unbridled (excluding Chinese efforts) multiplication. We can argue about global warming/no global warming. Abortion/no abortion. Guns/no guns. Dams/no dams. Vaccines/no vaccines. Socialism/capitalism. On and on chasing our lost tails endlessly down pointless rabbit holes (lemming holes?). And all the while breeding indiscriminately. Consuming endlessly. Sounds almost viral don’t it? That’s one no one wants to tackle. Well, except these folks lol: VHEMT

You’re right theusualsuspect. It’s the simplest equation in nature. Resource Management. The root cause of religions, wars, governments, and likely most deception. 

Thank god they’ve legalized pot where I live. Wait. Does marijuana take a lot of water to grow??? Damnit. 

You may ban me now.


----------



## B4otter

AbnMike said:


> Strange since we have only not been monkeys for 200,000 years….


Speaking of "literally not true..." I'm no anthro, but Australopithecus appeared minimum of 1-2 million years ago. 

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." (Neil deGrasse Tyson)


----------



## MNichols

And for those not familiar with what he's talking about, _Australopithecus afarensis_ is one of the longest-lived and best-known early human species—paleoanthropologists have uncovered remains from more than 300 individuals! Found between 3.85 and 2.95 million years ago in Eastern Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania), this species survived for more than 900,000 years, which is over four times as long as our own species has been around. It is best known from the sites of Hadar, Ethiopia (‘Lucy’, AL 288-1 and the 'First Family', AL 333); Dikika, Ethiopia (Dikika ‘child’ skeleton); and Laetoli (fossils of this species plus the oldest documented bipedal footprint trails). 





__





Australopithecus afarensis







humanorigins.si.edu


----------



## Joedills

Pinchecharlie said:


> Any articles you guys can link about the history of the dams and why and what not. I have an American education from the 70's so of course it's all a "marvel " or "incredible achievement ". Never really knew the truth??? Tell us more about the movement and its ideology to take down the dams for more water??? Just never lived anywhere near there so don't know what you guys see.


Cadillac Desert is a must read









Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water, Revised Edition: Reisner, Marc: 9780140178241: Amazon.com: Books


Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water, Revised Edition [Reisner, Marc] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water, Revised Edition



www.amazon.com


----------



## AbnMike

B4otter said:


> Speaking of "literally not true..." I'm no anthro, but Australopithecus appeared minimum of 1-2 million years ago.
> 
> "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." (Neil deGrasse Tyson)


True but **** Sapiens have only existed about +/-200,000 years, and they (we) are the species that has been able to domesticate animals, use tools and develop. 

There's a reason australopithecus doesn't exist anymore and there's zero evidence earlier humanoids domesticated animals - the first known domesticated animal is a dog ancestor and it was only about 15,000 years ago, by **** sapiens, interestingly enough during the end of the last glacial maximum - the Younger Dryas - when global temps rose again, rapidly, and the ice sheets retreated - bringing us into the _current_ Holocene period, which has numerous fluctuations of much more than the 1-4 degrees celsius the media constantly harps on about.

Regardless of how you want to trace humanity through its many forms, my point about Kathleen Parker's statement stands - humans and horses haven't lived in domesticated unity for millions of years. Horses have only been domesticated for about 3500 years. Prior to that earlier versions of the horse were hunted for food.


----------



## yesimapirate

Probably not coincidental, but saw this article and diagram on the socialwebs today. Similar article linked earlier, but the diagram wasn't. I'm a visual person.





__





5-Year Probabilistic Projections







www.usbr.gov


----------



## MT4Runner

Pinchecharlie said:


> Any articles you guys can link about the history of the dams and why and what not. I have an American education from the 70's so of course it's all a "marvel " or "incredible achievement ". Never really knew the truth??? Tell us more about the movement and its ideology to take down the dams for more water??? Just never lived anywhere near there so don't know what you guys see.


Read 'Beyond the 100th Meridian' like B4otter suggested.
and Marc Reisner's Cadillac Desert.


----------



## MT4Runner

Ag vs golf:

If we can maintain a few more golf courses, that's entertainment for thousands of people we don't have to share the river with!!

And we do need to replant our shortgrass prairies. One thing that Reisner said in Cadillac Desert that has continued to resonate with me is that we've put in all those dams to raise irrigated alfalfa that takes labor and diesel to cut, bale, and feed to beef. But we could feed just as many beef (less filling, more nutritive) on the same acreage of shortgrass prairie.

And almond groves are a huge user of water. We don't need almonds that badly.

As a 5th generation Montanan aggie, I agree that agriculture is important, but I don't feel we're fully going about ag the right way.


----------



## gnarsify

Ah yes, cavemen and population control; the reason lake powell is drying up. Obviously, the solution is to build a time machine and teach cavemen to not fuck so much and use less water. It's much too difficult to figure things out now 

Lake powell will likely never be intentionally drained in our life times, too political too divisive, and water is becoming more valuable. The almighty dollar matters more than the environment, recreation or indigenous cultures. Also, as others have stated one or two big snow years (less common now than previously) will refill the reservoir, so it seems short sighted to remove the dam( n ) thing because of a handful of dry years. I do believe that there will be major shifts to the management of the river in the 3-5 years though in order to keep water in powell and mead.


----------



## Big George Waters

I'm going to throw this out there just as some food for thought, because now I'm seeing some of the comments stating that we can't base what's happening to our planet now over weather patterns over the past 100 years, and population control.... well, actually we can.

Last time I checked, we are closing in on eight billion people on our planet, and if memory serves me well, we only had one billion people on our planet around 1930 or so - so, if we round to round off numbers we could say an increase of almost seven billion humans in a span of say one hundred years, which to me is mind boggling... considering how long it got to be a billion in number.

In the 1970s NYC school system, they taught us in biology and science classes how[try not to laugh too hard] the dinosaurs became extinct because their numbers became unsustainable.

As a licensed trapper for the sake of wildlife conservation and research/tracking, I can attest that once the populations get out of whack - usually due to some genious draining wetlands for the sake of more concrete and asphalt development,very bad things happen - they starve, die of diseases, etc.... so I think there is a correllation to the human population growth and our Earths climate - because as the population goes up, we lose our wetlands, our wildlands, and that in itself to me is very deteremental to balance with our climate.

Yes, in the past we have had ice ages, followed by heating, etc.... but we've also had mass die off's too, extinctions... which nobody likes to talk about.

I'm still trying to find which VHS tape I have that documents a river I believe in California, I think the video was made in the mid to late 1980s - and it was made by the rafting community - and it had a super deep concern about how the waterflows were changing, and I think it might have also gone into the effects of over development as well.

Here in CT, the seasons have definately shifted.

It used to be that in New England, from Thanksgiving Day on one could expect 100 days of brutally cold weather.
Now, it's more like we get a cold snap just before Thanksgiving, then it's mild/moderate through Christmas, then it might get cold again around New Years, then maybe 60 days of kinda winter weather - then as soon as March comes along, it gets cold and stays cold for like 3 weeks or so.

By June things start to heat up, as our actual spring is like two weeks long, and if we are lucky we might get some rain then, as our April showers come in May now.

July - early October [!!} is is hot and humid. I mean, it's crazy how we still get 90s in early October now !!

Years back, we used to have the Naugatuck River Race, it was a legit white water thing, although nothing compared to the rest of the country - but it was our little thing, and we lived for it.

Sometimes the dam operators would even open things up so the waterflows got real good.

But then, about maybe 6 years ago - maybe longer - they stopped the race all together - because there were no more spring run offs from the snow melts up north, there were no more heavy spring rains, and it literally got to where people would have to portage their kayaks in the river, since there were areas where the river went literally went dry.

I'm sorry, but I do think we are ti blame somewhat for what is happening to our Earths climate.

All these forest fires, they are not helping out matters either.

I myself am concerned about what it will be like here - just five to ten years down the road.

If things keep up the way the are, the only kayaking I'll be doing is sea kayaking, an the Long Island Sound where by mid summer, 80 degree water temps are the norm.

Again, this is a great thread - I appologize for getting a little off topic - and all the spelling errors, as I do not have my glasses on, and there is a very nice calico cat who is not wanting me to move to go get them.

Cheers,
Big George, Loki the Dog and Chickpeas the cat.....


----------



## MT4Runner

Big George Waters said:


> In the 1970s NYC school system, they taught us in biology and science classes how[try not to laugh too hard] the dinosaurs became extinct because their numbers became unsustainable.
> 
> As a licensed trapper for the sake of wildlife conservation and research/tracking, I can attest that once the populations get out of whack - usually due to some genious draining wetlands for the sake of more concrete and asphalt development,very bad things happen - they starve, die of diseases, etc....


We (the royal "we") narrowly avoided a really big population reset with the 'Rona, and even still had a fairly large population dip.
If we hadn't had such a large (and mobile) global population, it's likely that the Rona would have evolved, killed off a subpopulation in a single region, and died out.
We're playing science to keep our population at a number far beyond earth's carrying capacity.


----------



## AbnMike

Big George Waters said:


> I'm sorry, but I do think we are ti blame somewhat for what is happening to our Earths climate.


I definitely agree - I think we are exacerbating things but I think it's on a smaller scale than the fear mongers want us to believe - the earth has gone through major climate shifts all on its own, all without our existence, for millions of years. People seem to think that because the climate has been overall what it has been for about 5,000 years that it should stay that way forever and never change again. We should always have four distinct seasons, it should snow in New Hampshire on Christmas, Florida should always be hot, etc. Long term view of the earth's cycles shows that's not the case at all - but we, as humans, have a hard time comprehending really big numbers and long periods of time.

Our bigger challenge will be how to manage the resources we do have and we have short-sighted views of that. I think we'll choke the ocean on garbage, overfish it, and decimate forests to plant stuff like palm oil, which will then affect major rainfalls, long before the earth warms up a couple degrees to kill us off. And until we are all living in 400 story communal high rises fueled with nuclear power there will still be golf courses...

And population growth is a huge thing. How long did it take to get to a billion? Now 8 billion? If half procreates in a generation it will be 12, then 20, then 32, then 50 billion, etc...


----------



## MT4Runner

AbnMike said:


> I definitely agree - I think we are exacerbating things but I think it's on a smaller scale than the fear mongers want us to believe - the earth has gone through major climate shifts all on its own, all without our existence, for millions of years. People seem to think that because the climate has been overall what it has been for about 5,000 years that it should stay that way forever and never change again. We should always have four distinct seasons, it should snow in New Hampshire on Christmas, Florida should always be hot, etc. Long term view of the earth's cycles shows that's not the case at all - but we, as humans, have a hard time comprehending really big numbers and long periods of time.
> 
> Our bigger challenge will be how to manage the resources we do have and we have short-sighted views of that. I think we'll choke the ocean on garbage, overfish it, and decimate forests to plant stuff like palm oil, which will then affect major rainfalls, long before the earth warms up a couple degrees to kill us off. And until we are all living in 400 story communal high rises fueled with nuclear power there will still be golf courses...
> 
> And population growth is a huge thing. How long did it take to get to a billion? Now 8 billion? If half procreates in a generation it will be 12, then 20, then 32, then 50 billion, etc...


I've said it before, but we're really not going to "save the planet". It will reset and kill us off and yes, there will be a fossilized plastic layer in the crust somewhere in a million years.

It's about "saving the humans". ...and are we worth saving?


----------



## upacreek

The hard choices aren't ahead, they are here and now...but its far simpler to spread awareness about the problem of shrinking water supplies in the West than face the Catch-22 of our current situation. These silly silver-bullet solutions about novel water storage or crackerjack ideas about Conservation (which stupidly frames the issue as one that can be addressed by individual responsibility), are all distracting pieces of the political game being played with our natural resources among the stymieing of efforts to make meaningful revision to water policy and governing laws to adequately allocate them to the public instead of favoring legacy monied interest. The Colorado River Compact was crafted in 1922 and thus couldn't possibly prognosticate the future, especially in terms of climate! So until a massive overhaul in governing policies occurs at both the state and federal level to account for science today, we're stuck with the outdated, small-minded absurdity of hierarchical water rights (aka Doctrine of Prior Appropriation*)* based on protecting byzantine economies (ag, ranching, mining, etc) and propping up unsustainable farming techniques that now pale in comparison in terms of their value to recreation, tourism, not to mention preserving structure/function of aquatic ecosystem and environments. It's easy to point fingers at irresponsible water usage in AZ for example, with too many golf courses and not enough local water supplies. But there are far more pernicious issues to worry about upstream here in Colorado, for example. And blaming downstream users is a subversive straw man technique employed by far too many water rights holders to justify recklessness.

Often when I hear a conference talk or read an article like this featuring an older, distinguished scientist, while do always appreciate their wisdom and scientific contributions...I also can't help but notice a more dated quantitive perspective. Indeed we're experiencing long-predicted dwindling water resources among ever rising demand, however the most concerning problems now and those which directly cascade to human usage as well as ecological impairment are not merely those of water _quantity_...but related more specifically to water _quality_. Of course, the two are clearly coupled, but the low hanging fruit for discussion that never yields more than a bade taste almost always entails the former. So while reading old books like Caddilac Desert or Desert Solitaire, which foretold the problems of developing the West for habitation/farming/ranching/etc is interesting for the sense of history, others like Silent Spring also remain surprisingly relevant even today. In any case, I'd advocate folks to perhaps delve deeper into the more complex, modern perils to water supplies; issues like salinity, selenium, wildfire impacts (turbidity esp), water temperatures & dissolved O2, food web displacement, harmful algal blooms, and so forth. These are all real, ongoing challenges to our water resources and need more attention, whereas "big thinking " still grounded by intractable policies among the *facts* of a changing climate and its manifestation to shifting hydrology still seems only a Sisyphean task. Sorry not sorry


----------



## MNichols

MT4Runner said:


> It's about "saving the humans". ...and are we worth saving?


