# Repeat of the drought of 2000-05 Could drain Lake Powell



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

For the water geeks out there, and folks that want to run the Grand in the future: 

Absent deep water use cuts, repeat of the drought of 2000-05 would drain Lake Powell


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

*Bummer*



> “Today it’s about half full,” Kuhn said. “You can’t go into a drought like that today if it’s half full. Things will have to change in how we do business.”


I read somewhere awhile back that when the SW water use planning was being set up circa 90 years ago it was during a somewhat wetter 10 year period.
Being optimists we went for it.
We were living in a Base Rate Fallacy.
I don't believe we understood or had the tree ring data to work from.
Plus other science.

The west is primarily arid and has had serious droughts scattered throughout the past 1,000 years.

Fact:
There isn't the slightest chance of this country dealing with this problem in a proactive way.
We are in too deep and no one is going to give in anyway.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Move to Bend Oregon.

Not for river running necessarily.

The aquifer under Bend is stunning.
Quality and quantity.

This is going to be a much bigger deal in a couple decades.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Makes me me wonder what this does to population growth in the areas that have, or can get, water. Could even affect areas like Denver, at least for a while, till the water is used up. Denver water might get even wealthier for it's efforts.
Will it increase the odds of Glen canyon dam going away?


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

BilloutWest said:


> I read somewhere awhile back that when the SW water use planning was being set up circa 90 years ago it was during a somewhat wetter 10 year period.
> Being optimists we went for it.
> We were living in a Base Rate Fallacy.
> I don't believe we understood or had the tree ring data to work from.
> ...


Bill,

I think the actual stat is that it was the wettest *20* years of data that they used to set the allocation between the Upper and Lower Basin states. The data were from around the turn of the last century. And yes, it's total BS that this is how it was done and there's little chance of revisiting that allocation.

One way out is for water managers to better understand the decoupling of water usage and economic and population growth that's occurring. That is, busting the myth that economic and population growth are tied to certain levels of water use. A great example of this is that "Denver residents have managed to reduce water consumption by more than 20 percent in the last 15 years, even with a 15 percent increase in population," as is buried in this Gross Reservoir article from 5280 Magazine. It was disappointing that the author didn't really follow up on the fact water conservation can render projects like that unnecessary.

Here's an article on decoupling. It's a bit long and semi-scholarly but worth the read.

The article begins: 


> When Bart Fisher returned home from college in 1972, his family’s alfalfa fields outside Blythe in California’s southeastern desert produced 7 tons of alfalfa per acre. Today, the Fishers get 10 tons per acre from the same land. They do it with the same amount of water as a much younger Fisher and his family used four decades ago.


That example represents almost a 50% increase in crop yield with the same amount of water. Not bad.

Will there be a lower limit beneath which you simply can't conserve your way out of water over-allocation? Yes, most certainly, but we've still got a lot of slack in the system for greater conservation savings.

Happy reading,

-AH


----------



## blueskypete (Jun 8, 2007)

Bend area starting to struggle to keep enough cold water in the rivers to support fish. It's still a desert there which means you can't escape the limited supply/unchecked demand situation. It's the same wishful thinking that has gotten the SW in trouble.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

blueskypete said:


> Bend area starting to struggle to keep enough cold water in the rivers to support fish. It's still a desert there which means you can't escape the limited supply/unchecked demand situation. It's the same wishful thinking that has gotten the SW in trouble.


The aquifer is still there.
Its is still huge and barely touched even with Bends Growth.

The river is a separate source and a relevant source mostly outside of Bend as it moves in the canals.
Bend is a selfish place.
Folks there don't want canals to be covered or "in a tube". This cuts loss by evaporation. But it hurts their view of and removes the ambient sounds of flowing natural canals "that are historic".

That aquifer isn't wishful. It is absolutely huge.

The geology.

The Bend area never has had much in the way of streams since 7700 years ago.

Mt Mazama erupted.
Dumped so much ash it killed all the large mammals in central Oregon. Deer, Elk, Bear and Humans. Native American presence disappeared for 1500 years in the area.
St Helens was nothing compared to the many feet of ash.

That popcorn pumy soil doesn't allow for much in the way of water channeling into streams. It just goes into the ground. We don't get traditional flooding. The aquifer fills. Especially when one looks at the Cascade Rain/Snow dumps. When one looks at Bachelor and the Three Sisters we should not think of rivers filling in the spring as much as that aquifer.

I know this because I live in Redmond.
We don't have that water.
We get ours from lessor wells and the river.
waaahhhhh


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Andy.

Part of the problem is water release needs for air conditioners.