Some of us more so than others 😂🤣😘


----------



## MT4Runner

MNichols said:


> Some of us more so than others 😂🤣😘


I'm not worth more than any other. OK, maybe a few, but I don't have enough of a God complex to pursue the task. 😂


----------



## MNichols

MT4Runner said:


> I'm not worth more than any other. OK, maybe a few, but I don't have enough of a God complex to pursue the task. 😂


I had politicians in mind when I wrote that lol 🤣


----------



## MT4Runner

❤


----------



## jamesthomas

We should BRING BACK TAR AND FEATHERING. There’s your bumper sticker for the day.


----------



## MNichols

👍 I wholeheartedly second your emotion!


----------



## jamesthomas

You could do it like poker, I’ll see your Mitch McConnell and raise you Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## MNichols

Omg! I love your thinking, and I'll raise you a Kamala!


----------



## MNichols

Shit, sorry. This went south in a hurry..

Back to our regularly scheduled discussion..🙄🙄🙄😁


----------



## jamesthomas

Oh the fun we could have.


----------



## jamesthomas

Yeah, bad hijack.


----------



## cahatch52

jerseyjeff said:


> Hoo boy. I am an environmental science teacher as a day job, and last year I had an oh, we are hosed moment, when I stopped to consider all the silt that is flowing into the dams. I think there is a terrifying amount of silt at the bottom of both lakes, and that silt is being counted as part of the percent full of the lakes. If they are just measuring height above sea level, the situation is far worse, and that scares the bejeebers out of me. There is a cool project documenting rapids springing back from the silted in areas,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Returning Rapids of Cataract Canyon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.returningrapids.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but that also is showing how much silt is in the system. It is going to be a really heartbreaking summer, followed by another heartbreaking summer, and that is going to be a bummer.


One of the un spoken reasons Lake Powell was built was to keep Lake Mead from silting in.


----------



## MNichols

Really.... Citation?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

cahatch52 said:


> One of the un spoken reasons Lake Powell was built was to keep Lake Mead from silting in.


A lot of good that did....









I imagine its a fraction of what it would have been without Glen Canyon Dam there though. Its already pretty clear how F'd the upper part of Lake Powell is with the sendiment buildup. Ecological catastrophe is putting it mildly.


----------



## cahatch52

MNichols said:


> That's the mindset that the desert dwellers should have had 50 years or more ago. What really chaps my butt is the plethora of golfin pastures and Kentucky bluegrass lawns they plant around their swimming pools. Then they strip the farmers and ranchers to maintain the golfin pastures.. Hardly an equitable scenario in my minds eye
> 
> More bad news this morning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> La Niña watch issued for upcoming fall and winter
> 
> 
> This summer was supposed to be hotter than normal with less than normal precipitation across Colorado, setting up for a La Niña watch for the fall and winter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.denverpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's another excellent article on Powell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lake Powell could become a ‘dead pool’ as climate change, political wars and unabated growth drain its waters
> 
> 
> <b>Bullfrog Marina</b> • Ever since the Colorado River began filling Utah’s Glen Canyon and its countless side canyons in 1963, conservationists have been calling for emptying the lake that now supports a recreation economy and power generation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sltrib.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pressures on the river raise the possibility that Lake Powell or Lake Mead — or both — could cease functioning as designed. Water levels could become too low to produce power, to go boating, to store water, and, in Powell’s case, to meet downstream delivery demands.
> “It is fair to say that the politics of water in the Southwest are more concerned about the future of Lake Mead than Powell. You can connect the dots to say the future of Lake Powell is questionable,” says Doug Kenney, a Western water law scholar at the University of Colorado.
> 
> This brings a bittersweet thought to my mind. Should Glen Canyon Dam cease to function, that would impact river running thru GC immensely were the river dependent on native flows. Sure, if the dam were dismantled the beaches and such would eventually return, and the ecosystem would repair itself over time, but as was pointed out, it's unlikely they would spend the money to do that, and instead just pass what water it could pass, leaving the sediment that's crucial to the ecosystem behind the dam. More importantly, to me anyway being a selfish river rat, is the thought of all the shoulder season launches being scrapped due to 1500 cfs flows, the lowest I ran GC was in 2000 when they had the steady 7000 cfs flows, that made some things a royal bitch, and at that time we didn't have Dwaine Whitis's river maps, we only had Stephens guides, with some of the riffles being larger than the named rapids it was pretty hard to figure out where you were. Still had a good time, but I'd sure miss the 18K CFS days.. Couldn't imagine the competition for permits..
> 
> Reports from a trip this year when it went down to 4000 cfs weren't encouraging. I did order Dead Pool by Powell, thanks Spudcat.
> 
> At the end of the day, it's hard to speculate what BuRec will do, but at the end of the day, it's going to impact us, both as river runners and human inhabitants of the planet.


Equitable for the farmers and ranchers? They did not build those dams. The American tax payers built them. The farmers and ranchers get the water for pennies on the dollar just to exist. Alfalfa is a water aggressive plant that has no business being grown in the arid west. Particularly the 41% that get exported to Asia. The current western agricultural model should have died years ago. They (the rugged individualists) particularly here in Utah in reality are the biggest welfare queens on the planet. They hate the govmnt, and love Trump. Without federal water and road projects their way of life would have disappeared long ago.


----------



## cahatch52

okieboater said:


> In my opinion, there are many reasons the Colorado River is not servicing the current demands for it's water.
> 
> Probably the main ones are growth of farms, cities and population along the river's path. These and more reasons demand more water than is available.
> 
> Back when the dams were built, my guess is plenty of water for that time.
> 
> Now, the demand is far greater than ever thought.
> 
> Droughts come and go. Recent growth tho is growing faster than river flow allows.
> 
> We are currently in a drought situation. Current water demand plus the cyclical drought puts the population in a bad place.
> 
> My guess is changing the weather patterns is going to be difficult. Changing demand is also going to be difficult buy may well be the only solution at this time that works.


From what I understand the water distribution model was a fraud to begin with. The Colorado would never be able to provide the amount of water that was promised. Besides 40 years from now who is going to remember what was claimed. One of the many lies used to justify the dam. I attended a lecture given some years ago by David Brower. In the years since the dam was built he had become friends with the dams chief engineer. Who now believes the dam was a mistake. The lies and shortcuts that were relayed in that seminar would both scare and piss you off. Remember the flood year that they needed emergency bypass tubes. The force of the water blew the concrete out of them. They came close to loosing the dam. Bad engineering or shortcut?


----------



## jamesthomas

Yeah, talk to a southwest Colorado farmer that benefits from McFee dam. Don’t no darn federal gubmint. That’s our dam and our water. But the taxpayers paid for the dam, the canals, the pumps etc. They don’t give a pinch of shit. Don’t need gubmint and by the way fuck all you rafters as well.


----------



## rtsideup

jamesthomas said:


> Yeah, talk to a southwest Colorado farmer that benefits from McFee dam. Don’t no darn federal gubmint. That’s our dam and our water. But the taxpayers paid for the dam, the canals, the pumps etc. They don’t give a pinch of shit. Don’t need gubmint and by the way fuck all you rafters as well.


And what are they growin'? Alfalfa to ship to Asia.
Ed was right. We need explosives, politics aren't working.


----------



## COH20man

Like it or not the current climate is changing. The forest in SW CO has been rapidly dying from spruce bud beetles and sudden aspen decline. Wolf creek pass could not have been more alive in 2010 and 90% of the mature trees and now dead. You can cross rivers like the San Juan in Pagosa or the Dolores below Mcphee without getting your feet wet. Where does all the water go? Uphill towards money. 50% of water use in Colorado goes to irrigating alfalfa, which is converted to beef and subsequently dollars. Bean farmers fields where lush in the spring, but will there be a crop to harvest? The water rights in the West were established on prior appropriation; which by definition diverted water for a useful purpose i.e. growing food. The real problem is that farmers have no incentive to use less. It is a use it or lose it system. We need to re negotiate the CO river compact. There's going to be winner and loser states, but if we do nothing we'll all lose. Projections are for 15% less water in the West in my lifetime. Dust on the snow pack robs enough water to feed Vegas for a year every year. That water sublimates and creates bigger more destructive storms as they travel East. At some point the economics will make sense to change the system, but until then?


----------



## NoCo

NOAA Says Upcoming Winter In Colorado Could See The Return Of La Niña


If it develops forecasters say that it would last until the spring of 2022.




denver.cbslocal.com





Probably the last thing any of us wanted to hear. This really is an emergency if this is correct. Government in this country tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Maybe this will get their attention. Sucks.


----------



## MNichols

rtsideup said:


> And what are they growin'? Alfalfa to ship to Asia.
> Ed was right. We need explosives, politics aren't working.


Pinto Beans mostly.. Alfalfa to ship to Asia is grown along the road to Pearce Ferry, and get this, with pumped water..


----------



## MNichols

NoCo said:


> NOAA Says Upcoming Winter In Colorado Could See The Return Of La Niña
> 
> 
> If it develops forecasters say that it would last until the spring of 2022.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> denver.cbslocal.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably the last thing any of us wanted to hear. This really is an emergency if this is correct. Government in this country tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Maybe this will get their attention. Sucks.


Yep, posted something about this a ways back. Bad news, at least for the coming year. 

The problem with the gubbermint being pro active is we get things like dams on our rivers. America should have a long time ago learned to live within our means, but the gubmint decided they always know what's best for us sheeple. At least that's how they view us.. What this country needs are more unemployed politicians.


----------



## MT4Runner

jamesthomas said:


> Yeah, talk to a southwest Colorado farmer that benefits from McFee dam. Don’t no darn federal gubmint. That’s our dam and our water. But the taxpayers paid for the dam, the canals, the pumps etc. They don’t give a pinch of shit. Don’t need gubmint and by the way fuck all you rafters as well.


Read "A River Lost: the Life and Death of the Columbia"

Granted, it's just one western river, and not a SW one at that, but it very much touches on that attitude.


----------



## MNichols

And now apparently we need to fix the moon!









A 'wobble' in the moon's orbit could result in record flooding in the 2030s, new study finds


The entire US coastline is in for a one-two punch from the lunar cycle and climate change.




www.space.com


----------



## SpudCat

MT4Runner said:


> Read "A River Lost: the Life and Death of the Columbia"
> 
> Granted, it's just one western river, and not a SW one at that, but it very much touches on that attitude.


That is such a good book. I first read it for an undergrad class in the late 90s. I've re-read it a couple times since.


----------



## COH20man

MNichols said:


> Pinto Beans mostly.. Alfalfa to ship to Asia is grown along the road to Pearce Ferry, and get this, with pumped water..


Yeah, a lot of it goes to the largest dairy operation in the world in Saudi Aradia. But even better, with fossil water pumped from the ground that will never recharge


----------



## jamesthomas

Pinto beans are a dry land crop. They need very little irrigation. Most of McFees water goes to alfalfa/cattle feed from what I have been able to determine. And interestingly enough numerous sources say it goes to Saudi Arabia. Sorry you can’t float this year cause we gotta feed SAUDI ARABIAN RACE HORSES AND DAIRY FARMS. WTF !!


----------



## B4otter

You don't even want to get started on the U.S./Saudi relationship...!!!

Correct on pinto beans... Back to the OP on the choices those of us in the Upper and Lower Basins will face, sooner than we are ready...


----------



## rtsideup

B4otter said:


> You don't even want to get started on the U.S./Saudi relationship...!!!
> 
> Correct on pinto beans... Back to the OP on the choices those of us in the Upper and Lower Basins will face, sooner than we are ready...


Pinto beans are a dry land crop and don't require a lot of supplemental water


B4otter said:


> You don't even want to get started on the U.S./Saudi relationship...!!!
> 
> Correct on pinto beans... Back to the OP on the choices those of us in the Upper and Lower Basins will face, sooner than we are ready...


----------



## rtsideup

rtsideup said:


> Pinto beans are a dry land crop and don't require a lot of supplemental water


The majority of water being pulled from the Delores is for al


jamesthomas said:


> Pinto beans are a dry land crop. They need very little irrigation. Most of McFees water goes to alfalfa/cattle feed from what I have been able to determine. And interestingly enough numerous sources say it goes to Saudi Arabia. Sorry you can’t float this year cause we gotta feed SAUDI ARABIAN RACE HORSES AND DAIRY FARMS. WTF !!


Sorry, missed your post.
Correct, pinto beans are not the problem. It's the alfalfa going overseas. I seem to recall that these water rights belong to indigenous tribes in the area (southern Ute?) and they are selling overseas. Please fact check me on this but, if it's true, it's kinda' a perfect "fuck you!"


----------



## Pinchecharlie

I keep bees and well iam on small farms around and alfalfa just kinda sucks but these guys just act like it's the only thing they can do. Cheap easy, cut it over and over . I try to talk them into san foil and I know a few having success with it but no one wants to plant a new stand. I have a friend who's a hay broker, ill have to ask him about the whole Saudi thing. Weird just how much we're willing to ruin for beef. I had bees on 7k acres and dude had 1600 head of cattle. The place was like a waste land and the bees did really bad and I had to move them. To bad things are so hard to change. I won't lie beef tastes good but we really don't eat it much. We trade honey sometimes for some at the market but my wife doesn't like it. Good thing I missed that elk last year I'd have never lost that weight!! This thread is depressing....


----------



## jerseyjeff

cahatch52 said:


> One of the un spoken reasons Lake Powell was built was to keep Lake Mead from silting in.


Dams are strange beasts, the 8 year old in me goes "Wow! humans did that" and back in the days you could see the turbines, there is something awesome about something that big, spinning that fast. The adult in me sees the chaos changing the sediment flows, oxygenation and temperature can cause. Damnation (



) does a great job going into the costs more. I read somewhere that glen canyon has an expected useful life of 100-400 years before it is silted in, and I believe that. I am an east coast boater that has been lucky enough to get three trips down the canyon, and for my last trip in 2017, I was in a panic looking for different ways to Flagstaff because PHX temps were high enough that certain planes could not land at the airport. It cooled enough to fly in, but my back up was fly to boulder, rent a car and drive over, but I digress. 
I think as a nation we do not fully understand the true cost of water, and we squander it often. By law in NJ we cannot re-use gray water, and we flush our toilets with potable water. Our poo is so special that it needs to land in water it can drink? really? 
There has been significant innovation, and some folks and cities are working really hard, and of all places Las Vegas is really doing on a bunch on the water conservation front, They recycle just about all the water, and treat all waste water, and are even turning off fountains on high wind days to reduce evaporative loss, and that is a something.
I worry that we have been driving a car with the check engine light on for a bit, and never looking to see what the problem is, and now what could have been a small problem is going to be a big one, with no easy solutions. 
I do know rivers do not like being dammed, and they will build up silt, and reduce fish until they run free. 

Rumph.


----------



## skipowpow

Piling on: seems we have about 20 years to enjoy as we know it or make significant changes. This touches on many of the issues discussed here - population, growth, resources, etc. It also shows two things: major negative affects will be felt in most of our lifetimes and it probably won’t mean the end to all humanity or nature. It will be the suck though. 

1970s MIT Study Shows We Are On Schedule For Collapse.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

I think one of the scariest and most serious uses of water in the west is for Fracking. A basic search says that the industry uses about as much water as two major metropolitan cities the size of Chicago use every year... and a huge part of that is contaminated so badly that they have to pump it super far underground. That means they are taking surface water out of the natural cycle and putting it in a place where it won't come back out for a VERY long time. At least with agriculture and urban water use... the water will at least return to the natural weather system. A not insignificant part of water used for the oil industry does not.

Not gonna lie... when one thinks about it.... it really puts a damper on those long road trips we do when travelling to rivers sometimes.


----------



## MNichols

Electric-Mayhem said:


> I think one of the scariest and most serious uses of water in the west is for Fracking. A basic search says that the industry uses about as much water as two major metropolitan cities the size of Chicago use every year... and a huge part of that is contaminated so badly that they have to pump it super far underground. That means they are taking surface water out of the natural cycle and putting it in a place where it won't come back out for a VERY long time. At least with agriculture and urban water use... the water will at least return to the natural weather system. A not insignificant part of water used for the oil industry does not.
> 
> Not gonna lie... when one thinks about it.... it really puts a damper on those long road trips we do when travelling to rivers sometimes.


Josh Buddy, That's not how it actually works in real life. The contaminated water comes up with the oil and they pump it back into the ground in 18,000 ft deep injection wells. I'm not going to go into it here, but if you want to know more drop me a DM


----------



## B4otter

MNichols said:


> The contaminated water comes up with the oil and they pump it back into the ground in 18,000 ft deep injection wells.


Uhmm... "they" pump SOME of it back in injection wells - by no means all of it.
And fracking is in no way comparable to agricultural use. The fracking cocktail is proprietary to each producer, but independent analyses are pretty scary.


----------



## MNichols

B4otter said:


> Uhmm... "they" pump SOME of it back in injection wells - by no means all of it.
> And fracking is in no way comparable to agricultural use. The fracking cocktail is proprietary to each producer, but independent analyses are pretty scary.


Ok, since the thread has already seemingly being hijacked, I'll take it the rest of the way.. 

Your assumptions are incorrect, mostly.. I was up in ND for 5 years working on the oil patch. They, being the oil companies, pay trucking firms to suck the water out of the tanks with vac trucks where it's stored after going thru the treater which on each well pad, separates the water and nastiness from the crude. 

The trucks haul the water to an injection well and pump it back into the ground. Spilling contaminated water is commensurate to spilling oil.. Big no no and huge fine.. Anything more than a dixie cup full on the ground is a reportable incident, complete with the requisite clean up. The company men always had at least one safety man on each location to ensure compliance. Spills of anything weren't taken lightly, so yes, pretty much every drop went back into the ground. As to what the water was contaminated with, that would be benzene and hydrogen sulfide for the most part.

Fracking is a completely different critter. The Oil producer drills the hole, then puts a mile or more of .250 wall steel casing, and a well head. Most wells, in ND anyway, are drilled vertically for a minimum of 10,000 feet down, which is all cased, before they go horizontal and they can go horizontal for up to 2 miles depending on how large the shale deposit is, and what the drill tailings tell them is down there. 

They cap the well, and call a well completion company like Halliburton or Baker Hughes to come in and finish it. They set up with massive pumps, and a sand and water feed that can contain chemicals depending on what they hope to accomplish, but the bulk of what's pumped into the well is sand, and many different kinds of sand, depending on the geology. This sand / water slurry is pumped down under incredible pressure and creates fractures in the oil producing shale, which are kept open with the sand that's forced in. The water that's required is generally pumped from the ground, out of an aquifer, and that to me anyway is a problem. They use about 2000 water trucks to frack a typical well, and about 175 sand trucks. A water truck hauls about 120 barrels of water per load (a barrel is 42 gallons). about 5000 gallons, 10080000 gallons in total, more or less per completed well. 

I mainly hauled Crude when I was up there, but I did spend a year hauling sand. I'll tell you this about the chemicals they were using. I don't know what they were, as the containers they used had only batch and lot numbers that I could ever see, but the trailers they used to transport the totes that the chemicals in weren't hazmat placarded, which the FMSCA and the well service group would certainly have required. Common ingredients include methanol, ethylene glycol, and propargyl alcohol, which IS toxic by inhalation and corrosive.. For a second thing, the amount they used while fracking was minuscule compared to the truckloads of sand and water a frac requires. The totes were like 200 gallon wire cased poly carriers. On occasion, and this was the exception to the rule up in ND anyway, you'd see a small liquid trailer, with placards on site, but I never looked up the placard number to find out what was in it.

This isn't the shallow well fracking that contaminated wells in PA etc, this is down there, miles down there below any aquifers for sure. I know some of the front range libbies don't actually understand the science that's at play here and scream at any oil activity, but the regulatory agencies in place certainly don't have an issue with it, I PERSONALLY can't see how it could possibly create an issue due to it's sheer depth and the fact that the vertical shaft is cased in steel. That being said, I am neither a geologist nor an oil guy. 

I'll end by saying that out of all the shit that comes out of, or goes into a well from start to finish, the H2S (Hydrogen sulfide) scared me the most. We all wore H2S sensors on our person, and all had SCBA units in our trucks. H2S is heavier than air, and hangs around the ground, and can accumulate in pockets. It's a mostly odorless gas, but in lower concentrations may have a rotten egg smell. the word of the day on a well pad was always, look at the wind socks often, and if you see people running into the wind, YOU run into the wind, as fast and hard as you can if you want to live another day. 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programming, the Colorado River is shrinking LOL

The same practices are in play in CO in the DJ basin. I'm not sure what they do in the Permian basin down in TX, but I can't imagine it being much different.


----------



## MNichols

On a different note, someone a while back recommended the book "Dead Pool". I'm into chapter 5 so far, and have to comment on how well written it is. Like Emerald Mile well written.. I'm impressed and can't wait for some free time to read more. Whomever recommended this, thanks. I'm really enjoying the read.


----------



## Droboat

The incestuous and satanic nature of the Western Water Cult and its enablers in federal agencies and local water boards was known long before Chinatown was filmed, and was memorialized in glorious harmony:

Keep a-movin, Dan, dontcha listen to him, Dan
He's a devil, not a man
He spreads the burning sand with water
Dan, can ya see that big, green tree?
Where the water's runnin' free
And it's waitin' there for me and you?
Cool, clear, water
Cool, clear, water


----------



## Big George Waters

MNIichols, that's some real good information which you posted in that last long comment.
I definately learned quite a bit there, so I'm glad you went a bit off topic with that one.

Cheers!!
Big George W and Loki the Dog


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

MNichols said:


> Josh Buddy, That's not how it actually works in real life. The contaminated water comes up with the oil and they pump it back into the ground in 18,000 ft deep injection wells. I'm not going to go into it here, but if you want to know more drop me a DM


Not really a hijack since a lot of the water in the Colorado watershed is irrecoverably used for fracking and oil/natural gas industry use...

Don't need a private primer from you on how fracking works.... but your more recent longer post says that they pump a ton of sand and water down the holes along with a smaller but still significant amount of chemical lubricants. That water has to come from somewhere and not all of it just comes out of the wells as they drill. I know they do some evaporative recovery, but a ton still goes back in to the well. They are still using a ton of surface and near surface level aquafer water to supply it...and its either pumped down into the wells and doesn't come back up, or the water that does come back is so contaminated with the byproducts of the extraction process that they end up pushing it back into the well in a "out of sight out of mind" strategy. All that water is essentially being taken out of the natural ecological system and put in a place where it won't be able to be used again for a VERY long time. Additionally....it has been well documented that this process has poisoned aquafers and destroyed water sources... so the areas effected by that have to find water from elsewhere. There are huge swaths of Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and Colorado that do this...all within the Colorado River watershed or in areas that pull from it.

Just sayin... I know we give a lot of shit to golf courses and grassy lawns...but at least that water cycles back in to weather systems. The same can't be said for the water used by the oil/natural gas industry.


----------



## SpudCat

MNichols said:


> On a different note, someone a while back recommended the book "Dead Pool". I'm into chapter 5 so far, and have to comment on how well written it is. Like Emerald Mile well written.. I'm impressed and can't wait for some free time to read more. Whomever recommended this, thanks. I'm really enjoying the read.


Glad you're enjoying!


----------



## 2tomcat2

Droboat said:


> The incestuous and satanic nature of the Western Water Cult and its enablers in federal agencies and local water boards was known long before Chinatown was filmed, and was memorialized in glorious harmony:
> 
> Keep a-movin, Dan, dontcha listen to him, Dan
> He's a devil, not a man
> He spreads the burning sand with water
> Dan, can ya see that big, green tree?
> Where the water's runnin' free
> And it's waitin' there for me and you?
> Cool, clear, water
> Cool, clear, water


I just love that song, what a geek!


----------



## Dangerfield

Damm. Possibly it's already been discussed in this thread - piping water from the Columbia River down to CA and desert SW (god forbid). This reared it's ugly head about 30 years ago and was quashed. We've had water/irrigation war's up here driven mainly driven by ESA listings of salmoinds. I live about 500 yards from the Upper Coluimbia.


----------



## 2tomcat2

Discussions have also been quashed about piping water from those rivers that perpetually flood; the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, Red River of the North
Would it be easy? No
Would there be infighting? Yes
Would there be logistical nightmares? Yes
Would there be opposition? Yes
Would we in the future, wish such an outlandish idea had come to pass, when no water comes out of our faucets? You decide


----------



## Dangerfield

Time and place for everything and possibly with stark realities sinking in now, this might be the time to logically re-look at proposals. At times of "plenty" (in the spring run off) and lack of mainstem storage on the Columbia this might be the window to discuss allocations. Thirty years ago if say Columbia RIver water was piped south I am confident that wasteful practices would have increased and the thirst for more golf courses, lawns, casinos, fountains etc. would have used up that resource and still be thirsty for more. Now with visible and real shortages looming, then changes in water conservation, farming practices, industry and recreation will force the change in priorities/sustainability. Something has to give. I am glad I as 1 person don't have the power for the sole final decision.

(I hate golf!)


----------



## Joedills

This article was just published today in the Colorado Sun and is relevant and interesting. Not sure what it translates to as far as boatable river flows while they're releasing the water, but I guess that's not really the point. It seems that hell or low water, they're not going to let Powell or Mead get to dead pool.









Three Colorado River Basin reservoirs will be partially drained to keep Lake Powell producing hydropower


Lake Powell is in desperate need of water and federal officials will drain three other Colorado River reservoirs to help fill it.




coloradosun.com





Also, I just finished a book called "The River of Lost Souls" that is somewhat related to this thread, but regardless is a worthy read. It was inspired by, but not 100% about the Gold King spill back in 2015. It's more about the history and cultural, environmental, and economic impacts of mineral extraction, particularly in the four corners region. The author was born and raised in Durango and his family were early setters in the Animas Valley. His knowledge of the history of the region is astute.









The Book! River of Lost Souls


Part elegy, part ode, part investigative science journalism, RIVER OF LOST SOULS tells the gripping story behind the 2015 Gold King Mine disaster that turned the Animas River in southwestern Colora…




riveroflostsouls.com


----------



## MNichols

I agree, I read an article over the weekend in a local Colorado paper where they are starting to drain all of the upstream reservoirs in an effort to keep lake Powell from dropping anymore. I don't know if it's so much the water storage or the hydroelectric power, but they seem bound and determined to try and keep the system from failing..


----------



## Dangerfield

Draining reservoirs to surge water down to Powell and Mead in my view is like "shooting the moon" and hoping there will be a huge snowpack in 2021/2022 (and into the future) to make up for it. The odds based upon trends don't seem to back up these actions, but that is what the Feds and States impacted agreed upon back a number of years ago. I really don't get it and feel really mentally "dense" today. I must be missing something, please somebody educate me.


----------



## MNichols

I think you can pretty much sum it up in that the bureau of wreck the nation Is in complete and total cover your ass mode. I don't think that they have thought this out, and I personally don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. As I recall from the article they're pulling a small amount from every reservoir, if I remember correctly it was 50 CFS from flaming gorge reservoir, I don't think the article stated what they were going to take from other reservoirs. I know there was a concern here in Colorado about there being project water available from the frying pan Arkansas project, but being a newspaper article that didn't go in depth.. I did a short search for any news releases from burec about this action, but didn't find any


----------



## Dangerfield

Ah yes, the "kick the can down the road" or "rob Peter to pay Paul" syndrome. Too much of that going on.


----------



## Joedills

MNichols said:


> I think you can pretty much sum it up in that the bureau of wreck the nation Is in complete and total cover your ass mode. I don't think that they have thought this out, and I personally don't think it's going to make that much of a difference. As I recall from the article they're pulling a small amount from every reservoir, if I remember correctly it was 50 CFS from flaming gorge reservoir, I don't think the article stated what they were going to take from other reservoirs. I know there was a concern here in Colorado about there being project water available from the frying pan Arkansas project, but being a newspaper article that didn't go in depth.. I did a short search for any news releases from burec about this action, but didn't find any


From the Text of the article:

"Flaming Gorge Reservoir, on the Green River in Utah and Wyoming, will let an extra 13,000 acre-feet of water flow down river toward the Colorado in July, jumping to 42,000 acre-feet in August. By fall, Flaming Gorge will have contributed a total of 125,000 acre-feet to protect Lake Powell’s hydroelectric pool. 
Blue Mesa Reservoir, west of Gunnison, will contribute 14,000 acre-feet beginning in August, 18,000 in September and 4,000 in October, for a total of 36,000 acre feet. Blue Mesa dams the Gunnison River, which joins the Colorado River at Grand Junction.
Navajo Reservoir, on the Piedra and San Juan rivers in southern Colorado and northern New Mexico, will give up a total of 20,000 acre-feet to Lake Powell in November and December. Taken altogether, the releases will raise Lake Powell 3 feet, enough to protect hydropower production. The idea of banking extra water in Lake Powell from the upstream reservoirs became the official federal plan in 2018. Federal officials in a press briefing Friday said the extra releases will mean about an 8-foot drop in Blue Mesa’s already-depleted pool, 2 feet from Navajo and 4 feet from Flaming Gorge."

It's an act of desperation for sure. Luckily we're finally getting some monsoonal moisture so hopefully the soils will be able to replenish it's reserves. It'll be interesting to see where they take the water from next year if we have another lousy snow pack this winter.


----------



## MT4Runner

MNichols said:


> I think you can pretty much sum it up in that the bureau of wreck the nation Is in complete and total cover your ass mode. I don't think that they have thought this out, and I personally don't think it's going to make that much of a difference.


They're still trying to cover their collective asses from their (and the US Army Corps') dam-building orgy of the 30's, 40's, 50's, and 60's.
They never really considered whether they'd have enough water for all those dams and all those projects and all the promised irrigation water...but just kept building dams to justify/ensure that they had enough budget in coming years to build more dams.


----------



## Pinchecharlie

What is "dead pool" ?


----------



## MT4Runner

In all seriousness, the level below which hydro power can't be generated.


----------



## Pinchecharlie

Ahh....my favorite...wade Wilson! Got it! Was there or is there a plan or solution to the silt build up? Would that have been intuitive in 1940 whatever when they where engineering these things? Or is it a "oppsie "


----------



## MT4Runner

I think the silt buildup was anticipated, but not sure if they anticipated it to accumulate at the rate it did.
Current problem isn't specifically silt, but rather the low level of water. Or likely they did assume silt buildup and that's why they didn't build the intake towers all the way down to the historic river bed.


----------



## Bootboy

MT4Runner said:


> I think the silt buildup was anticipated, but not sure if they anticipated it to accumulate at the rate it did.
> Current problem isn't specifically silt, but rather the low level of water. Or likely they did assume silt buildup and that's why they didn't build the intake towers all the way down to the historic river bed.


But there’s no appreciable amount of silt being deposited in the vicinity of the dam. The sediment falls out very shortly after the river meets the reservoir (currently 130 miles away). I understand that there are tributaries which bring sediment into the reservoir, but they’re still quite far from the dam, relatively to their sediment load.


I imagine that hydrostatic head had a lot more to do with the intake tube placement than any consideration of silt. This makes much more sense once you consider the physics and mechanics of hydroelectric power generation.

Side note: I do wish they had done it in such a way that warmer water could be drawn from the top of the column for power generation, instead of the 47° degree lower reaches… Perhaps one day we’ll see more natural water temperatures in the Grand Canyon, but that’s another subject.


----------



## gnarsify

Dangerfield said:


> Draining reservoirs to surge water down to Powell and Mead in my view is like "shooting the moon" and hoping there will be a huge snowpack in 2021/2022 (and into the future) to make up for it. The odds based upon trends don't seem to back up these actions, but that is what the Feds and States impacted agreed upon back a number of years ago. I really don't get it and feel really mentally "dense" today. I must be missing something, please somebody educate me.


I'm thinking they are protecting power generation, not keeping Powell full. As the reservoir gets lower there is less hydraulic head to spin the turbines, with the current heat wave and associated power demands they are doing everything they can to generate power and have enough head in reserve to meet any power surge demands. BOR actually allowing Powell to go to dead pool or removing the dam is just a pipe dream. I think they would drain Flaming Gorge, Blue Lake and Navajo before Powell or Mead are intentionally drained.


----------



## MT4Runner

Bootboy said:


> Side note: I do wish they had done it in such a way that warmer water could be drawn from the top of the column for power generation, instead of the 47° degree lower reaches… Perhaps one day we’ll see more natural water temperatures in the Grand Canyon, but that’s another subject.


Yeah, would be really cool if they could "average" the depth at which water is drawn.

Similar (but opposite) issue on the Seli’š Ksanka Qlispe’ Dam on the Flathead River where the water all comes off the top of the dam, creating a much warmer than natural river ecology below the dam.


----------



## Dangerfield

MT4Runner said:


> I think the silt buildup was anticipated, but not sure if they anticipated it to accumulate at the rate it did.
> Current problem isn't specifically silt, but rather the low level of water. Or likely they did assume silt buildup and that's why they didn't build the intake towers all the way down to the historic river bed.


Correct, you hit the nail on top of the head MT4Runner, the river is dropping faster to the lower intake than the silt is rising up to that lowest intake point. That is one thing the engineers didn't plug into their calculations. Long term environmental impacts were never seriously considered/mandated back then like they are now.






.


----------



## MNichols

Holy shit! I take off to blow off some steam, and this thread is exploded! I need time to digest all this


----------



## Bootboy

MT4Runner said:


> Yeah, would be really cool if they could "average" the depth at which water is drawn.
> 
> Similar (but opposite) issue on the Seli’š Ksanka Qlispe’ Dam on the Flathead River where the water all comes off the top of the dam, creating a much warmer than natural river ecology below the dam.


It sure would have been nice if this had been a factor in the design of these dams - to consider the ecological impacts of the dam down stream. But we all know how much weight those considerations carried in the era of dam building…


----------



## Dangerfield

MNichols said:


> Holy shit! I take off to blow off some steam, and this thread is exploded! I need time to digest all this


My upper intake is sucking on a Bale Breaker Topcutter currently, so I'll calm down for a bit. 
(FYI It's not my product and I am not getting kick back's)


----------



## jamesthomas

If lake Powell drops 25 more feet no more power generation. Saw a excellent diagram the other day with current water levels etc etc. Flaming Gorge is at 85 % capacity last I looked. No wonder the gentlemen at wreck are freaking out. 25 feet is how many AF at Powell. I have no idea but someone does and that information is out there and my guess is that the gentleman at wreck are freaking out because the math don‘t look good.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

jamesthomas said:


> If lake Powell drops 25 more feet no more power generation. Saw a excellent diagram the other day with current water levels etc etc. Flaming Gorge is at 85 % capacity last I looked. No wonder the gentlemen at wreck are freaking out. 25 feet is how many AF at Powell. I have no idea but someone does and that information is out there and my guess is that the gentleman at wreck are freaking out because the math don‘t look good.



The crazy thing about that diagram, seen here (if its the one you are likely referring to)...










... is that it says that was current as of July 2nd....and the current lake level is 3556.33ft so it has dropped a bit less then 3 feet in just over two weeks.

Seems to me that the best the releases from the three upstream reservoirs will do is maybe just barely keep the lake above the 3525ft level. I'm skeptical that it will raise the levels of the lake for this year at least.


----------



## gnarsify

You're exactly right, I'm sure they've run the numbers and BOR is releasing exactly the minimum to keep it above 3525


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

gnarsify said:


> You're exactly right, I'm sure they've run the numbers and BOR is releasing exactly the minimum to keep it above 3525


Haha.... I'm sure that is their hope... they got the forecasts for this year COMPLETELY wrong though so who the hell knows. I mean...the most they might get by doing the dam releases is 4000-5000cfs inflow into the lake but they are still releasing 7000-15000 out of it.


----------



## ColoradoDave

Some boating love coming due to all of this ;









State of Emergency at Lake Powell: Fears of Hydroelectric and Water Shutoffs Mount


Grim Future for Lake Powell Water levels in Lake Powell are at record lows. If levels drop much further, hydroelectric turbines will cease to run. The lake




mishtalk.com





Headwaters increasing releases. ( A bad thing, but since it is beyond our control, why not take advantage of it ? )


----------



## Bootboy

ColoradoDave said:


> Some boating love coming due to all of this ;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State of Emergency at Lake Powell: Fears of Hydroelectric and Water Shutoffs Mount
> 
> 
> Grim Future for Lake Powell Water levels in Lake Powell are at record lows. If levels drop much further, hydroelectric turbines will cease to run. The lake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mishtalk.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Headwaters increasing releases. ( A bad thing, but since it is beyond our control, why not take advantage of it ? )


Ride the tiger, baby!


----------



## MNichols

The low water levels in Lake Powell aren’t just a problem for the industries and cities that rely on the water in the reservoir. It’s also an issue for the Glen Canyon Dam, a 1,320-megawatt hydroelectric power plant that produces electricity distributed to customers in seven different states. 

Better get started on a nice clean nuclear power plant, and fast..


----------



## gnarsify

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Haha.... I'm sure that is their hope... they got the forecasts for this year COMPLETELY wrong though so who the hell knows. I mean...the most they might get by doing the dam releases is 4000-5000cfs inflow into the lake but they are still releasing 7000-15000 out of it.


I was reading elsewhere that the current releases are expected to only raise the water level 3 feet and BOR is projecting lake level around 3511 in April 2022, so maybe they're just trying to keep power generation up through August/September? It certainly is a big mess, and I just hope it doesn't mess up my 2024 GC trip if things keep going the way they're going.


----------



## mukunig

MNichols said:


> The low water levels in Lake Powell aren’t just a problem for the industries and cities that rely on the water in the reservoir. It’s also an issue for the Glen Canyon Dam, a 1,320-megawatt hydroelectric power plant that produces electricity distributed to customers in seven different states.
> 
> Better get started on a nice clean nuclear power plant, and fast..


That's the problem with nuclear--it takes on average 10 years to get one approved and built. So get started but in the meantime build a lot of wind and solar to replace the diminished power output.


----------



## MNichols

That's about the same as I've been seeing, it's difficult to raise the level of the pool when you're sucking out more than is coming in through the inflow


----------



## MNichols

mukunig said:


> That's the problem with nuclear--it takes on average 10 years to get one approved and built. So get started but in the meantime build a lot of wind and solar to replace the diminished power output.


Okay then, so let's get the ball rolling, and maybe build a natural gas fired power plant as a stopgap.


----------



## MT4Runner

mukunig said:


> That's the problem with nuclear--it takes on average 10 years to get one approved and built. So get started but in the meantime build a lot of wind and solar to replace the diminished power output.


Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. 
Second best time to plant a tree is today.

Build one in Kali (on the inland side of San Andreas..haha). Use the power for both homes and desalination.
Take down Glen Canyon dam in 2031!


----------



## MNichols

Hell for that matter, it's never too soon to start. Take down Glen Canyon dam in 2021!


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

gnarsify said:


> I was reading elsewhere that the current releases are expected to only raise the water level 3 feet and BOR is projecting lake level around 3511 in April 2022, so maybe they're just trying to keep power generation up through August/September? It certainly is a big mess, and I just hope it doesn't mess up my 2024 GC trip if things keep going the way they're going.


I'm not worried about there being water in the Grand for the foreseeable future. They will still need water in Lake Mead no matter what. We might have to get used to lower flows though. They had a 8k flat release during my trip late May into June this year. It was still amazing down there, but its certainly not as fun and exciting at those flows. I've seen pictures at extreme low flows and it still looks doable. It was flowing like 1000cfs or something while they were doing the initial fill of Lake Powell.

As for Nuclear... the smaller form factor units that a lot of countries are installing sound very intriguing. We also need to be more proactive about the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and finding a place to store the crap that we can't reprocess. Lots of NIMBYism going on with that.


----------



## MNichols

I thought that just rolled across my mind, I wonder what boating would be like down there these days without the dam, and with climate change. Might be a whole lot of thousand CFS days there during the summer, and maybe even worse in the fall and winter...


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Well... Cataract rarely gets below 4k these days (after the confluence). I think it got down close to 3k last week but is going back up with the releases they have been doing. There is almost always enough in the Green and Colorado to keep it over 2-3k. Unless we get rid of all the upstream dams like Lake Dillon, Blue Mesa, Green Mountain, Flaming Gorge and a bunch of others...it'll be good to go for a while. If none of the dams were there... its definitely hard to say though.


----------



## mukunig

Building a natural gas plant will only exacerbate the main problem - climate change. See a few quotes below from the article shared to start this thread - the climate is changing leading to higher temperatures and less water. 



> >


*As a warming climate reduces the river’s flow*, Schmidt, 70, is making what could be his most important push to shape the fate of his beloved waterway.

*The biggest delusion: that there will be enough water in a drier future* to satisfy all the demands from cities, farmers, power producers, and others, while still protecting sensitive ecosystems and endangered species.
The moment is ripe, *as a record-breaking drought provides a taste of what more climate change could bring*.

*Climate models suggest an additional 30% decline by 2050, as precipitation continues to decrease and the atmosphere warms.* The heat dries the soil and causes plants to transpire more, reducing the runoff efficiency—the fraction of precipitation that reaches the river.
<<

When you're in a hole, stop digging. Burning more fossil fuels for power will not make things better. 

The impacts of climate change are pretty well understood today, but they weren't when the dams were built. I wish they had never been built, and I know their water flow projections were flawed, but they could not have projected the current drought and warming caused by climate change. That is the scariest part of climate change -- we built infrastructure everywhere based on current conditions, and those conditions have changed rapidly. Infrastructure was not built for the heat, flooding and extreme storms we are experiencing today.


----------



## MNichols

Hey! In my defense, I suggested nuclear power first!


----------



## MNichols

I ironic that I just came across this article..
Feral hogs have outsized climate impact 'greater than a million cars'









Feral hogs uprooting soil have an outsized climate impact 'greater than a million cars'


There are way more than 30 to 50 feral hogs out there ripping up soil.




flip.it





Hmmm...


----------



## Pinchecharlie

Just curious what high water in the Grand Canyon would've been before Dams? Just a guess with an average snow pack. Seems like the only solution is to do absolutely everything. Completely re invent ourselves and make enormous sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Yeah right good one....


----------



## MNichols

Pinchecharlie said:


> Just curious what high water in the Grand Canyon would've been before Dams? Just a guess with an average snow pack. Seems like the only solution is to do absolutely everything. Completely re invent ourselves and make enormous sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Yeah right good one....


In 1984, it hit 114,000 in cataract Canyon


----------



## mukunig

Pinchecharlie said:


> Seems like the only solution is to do absolutely everything. Completely re invent ourselves and make enormous sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Yeah right good one....


Yeah, good point. Screw our kids and grand kids. Change is too hard to even contemplate and it never makes life better.


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

Saw a news article earlier this month saying that Mead can only produce 64% of the electrical capacity than it can with higher pool levels. I am sure Lake Powell is low enough to be in the exact same situation.

It also said that long before the pool gets to the intake, they start dealing with cavitation that will force them to stop generating power. They just don't know exactly at what level that happens.

I can't imagine they will continue draining multiple reservoirs that are easier to fill that also already produce electricity just to keep the second largest reservoir in the US producing a fraction of electricity. Lake Powell will be at dead pool by next summer if we have another poor winter snowpack. 

The park service already put out a statement that there will be times this summer where no boat launches will be open on Powell since they only have two that are barely functioning, but need major work to extend any further. It is sad that all this is happening due to drought and total greed and ignorance of humans, but it sure will be nice to be able to explore Glen Canyon without such a massive crowd of motorboats.


----------



## MNichols

mukunig said:


> Yeah, good point. Screw our kids and grand kids. Change is too hard to even contemplate and it never makes life better.











The Net-Zero Debate Turns Orwellian


We often hear that climate change is the world's greatest challenge. At the same time, politicians assure us that "no one is being asked for a sacrifice." Both of these claims can’t be true. Fixing climate change requires honesty.




www.forbes.com


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

Too bad Forbes can only measure the damage of climate change in how much it drops worldwide GDP. It's crazy that something that should be so simple to grasp is something they are totally oblivious to.


----------



## MNichols

ScarecrowPlayboy said:


> Too bad Forbes can only measure the damage of climate change in how much it drops worldwide GDP. It's crazy that something that should be so simple to grasp is something they are totally oblivious to.


In their defense, Forbes is an investment magazine... I don't think it odd that they decided to use the GDP as a metric


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Pinchecharlie said:


> Just curious what high water in the Grand Canyon would've been before Dams? Just a guess with an average snow pack. Seems like the only solution is to do absolutely everything. Completely re invent ourselves and make enormous sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Yeah right good one....


It would regulary get over 100k cfs down there. I saw pictures pre-dam where I wanna say it was like 150k. This is the boulder narrows...









a picture of it from 1983's 100k cfs event (it appears to be at least 10 feet lower...water is going over the dry rock with the log from this pic in the picture above)...










...that looks like this at current typical flows...










Note that the logs were up there already in 1983 and still remain (and will likely be there for a LONG time). 

So yeah...it used to get that high A LOT and people ran it at those flows. I'm sure it was scary as hell though.


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

To me it lacks total journalist integrity to downplay climate change because they estimate it would only drop the world wide GDP by 2.6% by 2100.

That is akin to saying the holocaust wasn't that bad because it provided jobs for jewish people.


----------



## mukunig

MNichols said:


> The Net-Zero Debate Turns Orwellian
> 
> 
> We often hear that climate change is the world's greatest challenge. At the same time, politicians assure us that "no one is being asked for a sacrifice." Both of these claims can’t be true. Fixing climate change requires honesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forbes.com


I agree that addressing climate change will require huge disruption and people will have to make sacrifices. There will be winners and losers. But the author of the article is wrong that climate impacts are overstated (he has a long and well-documented history of untrue statements on climate change: https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminsti...ntastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/). In fact if we don't act on climate we will all lose. There will be wars over resources like water, and hundreds of millions of people will become climate refugees. Who will take these immigrants, especially when many of them come from poor countries and they have limited education and skills?


----------



## Dangerfield

ScarecrowPlayboy said:


> The park service already put out a statement that there will be times this summer where no boat launches will be open on Powell since they only have two that are barely functioning, but need major work to extend any further. It is sad that all this is happening due to drought and total greed and ignorance of humans, but it sure will be nice to be able to explore Glen Canyon without such a massive crowd of motorboats.


Unfortunately what took eon's to sculpt and create colors etc. would take thousands of years (my guess) for wind and water to re-balance nature even close to what it once was.

In the words (movie words Planet of the Apes) of Charlton Heston: *“You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!”






*


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

I think the bathtub ring might be the only thing that will take a long time to naturally repair. Otherwise scientists have been studying sections that have been underwater for decades and they find that these areas bounce back much faster than predicted. The sedimentation is only bad at the top of the lake, in person I don't think it is even as big a deal as I imagined it would be and the river scours out a large amount each year. 

The only thing that really sucks is all the quagga mussels all over the walls. I have no idea how long it takes for those things to disappear, but it is still an amazing place to go see, even without a a few years of nature working on returning the canyon back to normal.


----------



## Joedills

MNichols said:


> Hey! In my defense, I suggested nuclear power first!


Doesn't Nuclear power generation also consume a shitload of water?


----------



## Dangerfield

I would hope so. (regarding Glen Canyon coming back into it's glory).


----------



## Dangerfield

Joedills said:


> Doesn't Nuclear power generation also consume a shitload of water?


I live about 10 miles upstream from the 1st hydro project on the Columbia River - Rock Island Dam and about 70 miles from the Hanford Nuclear Res. A new design reactor was recently approved for construction at this area which uses liquid sodium for cooling and as such would be a closed loop system. Gasses produced (highly toxic) would not be placed into tanks buried (close to the Columbia R. and leaking liquid toxics) but instead would be mitigated as they are emitted from the process. Smaller and safer units have been on the drawing boards even from Bill Gates. I believe research facilities in Southern Idaho are also into design/testing of similar units.

Technically I am referred to as a "down winder" (where I grew up) from many toxic radioactive releases into the air in the 50's and 60's from Hanford.


----------



## MNichols

Joedills said:


> Doesn't Nuclear power generation also consume a shitload of water?


I'm not a Nuclear scientist, but I believe it's a closed system, the cooling towers one sees cool the water for reuse.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

The way forward with Nuclear power is the Small Modular Reactors....






Small enough to fit on a semi truck, closed loop system, and they don't have the same potential problems with melting down and decommissioning them. When they exceed their usefulness you just store the entire reactor in a safe place (Yuca mountain style...if that ever becomes a thing). They make Megawatts of power instead of Gigawatts...but since they are modular you can just add another one when you need it. It could also mean that smaller towns and communities could just participate in a carbon neutral power source that has a relatively low environmental impact compared to current sources.




MNichols said:


> I'm not a Nuclear scientist, but I believe it's a closed system, the cooling towers one sees cool the water for reuse.


There is definitely some loss to evaporation...but IMHO its not a true loss since it goes back into the weather system and most of the water goes back into the system. Nuclear plants aren't the only water users either. Most power stations are basically the same thing.... heat water up to make steam and run it through a turbine that is hooked up to a generator. Coal, Natural Gas, Nuclear and even some Solar units all do this... so they all need to cool the water/steam mixture after it goes through the turbine.


----------



## MNichols

Very interesting technology! Very informative tube on it as well. Thanks for sharing EM!


----------



## mukunig

I'm not a rocket surgeon and don't have an informed opinion on the new modular nukes, but the Union of Concerned Scientists studied the new modular nuclear reactors and determined that they are not better or safer than current reactors: "Advanced" Isn't Always Better
Executive Summary here: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/ucs-es-AR-3.21-web_May rev.pdf



> *"Advanced" Isn't Always Better*
> Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors
> If nuclear power is to play an expanded role in helping address climate change, newly built reactors must be demonstrably safer and more secure than current generation reactors. Unfortunately, most "advanced" nuclear reactors are anything but.
> 
> The Union of Concerned Scientists undertook a comprehensive analysis of the most prominent and well-funded non-light-water reactor (NLWR) designs. We asked:
> 
> What are the benefits and risks of NLWRs and their fuel cycles ?
> Do the likely overall benefits of NLWRs outweigh the risks and justify the substantial public and private investments needed to commercialize them?
> Can NLWRs be safely and securely commercialized in time to contribute significantly to averting the climate crisis?
> Based on the available evidence, we found that the NLWR designs we analyzed are not likely to be significantly safer than today’s nuclear plants. In fact, certain alternative reactor designs pose even more safety, proliferation, and environmental risks than the current fleet.


----------



## COH20man

Geothermal is the best alternative power option. These dams were engineered to hold back water, not that big wedge of silt that keeps inching closer. Let the dams stop producing power and decommission them... they were all built with an expected useful life that has been exceeded. Our infrastructure is crumbling


----------



## SpudCat

Dangerfield said:


> Draining reservoirs to surge water down to Powell and Mead in my view is like "shooting the moon" and hoping there will be a huge snowpack in 2021/2022 (and into the future) to make up for it. The odds based upon trends don't seem to back up these actions, but that is what the Feds and States impacted agreed upon back a number of years ago. I really don't get it and feel really mentally "dense" today. I must be missing something, please somebody educate me.


I think another accurate analogy is 'band-aid on a head wound.' Your assessment is 100% accurate.

Trying to bank upstream water in Powell is a short-sighted crap shoot and not very likely to be successful. It's based on a whole bunch of assumptions and hopes, one of which is having 'normal' winters (there would need to be a lot of them) in the middle of a multi-decade mega drought.

Change is hard but it is certain, whether people like it or not. The reality is that civilization in the SW United States in its current form is unsustainable. Something has to give and our arrogance and faith in technology will not bail us out this time. Whether it takes 5, 10 or 15 years, there will be a point (of no return) where people leave en mass from places like Phoenix and Las Vegas. Climate change refugees.


----------



## jamesthomas

Just saw an article that stated the same thing is happening on the Snake. They are draining Madison? Lake to fill up dams further down the snake. Coulter bay marina will potentially be closed to power boats due to dropping lake levels. On the bright side we have been getting regular rain in SW Colorado. We are moist at 7500 and I’m sure the hugh country above say 9000 is WET.


----------



## MNichols

jamesthomas said:


> Just saw an article that stated the same thing is happening on the Snake. They are draining Madison? Lake to fill up dams further down the snake. Coulter bay marina will potentially be closed to power boats due to dropping lake levels. On the bright side we have been getting regular rain in SW Colorado. We are moist at 7500 and I’m sure the hugh country above say 9000 is WET.


I live at 8,000 ft in Colorado, Central Colorado, and it has been raining pretty much every afternoon, not hard but enough to wet things down, and most nights again not hard but enough to wet things down. If nothing else it's keeping the grasses at elevation alive, which lessons the chance of wildfires from lightning strikes


----------



## jamesthomas

Make that Jackson Lake, sorry.


----------



## MNichols

jamesthomas said:


> Make that Jackson Lake, sorry.


Is that up in the hugh country? 😂🤣


----------



## mukunig

I haven't heard that about the Snake but that is scary.

The recently completed Yellowstone Climate Assessment says snowpack is already down 25% in Yellowstone since 1950 (interestingly precipitation is not down but more falls as rain now when it used to be snow). They predict snow line could rise from around 6000 ft elevation now to 10,000 feet by the end of the century. For the skiers out there that is the top of Rendezvous Bowl at JH Ski Resort (worst case scenario only the top of the Grand Teton would get snow). That would devastate river levels in the summer. And of course the headwaters of the Green start nearby in the Wind Rivers and would be affected similarly. Foreword | Greater Yellowstone Climate Assessment


----------



## gnarsify

SpudCat said:


> Trying to bank upstream water in Powell is a short-sighted crap shoot and not very likely to be successful.


Curious why you think it's short sighted? Upstream reservoirs are above or around 50% (flaming gorge 83%, blue Mesa 44% and Navajo 64%) powell is at 33%. I don't think these upstream releases are an attempt to fill powell or let Californians water golf courses, they are to keep the generators running.


----------



## mkashzg

It is only a temporary Band-Aid and likely not going to change the outcome dramatically. At the current rate the lake is dropping I am scratching my head to understand how all trips will be able to run down there past the next summer two at the very most unless they start releasing water without making power or we have some monumental winter.


----------



## Bootboy

mkashzg said:


> It is only a temporary Band-Aid and likely not going to change the outcome dramatically. At the current rate the lake is dropping I am scratching my head to understand how all trips will be able to run down there past the next summer two at the very most unless they start releasing water without making power or we have some monumental winter.


I think a low-water GC trip sounds awesome.


----------



## DannyClark

Leave it to the Nordic nations. Bad enough they’ve been lapping us with forward thinking environmental policies and sustainable living as a national culture, but now they have to import garbage for their electricity needs lol. WTH?!? We’re arguing over fossil fuels and nuclear, and they’re begging for garbage lol. We’re burying our shit and nuclear waste for our grandkids to deal with, and they somehow found a way to sustainably burn it. Isn’t it amazing what you can do when you don’t have industry giants and their army of lobbyists, er, Trade Organizations, running the country? “We’ll never replace fossil fuels, impossible”. The older i get the more i realize how stupid I truly am, but i know one thing for sure. To quote Napoleon Hill “ What the mind of man can conceive and believe, the mind of man can achieve.” 









First-world problem? Norway and Sweden battle over who gets to burn waste | DW | 23.11.2015


While many countries struggle to get rid of household waste, Norway cannot get enough of it - to run its waste-to-energy incinerator plants. Oslo even has to import waste, and is blaming Sweden for its problems.




www.google.com


----------



## MNichols

gnarsify said:


> Curious why you think it's short sighted? Upstream reservoirs are above or around 50% (flaming gorge 83%, blue Mesa 44% and Navajo 64%) powell is at 33%. I don't think these upstream releases are an attempt to fill powell or let Californians water golf courses, they are to keep the generators running.


I kinda sorta have to agree with his thinking. Right now, we have 2 impoundments that are almost empty. If we transfer water from the upper basin impoundments to Powell and mead, the outflow to the other states will continue unabated, and if left as it is, we'll have 4 additional impoundments that are dry, and dependent on the weather, i.e. winter storms, of which we've been getting less and less runoff from to refill them. Low stream-flow in smaller rivers tends to raise the temps in said rivers, endangering all manner of indigenous wildlife that depend on that water. 

I tend to view the government like this old adage. "Were the government in charge of the Sahara desert, within a year there would be a shortage of sand". In this instance, I have just about the same faith that BuREC has anyone's best interests at heart other than their own, and we shall suffer.


----------



## Dangerfield

It's really a contentious issue all over the West, different impacts but all are detrimental. Where the construction of Glen Canyon Dam screwed up the the river fish evolution by chilling the water (water off the bottom) for species that required warm water, coversly in the PNW dam construction did exactly the opposite. The current debate here is the removal of the Snake River Dams. They slow the water and impede what used to be the fast flushing of salmonid migratory species to the Pacific. In addition the impoundments are heating the water to lethal levels for both migrating adults and juveniles while providing the perfect environment for predatory species such as walleye, pike minnow, catfish and smallmouth bass to flourish and reproduce. In 2015 high temps originating primarily from the Snake River directly caused the die off of an estimated 250,000 sockeye salmon between the Tri Cites and Bonneville Dam destined for Canada and one other Washington tributary stream. The ripple effect also caused the die off of sturgeon that over consumed and could not digest the dead sockeye.





__





Warm Water Blamed for Huge Columbia River Sockeye Die-off


Federal and state fisheries biologists say more than a quarter million Columbia River sockeye salmon have died in the river and its tributaries this summer as the result of unusually warm water prompted by the regionwide drought and hot weather,




www.nwcouncil.org


----------



## gnarsify

MNichols said:


> I kinda sorta have to agree with his thinking. Right now, we have 2 impoundments that are almost empty. If we transfer water from the upper basin impoundments to Powell and mead, the outflow to the other states will continue unabated, and if left as it is, we'll have 4 additional impoundments that are dry, and dependent on the weather, i.e. winter storms, of which we've been getting less and less runoff from to refill them.


Normally I'd agree, but it isn't normal right now. I don't think BOR has a choice. Think of those upper reservoirs as a savings account, normally you are adding to them or keeping them as full as possible. But suddenly you lose your job and you need to dip into that savings, sure it's not sustainable and you are counting on getting an another job, but you need to pay rent and eat in the meantime. So you dip into those savings to keep a roof over your head and hope you get a job soon. BOR is dipping into those savings to keep everyone's AC units running, if they didn't have to, they wouldn't. I'm sure they aren't happy with the situation and are more than aware it isn't sustainable. Sometimes I don't get the hate against Federal Agencies and people acting like they know how to do it better. They are doing the best they can given their constraints from both nature and the compact.


----------



## SpudCat

gnarsify said:


> Curious why you think it's short sighted? Upstream reservoirs are above or around 50% (flaming gorge 83%, blue Mesa 44% and Navajo 64%) powell is at 33%. I don't think these upstream releases are an attempt to fill powell or let Californians water golf courses, they are to keep the generators running.


The upper reservoirs are small in comparison to Powell and Mead, it's a temporary stop-gap measure rather than a sustainable solution (maybe it provides a year of operations?), and it screws over everyone dependent on those upper impoundments. I think it's classic antiquated government thinking that is based on an old plan and data vs. sucking it up, trying to innovate, and creating a sustainable solution to a very real and catastrophic problem. Decision-makers seem to put all their eggs into easy solutions like this instead of taking on the problem in a meaningful way and making the hard decisions and preventing more future misery. There will be less and less water in the future. The sooner decision-makers pull their heads out of the sand and face reality and plan for it, the less the average person pays/suffers down the road. We put so much blind faith in things working out and technology bailing us out.

For reference, at full pool Flaming Gorge holds 3.7 maf (million acre feet), Blue Mesa holds 0.75 maf, Navajo holds 1.7 maf.

If they completely drained all three of these reservoirs (based on current water levels), it would put appx. 4.4 maf into Powell. This doesn't account for live (usable) storage vs. actual storage, so the usable water is probably more like 3.5 maf.

So going with 3.5 maf, that equates to 14% of the storage capacity of Powell.

Powell holds 24.3 maf, Mead holds 28.9 maf. 

I guess I see it as peeing in a swimming pool hoping it will fill enough that you can use the diving board.


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

Dangerfield said:


> I live about 10 miles upstream from the 1st hydro project on the Columbia River - Rock Island Dam and about 70 miles from the Hanford Nuclear Res. A new design reactor was recently approved for construction at this area which uses liquid sodium for cooling and as such would be a closed loop system. Gasses produced (highly toxic) would not be placed into tanks buried (close to the Columbia R. and leaking liquid toxics) but instead would be mitigated as they are emitted from the process. Smaller and safer units have been on the drawing boards even from Bill Gates. I believe research facilities in Southern Idaho are also into design/testing of similar units.


Liquid sodium reactors are an interesting subject. Basically only the first test unit in Idaho, a proof of concept worked. It was super small, it powered a single light bulb. Once we started trying to scale it up it has never worked for anyone except for a small Russian plant and even they had problems and they didn't scale it up to much either and it was deemed too expensive to continue to research.

There's been trillions put into these things and decades of trying. The most recent the Monju plant in Japan, they spent 8.5 billion dollars on it over twenty years and it produced power on their grid for one hour.

The sodium is just super difficult to work with and highly volatile. I don't think there will ever be enough investment in the technology to scale it up and make viable outside of very small reactors. I feel like Gates is just falling for the memeification of the technology that is prevalent on reddit. Reading what nuclear engineers have to say about it, doesn't seem very promising. If you just google it online almost everything pretends like it hasn't really been tried before. It's been tried a lot, they all had lots of accidents and issues.


----------



## gnarsify

What makes you think they aren't considering long term effects? What makes you think there aren't negotiations going on right now? Just because BOR needs to release water _right-now_ to keep power generation going doesn't mean they have their heads up their asses. You seem to think decision makers only go the easy route, but what other solutions are there? They need water in the lake to keep power generation up, they aren't trying to fill the reservoir. If the lake goes to deadpool, they are genuinely and truly fucked. And when you can't run the GC you all will be bitching that they didn't empty the upper reservoirs soon enough. Does the long term management of the Colorado River Basin need to be updated and changed? Abso-fucking-lutely but those negotiations aren't easy and will take some time to work out between all of the stake-holders. In the meantime, BOR is just trying to keep their head above water while being dealt a really shitty hand.


----------



## MNichols

gnarsify said:


> In the meantime, BOR is just trying to keep their head above water while being dealt a really shitty hand.


It might be worth mentioning, that the shitty hand that they have been dealt is entirely of their own making..


----------



## Pinchecharlie

I know this is naive...but would it work if we just changed our lifestyles say 35-50%? You know. Rain catchment, perma culture, ride bikes to work 3 times a week buy local veggies yada yada yada? Victory gardens! Solstice ritual sex parties....maybe if we listened to that whiney little Greta and just did a little it would snow again? Is it going to snow again? Cause my two steoke polluting snowmobile still not broke in! Nevermind we should event some pocket sized nuclear shite...


----------



## Dangerfield

ScarecrowPlayboy said:


> Liquid sodium reactors are an interesting subject. Basically only the first test unit in Idaho, a proof of concept worked. It was super small, it powered a single light bulb. Once we started trying to scale it up it has never worked for anyone except for a small Russian plant and even they had problems and they didn't scale it up to much either and it was deemed too expensive to continue to research.
> 
> There's been trillions put into these things and decades of trying. The most recent the Monju plant in Japan, they spent 8.5 billion dollars on it over twenty years and it produced power on their grid for one hour.
> 
> The sodium is just super difficult to work with and highly volatile. I don't think there will ever be enough investment in the technology to scale it up and make viable outside of very small reactors. I feel like Gates is just falling for the memeification of the technology that is prevalent on reddit. Reading what nuclear engineers have to say about it, doesn't seem very promising. If you just google it online almost everything pretends like it hasn't really been tried before. It's been tried a lot, they all had lots of accidents and issues.


I stand corrected. Here is a small snippet of the proposed new gas cooled "melt down proof" reactor. The buzz words make me nervous (eliminate the possibility & impossible to melt).

"The planned high temperature, gas-cooled reactor will be built to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown and will require a smaller safety perimeter compared to tradition plants, the partnership said. It will use a low enriched uranium fuel encased in ceramic to make it impossible to melt. "


----------



## MNichols

Solstice ritual sex parties? While this would sound intrigueing were I 20 or 30 years younger...

Where do you come up with this stuff?


----------



## ScarecrowPlayboy

Dangerfield said:


> I stand corrected. Here is a small snippet of the proposed new gas cooled "melt down proof" reactor. The buzz words make me nervous (eliminate the possibility & impossible to melt).
> 
> "The planned high temperature, gas-cooled reactor will be built to eliminate the possibility of a meltdown and will require a smaller safety perimeter compared to tradition plants, the partnership said. It will use a low enriched uranium fuel encased in ceramic to make it impossible to melt. "


That part is actually true. There have been a lot of accidents with these test reactors where the sodium cooling loops could no longer be circulated, which any other type of reactor results in meltdown, but the liquid sodium doesn't boil off, it keeps the reactor cool. It takes years to fix, but doesn't melt down.

If you read about the history of nuclear accidents, there have been so many with test reactors and so many weird things have happened where operators had no idea how to respond because they were thought to be impossible. I would certainly not rule out an accident and that liquid sodium will basically start an inferno if it comes in contact with the moisture in air.


----------



## SpudCat

MNichols said:


> It might be worth mentioning, that the shitty hand that they have been dealt is entirely of their own making..


Agree, 100%. And it's been a known problem for decades. And it came with all the data and projections you could possibly need/want.

I'd love for anyone out there to provide _an_ example of how this country has ever been proactive vs. reactive when it comes to matters like this. Or demonstrate how we don't have the worst perpetual case of collective amnesia about essentially every crisis/problem ever.* I guarantee if the Colorado basin was magically gifted 2-3 years of above-average water, most people would totally forget about this and the powers that be would not use the opportunity to meaningfully get ahead of things.

*Please also see covid, every oil crisis, recession, etc.


----------



## MNichols

I wouldn't hold my left hand on my ass waiting for this to materialize, the government is has and likely always will be reactive, while claiming to be proactive, but if there isn't a clear and compelling threat to something, the government ignores it and chugs along as if nothing untoward is happening, right up until it all crashes down around them

That being said, I just came across this. Kudos to Utah!









A town in Utah asks, ‘Why are we building houses if we don’t have enough water?’


Oakley, about an hour’s drive east of Salt Lake City, imposed a construction moratorium on new homes that would connect to the town’s water system.




www.chicagotribune.com


----------



## SpudCat

gnarsify said:


> What makes you think they aren't considering long term effects? What makes you think there aren't negotiations going on right now? Just because BOR needs to release water _right-now_ to keep power generation going doesn't mean they have their heads up their asses. You seem to think decision makers only go the easy route, but what other solutions are there? They need water in the lake to keep power generation up, they aren't trying to fill the reservoir. If the lake goes to deadpool, they are genuinely and truly fucked. And when you can't run the GC you all will be bitching that they didn't empty the upper reservoirs soon enough. Does the long term management of the Colorado River Basin need to be updated and changed? Abso-fucking-lutely but those negotiations aren't easy and will take some time to work out between all of the stake-holders. In the meantime, BOR is just trying to keep their head above water while being dealt a really shitty hand.


I respectfully disagree. Government bureaucracy (aka BOR) is generally slow, cumbersome, and resistant to innovation and change. Water law/rights are also incredibly complex. And those upper basin users are going to fight like hell to not lose their water. I can all but guarantee that if BOR were to try to open the drain on the upper reservoirs, it would immediately go to court. Injunction is issued. Water is not drained. Slow expensive litigation begins.

The plan is a 6-9 month band-aid at best, assuming BOR is even able to implement said plan on demand. And it comes with serious ramifications for a whole bunch of upstream water users. And I'd bet the bank BOR is not doing as much as they could/should to figure out a real solution because myriad organizational/political constraints.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

I agree with all ya'lls statements on short sighted government bureaucracy and how they haven't handled it well and how it seems unlikely that much will change any time soon. What I don't see, and I'm truly interested in an answer, is ideas for real solutions on how to truly handle the problem. A lot of "they're doing it wrong" but not a ton of actual solutions beyond cutting water use in general which is easier said then done in any meaningful way. It is far from an easy thing to figure out. The only certain thing is that it seems we have less water to work with and more resources that require it... how we make that work is very unclear to me.


----------



## SpudCat

Electric-Mayhem said:


> I agree with all ya'lls statements on short sighted government bureaucracy and how they haven't handled it well and how it seems unlikely that much will change any time soon. What I don't see, and I'm truly interested in an answer, is ideas for real solutions on how to truly handle the problem. A lot of "they're doing it wrong" but not a ton of actual solutions beyond cutting water use in general which is easier said then done in any meaningful way. It is far from an easy thing to figure out. The only certain thing is that it seems we have less water to work with and more resources that require it... how we make that work is very unclear to me.


While much of this highly unlikely considering how stubborn we are as a country and resistant to change, here is a short list of a few tough things I think could/should be happening.

Again, I emphasize _should_ happen but probably _won't_ happen.

Curtail or stop growth in the most Colorado River-dependent areas of Southern California, Phoenix, Las Vegas (People shriek about economy and freedom, doesn't happen)
Buy-out the biggest water users in the aforementioned metro areas, relocation incentives/assistance. This includes industry and agriculture. We probably don't need to grow super water intensive crops in a blistering hot desert. (More shrieking about freedom and rights, people fighting to preserve lifestyles and $$).
Implement wide-sweeping water conservation measures in So Cal, PHX, LV. Further incentivize ripping up grass, xeriscaping, etc. No more corporate fountains, pools, ponds/lakes, acres of watered grass no one ever sets foot upon. (Again people shriek about personal freedom, rights, etc.).
Decrease power demand. Create energy efficiency incentives for industry and individuals. How about car dealerships and shopping malls not keep acres of lights shining on acres of cars or empty pavement at 2:00am.
It won't happen. We have the means, but we ultimately lack the political will to do most things that are tough. People would rather _preserve_ their sacred cows while simultaneously destroying them. You can't make water appear out of thin air, yet all these metro areas will actively pursue growth and new businesses, residents, etc. because that's how our economy works. And in the U.S. it's economic growth above all else.


----------



## MNichols

SpudCat said:


> While much of this highly unlikely considering how stubborn we are as a country and resistant to change, here is a short list of a few tough things I think could/should be happening.
> 
> Again, I emphasize _should_ happen but probably _won't_ happen.
> 
> Curtail or stop growth in the most Colorado River-dependent areas of Southern California, Phoenix, Las Vegas (People shriek about economy and freedom, doesn't happen)
> Buy-out the biggest water users in the aforementioned metro areas, relocation incentives/assistance. This includes industry and agriculture. We probably don't need to grow super water intensive crops in a blistering hot desert. (More shrieking about freedom and rights, people fighting to preserve lifestyles and $$).
> Implement wide-sweeping water conservation measures in So Cal, PHX, LV. Further incentivize ripping up grass, xeriscaping, etc. No more corporate fountains, pools, ponds/lakes, acres of watered grass no one ever sets foot upon. (Again people shriek about personal freedom, rights, etc.).
> Decrease power demand. Create energy efficiency incentives for industry and individuals. How about car dealerships and shopping malls not keep acres of lights shining on acres of cars or empty pavement at 2:00am.
> It won't happen. We have the means, but we ultimately lack the political will to do most things that are tough. People would rather _preserve_ their sacred cows while simultaneously destroying them. You can't make water appear out of thin air, yet all these metro areas will actively pursue growth and new businesses, residents, etc. because that's how our economy works. And in the U.S. it's economic growth above all else.


Well put, and I completely concur that we should be doing this, the town in Utah in my opinion is taking a step in the right direction, but this won't work unless entire states adopt this mindset. Wishful thinking...


----------



## Big George Waters

You know, I'm gonna catch a whole lot of hell for this - but I think it's time we question on a world wide level if perhaps we have indeed reached, if not surpassed the tipping point on what is sustainable healthy balanced living when it comes to how we are closing in on eight billion people fast, when I seem to think it was six billion about 15 - 20 years ago, and perhaps just one billion one hundred years ago or so.

I'm reading about record setting storms one right after the other, what just happened in Europe and now what is happening in China.

What's going on out west here in the states now is definately not something that was going on say 25 years ago, unless I am missing something - and please forgive me if I am.

I know I know, the whole human population can fit in Texas, and even Rhode Island if we think vertically and perhaps even Bridgeport CT if we tunnel deep enough - but that's not the point.

Something is very very wrong if we keep needing to have to come up with new ideas to increase food production, power demands, living space - and funny you never hear about the increase in pollution, waste water, garbage, etc....

This thread needs to be on the cover of every national newspaper - that's how important this discussion is.


----------



## mukunig

Pinchecharlie said:


> I know this is naive...but would it work if we just changed our lifestyles say 35-50%? You know. Rain catchment, perma culture, ride bikes to work 3 times a week buy local veggies yada yada yada? Victory gardens! Solstice ritual sex parties....maybe if we listened to that whiney little Greta and just did a little it would snow again? Is it going to snow again? Cause my two steoke polluting snowmobile still not broke in! Nevermind we should event some pocket sized nuclear shite...


There is both good news and bad news about our future. The good news is that solstice ritual sex parties will solve everything. Oh, wait, sorry, that may not be true. EDIT TO ADD: But what the hell, maybe it's worth a try? haha.

The true good news is that all predictions abut the future do not need to come true. It all depends on what we do now. If we stop adding greenhouses gases to the atmosphere (from burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and harmful agriculture practices), global warming will stop and the planet will not get hotter. Predictions about worsening drought and soil-drying heat would not come true.

The bad news is that even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane, the climate will not return to what it was previously and the drought in the SW will not go away. The climate won't continue to change for the worse, but it also won't return to the previous climate (you know, the one we've had for the past 11,000 years that allowed humans to develop agriculture and civilization and that all of our current infrastructure was built for). The only way to return to the climate of 50 or 150 years ago is to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and we don't currently have the technology to do that.

Scientists have understood the greenhouse effect and global carbon cycle for more than 150 years, and these are relatively easy to model. The variable that is hardest to model is what humans will do -- will we keep on emitting greenhouse gases or will we change? We have most of the technology we need to rapidly get to zero emissions but we don't have the political will to do it.

In the future we will still have wet years and cool years, but the general trend is hotter and drier in the SW, even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases today. Global emissions are continuing to rise, so things will get worse for awhile.

And yes, we need to stop consuming and building in arid regions.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

Good luck getting people to voluntarily stop popping out kids. Heck, even when China had the one child mandate people were going to big lengths to get around it. I think major cut backs on water use are the first step and relatively easily remedied. Las Vegas and other southwestern cities have already started SOME of that with requiring golf courses to cut back grassy areas, maximum lawn sizes, strict watering rules and actually enforcing them, and some other stuff. Still a ton more to be done though. Industry and Agricultural water use reform need a lot more restrictions. Its really unfortunate how the "water market" was created in the Western US. It makes it very hard to get people to reduce their use. It would be nice if they didn't own a certain amount, but instead had a percentage of what was available. Also, some incentives to being more efficient and not using all that is technically available for your use.


----------



## MNichols

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Good luck getting people to voluntarily stop popping out kids


 Does that mean no winter solstice sex rituals !?!?

Say it ain't so! 🤣🤣


----------



## Electric-Mayhem

MNichols said:


> Does that mean no winter solstice sex rituals !?!?
> 
> Say it ain't so! 🤣🤣


----------



## mr. compassionate

okieboater said:


> In my opinion, there are many reasons the Colorado River is not servicing the current demands for it's water.
> 
> Probably the main ones are growth of farms, cities and population along the river's path. These and more reasons demand more water than is available.
> 
> Back when the dams were built, my guess is plenty of water for that time.
> 
> Now, the demand is far greater than ever thought.
> 
> Droughts come and go. Recent growth tho is growing faster than river flow allows.
> 
> We are currently in a drought situation. Current water demand plus the cyclical drought puts the population in a bad place.
> 
> My guess is changing the weather patterns is going to be difficult. Changing demand is also going to be difficult buy may well be the only solution at this time that works.


I would argue that we are not in drought period whatsoever and actually still wetter in comparison to the average over the last several thousand years. The early 1900's when the Colorado Rive Compact was signed were historically much wetter than the norm. We're in for a world of hurt with the population increase in the Southwest. Move out before it's to late!


----------



## mkashzg

Sarcasm is the same as doing nothing but unfortunately in this situation I think we’re so completely fucked it’s not gonna matter. I have heard that lake Powell is shutting down certain aspects of operation and houseboats in Wahweap need to be out by Saturday. I have some pictures from about two weeks ago taken from the upper delta below the cataract take out which I will try and post tonight which are very telling.


----------



## mkashzg

These photos were taken in early July by a buddy who went down to run cataract but the rest of the group was not willing to deal with issues at the takeout and bailed so he decided to go on to Lake Powell and drive up past Hite and see what the Delta looked like up there and spent over a week riding around on his bike and walking. Assuming I have these loaded in the right order they should be taken from above and then down towards the lake.

from what I have just heard motorized traffic is being pulled from the lake and only IKs and Paddle Board‘s are being allowed.


----------



## mkashzg

I forgot to mention that he ran into a couple park service employees up there who work on the lake and we’re just checking things out and were curious to see all of his photos and why he was up there but they seem to understand that their situation was not going to a last for more than a year or two at most. The mud up there was obviously pretty stinky and travel was not easy but the bike worked well for him apparently once he was able to get above the muck onto dry ground.


----------



## MNichols

That's grim.. I'll bet it was stinky, all those houseboats dumping all that sewage all those years.. Or just decomposing detritus, but none the less. Thanks for sharing that.

Interesting article this AM about the UAE and their "rainmaking".. 








Drones are zapping clouds with electricity to create rain in United Arab Emirates project


The United Arab Emirates is creating enhanced rain through cloud seeding, a method of artificially encouraging clouds to produce rain.



www.usatoday.com





One can't help but wonder if all this engineering of nature is going to have unintended consequences..


----------



## Acheron

No kidding, we've allowed corporations to influence the weather without a care for decades.









Answerland " Vail Resorts cloud-seeding?


Is Vail Resorts still quietly doing their cloud seeding? If so, did they do it this year even with near record snowfall? Does their cloud seeding have any effect




www.vaildaily.com





Then they just stop when they want








Vail Resorts’ cancellation of cloud seeding this winter could mean less water in streams


Due to budget shortfalls, Vail Resorts has pulled this winter’s funding for its cloud seeding program, potentially reducing the amount of water flowing down the Colorado River this spring.




waterdesk.org





and who knows the consequences of any of it...no one. That valley had historically low flows this year though. Makes you go hmm. Businesses, like Vail Resorts, doen't care, exploitation is the name of the game.


----------



## MNichols

On the subject of Nuclear reactors, here's one they are developing in China, waterless, instead molten salt. 








China is Building the World's First Waterless Nuclear Reactor


China unveiled its design for a commercial molten salt nuclear reactor that is expected to be the first in the world to not utilize water for cooling.




interestingengineering.com


----------



## Big George Waters

I go back and forth on Nuclear Energy.

Personally, I think it's really the only real viable solution based on what we have today, because solar and wind just ain't gonna cut it - BUT - it has to be done responsibly, otherwise as we all know very bad things happen.

I had an uncle who recently passed away, Eckhart Ewest from the German side of the family back home, and he spent his entire career on Nuclear Energy from I believe the scientific point of view, and even has a few interesting patents to his credit:




__





Eckhart Ewest Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications - Justia Patents Search


USPTO patent applications submitted by and patents granted to Eckhart Ewest




patents.justia.com





Sadly, he died far too young and suffered greatly from bone cancer.

I can't help but wonder if the two were somehow related.

But he loved life, nature, and while he was alive - never took anything for granted.


----------



## MNichols

For those of you interested, here's the latest BOR report





__





Glen Canyon Dam | Water Operations | UC Region | Bureau of Reclamation


Bureau of Reclamation - Managing water and power in the West




www.usbr.gov





And the latest drought update.

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DROUGHT OPERATIONS UPDATE 
Sent via Email on July 22nd, 2021 In the next few days, Lake Powell’s water surface elevation will drop below 
3,555.10 feet, which was the previous record low reached back in April 2005 
following the initial years of the drought. Lake Powell’s elevation is expected to drop another two feet by the end of July and 
will likely continue to decline until next year’s spring runoff into the Colorado 
River begins. To further help put things into perspective, since its pre-drought high elevation of 
3,700 feet (95% capacity) in September 1999, Lake Powell has dropped more than 
145 vertical feet, lost 16 million-acre feet of water (enough to service 64 million 
suburban households annually) and is currently at 33% capacity. In anticipation of increasingly severe drought, the Upper Basin states and 
Reclamation entered into a Drought Response Operations Agreement in 2019. Under this agreement, we initiated delivery of supplemental water to Lake Powell. We will continue to closely monitor conditions and projections as we work with 
the seven Colorado Basin states on a Drought Response Operations Plan in the 
coming months. You can visit our website to view the current elevation at Lake Powell 

Sobering....


----------



## MNichols

A nice, but long read on Powell Reserviour dropping and Glen Canyon reappearing









 The Lost Canyon Under Lake Powell


Drought is shrinking one of the country’s largest reservoirs, revealing a hidden Eden.




www.newyorker.com


----------



## Willie 1.5

US rivers and lakes are shrinking for a surprising reason: cows


Cattle-feed crops, which end up as beef and dairy products, account for 23% of water consumption in the US




www.theguardian.com









__





Beef Production by State 2022






worldpopulationreview.com





Here is some low hanging fruit, that will have minimal impact on the supply of beef. We have over promised water across the west, we just need the will to buy out many of these operations.


----------



## MNichols

Willie 1.5 said:


> US rivers and lakes are shrinking for a surprising reason: cows
> 
> 
> Cattle-feed crops, which end up as beef and dairy products, account for 23% of water consumption in the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beef Production by State 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldpopulationreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some low hanging fruit, that will have minimal impact on the supply of beef. We have over promised water across the west, we just need the will to buy out many of these operations.


Ooh, that's dangerous territory my friend, going after agriculture isn't going to be popular at all.. Our idiot governor here in CO proclaimed May 22 don't eat meat day. The backlash from that stunt was massive..


----------



## MT4Runner

Willie 1.5 said:


> US rivers and lakes are shrinking for a surprising reason: cows
> 
> 
> Cattle-feed crops, which end up as beef and dairy products, account for 23% of water consumption in the US
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beef Production by State 2022
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldpopulationreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some low hanging fruit, that will have minimal impact on the supply of beef. We have over promised water across the west, we just need the will to buy out many of these operations.


I'd mentioned it before in this thread, but alfalfa is insanely water-intensive.

You could grow about 2/3 that much beef on the original acreage, just skip the irrigated alfalfa and plant prairie grasses. The animals won't grow as big as quickly...but the meat will be tastier.
Hell, leave the center pivots in and use 1/4 the water and still have irrigated grass on the low-water years.
And save a lot of diesel and labor in the process.


----------



## Andy H.

Here's a deeper dive into the policy side of things talking about potential renegotiation of the Compact terms between Upper and Lower Basin states due to a lot of the uncertainties posed by climate change:








Sources of Controversy in the Law of the River – Larry MacDonnell


As we lumber toward a renegotiation of the operating rules on the Colorado River, one of the challenges folks in basin management face is the differing understandings of the Law of the River. There…



www.inkstain.net





The paper referenced in the article is a free download HERE if anyone wants to get into it.


----------



## jamesthomas

Just saw a perfect example of how f’ed up water is in the west. Drove past a gas powered pump pumping water out of a irrigation ditch through a two inch fire hose. No sprinklers or control, just flooding a section of already green pasture, and by the way not very efficiently. Meanwhile bureau of wreck is dumping 150000 acre feet out of Flaming Gorge by October in order to keep lake foul in power generation mode. This water pumping onto a already green pasture would have ended up in foul if it wasn’t turning the dudes pasture into a mud hole. Friggin stupid. Wake up people.


----------



## Andy H.

jamesthomas said:


> Just saw a perfect example of how f’ed up water is in the west. Drove past a gas powered pump pumping water out of a irrigation ditch through a two inch fire hose. No sprinklers or control, just flooding a section of already green pasture, and by the way not very efficiently.


Yeah, flood irrigation's notorious for it's inefficiency. But your post brings to mind the "use it or lose it" part of the Prior Appropriation system (the "first in time, first in right" water rights system most Western states follow, based on mining law). This results in a LOT of waste and is one of the big problems when trying to conserve. I've heard of farmers getting an inch of rain on one day, then the next is their day to get their share of the ditch water and so the have to put the diverted water on waterlogged fields or risk losing their allocation. They know they're wasting precious water and most of them they hate it, but they have to do it anyway.

-AH


----------



## Aknoff

This is an incredibly ignorant question but I’m going to ask it anyway because the use it or lose concept has always seemed insane to me. Has no one ever looked at a storage solution for when it’s “your turn?” How much water are we talking? It seems everyone acknowledges the insanity of it but the policies are near impossible to unravel. But, it seems that no other creative solutions have been created. Are the volumes just so much that there’s no cost or space effective way to store it, or at least some of it? Like I said, probably ignorant but I’ve wondered this every time I’ve floated by the example mentioned above. Go easy on me…


----------



## MNichols

It's hardly ignorant, water law is as complicated as Chinese algebraziers, along with the theory of why I have never drawn a MFS permit.. 

When a water right is sold, it retains its original appropriation date and volume. Only the amount of water historically consumed can be transferred if a water right is sold. For example, if alfalfa is grown, using flood irrigation, the amount of the return flow may not be transferred, only the amount that would be necessary to irrigate the amount of alfalfa historically grown. Use it, or lose it.

If a water right is not used for a beneficial purpose for a period of time it may lapse under the doctrine of abandonment. Abandonment of a water right is rare, but occurred in Colorado in a case involving the South Fork of San Isabel Creek in Saguache County, Colorado, just around the corner from where I live. 

Here's a webpage from the Colorado DWR that explains the prior appropriation system, and abandonment. 




__





Water Rights | Division of Water Resources







dwr.colorado.gov





Hope that answers part of your question, water law is the most convoluted thing I think I've ever had to deal with, if that's not bad enough, the laws / rules and such can change from state to state. I know just enough about it to be dangerous. 

With the scarcity of water these days, everyone is being more vigilant to ensure they don't lose what they have due to enforced regulation, they hired 3 new Ditch Riders for our area 2 months ago, they are checking the Parshall Flumes a LOT more than they used to in previous years, which was once every couple weeks during irrigation season. What the farmer was doing, irrigating a green field using flood irrigation, was his right under the prior appropriation system.

What we have to deal with around here, since Kansas won their lawsuit, is the Winter Water Storage Project claiming injury, basically the farmers and ranchers in KS claimed that the upper basin areas used too much water belonging to downstream water interests. Hence, the construction of Pueblo reservoir, which also serves as water storage for the towns / cities in Colorado Springs and Pueblo, before going downstream to KS.

Storage solutions are expensive, and the bigger they are, the more expensive they become, the bigger they become, the less land for the farmer or rancher can utilize. The most common is a pond. Most ponds are either lined with pond liner material, which is basically a huge ass PVC sheet (they at one juncture made SOTAR boats out of this materiel, they were all brown) which is expensive in and of it's own right, or lined with an expansive clay such as Bentonite, which is getting scarcer and scarcer, the last Bentonite mine I'm aware of since the one locally became exhausted is near Wheatland Wy. It as well is an expensive commodity, and then add trucking. Typically a pond would be lined with 3 inches of bentonite disc'ed into the ground to a level of 6 inches, and then covered with a solid layer 3 inches deep and compacted. This doesn't even include costs for excavation and grading.

Farmers and ranchers use what they have, and what they have has been in place for many many years as their right, or appropriation. For one to say, heck, I've got a couple spare millions, I think I'll build a pond, when I might have to fallow my fields next year, well I don't think 1) that they have that sort of money that's not invested in something else, like a combine, and 2) that the insurance a pond would provide would be beneficial in a year that no water was present to fill the pond.. Powell and Mead reservoirs, I rest my case.. Not to mention that I don't know too many farmers or ranchers that haven't had to take out loans the past year due to the drought and the economy. 

The Rancher I run cattle with told me this was the first year he'd had to have a loan in 23 years, due to the drought indirectly, and cattle prices dropping so much due to the economy tanking and inflation making everything cost more, fuel, feed, minerals, vet's.. We lost 26 calves this year due to bad hay, nitrogen levels too high due to a lack of irrigation for the fields of grass that's cut and bailed as feed. That's a 30 to 40K$ loss depending on when they are sold, and what they weigh. 

FWIW, there are much better things to feed everything BUT Dairy cattle than Alfalfa. We feed grass, Milo and triticale hay, which is a cross between wheat and rye primarily. Dairy cattle are fed alfalfa due to the taste qualities (sweet) it imparts to the milk they produce, but I'm not a dairyman at all, so that's just what I've been told.

Hope this answers your questions. I'm not a water attorney, but I laid out what I know, in terms folks can understand as best I could.


----------



## B4otter

It is the way it is because that's the way the West was "won." Water law in the East is dramatically different: prior appropriation ("first in time, first in right") is the law only in certain (not all) Western states.

To answer the other part of the query, water rights are commonly denominated in acre feet, the amount of water it takes to cover one acre one foot deep. That may give some idea of the scope of the storage problem for individual farmers... In addition to the cost of construction, ponds in the arid West lose LOTS of water to evaporation, so you are merely postponing the literal "use it or lose it."


----------



## MT4Runner

B4otter said:


> It is the way it is because that's the way the West was "won." Water law in the East is dramatically different: prior appropriation ("first in time, first in right") is the law only in certain (not all) Western states.


And noting that water law varies within each state complicates the state vs state discussions.

I took a semester-long water law class. Half the people in the class were animal science/agronomy, the other half were civil engineering students. Fascinating discussions, but also learned that there's way more to it than one can discuss in one semester. And Colorado has much different water laws than other Western states...much harder to build a reservoir/pond or even use a rain barrel.


----------



## MNichols

MT4Runner said:


> And noting that water law varies within each state complicates the state vs state discussions.
> 
> I took a semester-long water law class. Half the people in the class were animal science/agronomy, the other half were civil engineering students. Fascinating discussions, but also learned that there's way more to it than one can discuss in one semester. And Colorado has much different water laws than other Western states...much harder to build a reservoir/pond or even use a rain barrel.


As I recall, it was approximately 5 years ago that they passed a law stating that if you had augmented your home well, you could collect rainwater. Not sure if that's still the case or not, things pertaining to water can change overnight.. 

As well, a reservoir or a pond must be adjudicated before it can be built, another cost...


----------



## MT4Runner

And if you have attorneys and a junior right, you can make it painful enough for a senior water right holder to not want to fight you.


----------



## MNichols

MT4Runner said:


> And if you have attorneys and a junior right, you can make it painful enough for a senior water right holder to not want to fight you.


Anytime you open up a right, or a decree to adjudication, anyone is able to protest. The reason water cases can stay open for 20 to 30 years before they're eventually adjudicated here in Colorado...


----------



## B4otter

Whiskey is for drinkin' - fight over water...


----------



## Andy H.

MNichols said:


> Anytime you open up a right, or a decree to adjudication, anyone is able to protest. .


To clarify, that's _anyone with a water right_ on the same river. Which is why it was very important that recreational water rights were obtained for places like Clear Creek in Golden, or the Pumphouse play park. My understanding is they may never be able to "call" for their full allocation of water because those "recreational instream flow" water rights are so junior, but they've got standing to protest if anyone ever wants to transfer water out of the streams in a way that would curtail the recreational flows.


----------



## jamesthomas

But…. It takes water to make whiske.


----------



## MNichols

Andy H. said:


> To clarify, that's _anyone with a water right_ on the same river. Which is why it was very important that recreational water rights were obtained for places like Clear Creek in Golden, or the Pumphouse play park. My understanding is they may never be able to "call" for their full allocation of water because those "recreational instream flow" water rights are so junior, but they've got standing to protest if anyone ever wants to transfer water out of the streams in a way that would curtail the recreational flows.


Your understanding is correct, except curtailing flows. The rights are so junior that anyone with a senior right can do whatever they want as long as they are first in right and a RICD can't do diddly.

RICDs are so junior as to be essentially worthless, except to object to others trying to manage their water. One reason they are nicknamed "Rickety's'. If the water ain't there, they do nothing. If the water IS there, they don't need to do anything...

Salida spent a cool quarter of a million on theirs.. I can think of MANY better uses for that money, but it got good press.. It's done absolutely zero for the town.. but then, we have the voluntary flow program...

Ain't water fun 😂😂


----------



## Aknoff

In a First, U.S. Declares Shortage on Colorado River, Forcing Water Cuts (NY Times)

So it begins...


----------