Put me down for still too many hands not ready to give in.

I suspect that charging a huge fee for water is the only answer.

We need to put farmers out of business that don't go drip or change crops.

I don't need almonds anyway.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Before people get all up in arms over farming irrigation practices they better start cutting back their beef consumption.

55% of the water consumed in the US and 1/3rd of the world's fresh water goes to animal based agriculture.

1000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

2500 gallons of water are required to produce 1 pound of beef.

Livestock or livestock feed cover 1/3rd of the Earth's ice free land.

Livestock and their byproducts account for 51% of all world wide greenhouse gas emissions.


COWSPIRACY: The Sustainability Secret


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Wow, that's pretty incredible. Could definitely see other advantages to cutting back our beef consumption to, like the damage grazing and over grazing does to at least some of our public lands.

Would be good to see a list of the the most heavily irigated foods if anyone has ever come across one.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

The part about the methane got me thinking though, if we could somehow bottle those cow farts, and use them as a renewable fuel, maybe put a cap on old Besey's ass?....


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Almonds use about 10 percent of California’s agricultural water supply. (probably somewhere between 8 and 11 percent anyway)

The California almond industry has doubled its acreage since 2005.

California has a climate that is one of the best for almonds.

*Is almond farming compatible with climate change?*


==========

Other things we need to give up:
108 gallons of water per gallon of brewed tea. 
Coffee requires almost 10 times as much water as tea, using 1,056 gallons of water per gallon of brewed coffee.
Beer at 296 gallons of water per gallon of beer
872 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of wine
Chicken at 518 gallons of water per pound
Beef requires the most water, at 1,847 gal./lb

*almonds take more, averaging 1,929 gal./lb*
worse than friggin beef.

This Is How Much Water It Takes To Make Your Favorite Foods

=========

Pretty simple.
No more coffee, wine, beef or almonds if you care.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

A brief side rant.

I hate bottled water.
We filter our own. (GE)
Use non BPA REI containers.

===============

50 billion (mostly plastic) bottles we throw away every year.
Drilling for oil to make that plastic
The bottled water industry says they only use 1.4 liters of water to make 1 liter of product.
But they don't include water needed to make plastic.
(edit: Has anyone noticed how much water is thrown away inside partially consumed water bottles?)
============

I also don't drink coffee and purchase fast food about once a year, if that.

I take pride in producing less garbage and throwing away less food than almost anyone reading this.
BUT. 
We have grass fed beef in the freezer and we just ordered half a pig.(pork at 718 gal./lb)
We made 4 1/2 gallons of Ice Cream yesterday. (I'm scared to look all those ingredients up.)

So in the end I'm just as bad as every other American.
You can't do just some things right.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

The most robustly supported (standadized, large international data set) # I have seen is closer to 1,800 gallons per lb of beef. 25% less but still a huge footprint compared to other foods.

Encouraging personal change is paramount. I know my wife and I rarely eat beef for ecological and cost reasons. That said, when it comes to conversations about infrastructure of water in the west it's more germane to talk about what can actually be regulated. In this case that is commercial agriculture. It's not possible to directly regulate individual consumption though I think commercial regulation can indirectly change behavior.

Going after agricultural practices also has the added benefit of reducing beef's footprint as their dietary consumption of Ag products in feedlots is a huge component of that #.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> That said, when it comes to conversations about infrastructure of water in the west it's more germane to talk about what can actually be regulated. In this case that is commercial agriculture. It's not possible to directly regulate individual consumption though I think commercial regulation can indirectly change behavior.


Why not home use also regulated by the same fee structure as golf courses and ag fields. Water meters at every home too. I suspect Cal is already mostly there on that one.

Charge everyone the same. Be fair.

Make it a lot.
Earn some bucks to cover canals.
ENCOURAGE conservation everywhere.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I support a "progressive" fee structure. Extremely cheap up to a threshold deemed necessary for day-to-day necessities and then scaled to functionally penalize elective to ecological unsustainable levels. I also support the positive incentives organizations like the extension service do to encourage reduction. Our local service reimburses a large percentage to remove non-native grasses and replace with xeroscaped natives. At some point I think we will need to restrict western developers from anything other than xeroscaping. Other options are just unsustainable in our climate and environments.


----------



## flite (Mar 31, 2013)

"I take pride in producing less garbage and throwing away less food than almost anyone reading this."-billoutwest[/QUOTE]

This is a good point to add. I work in the food service industry and a big struggle for me is the food waste. 

Americans throw away enough food every day to fill a foot ball stadium. Not only is it unfortunate that we waste all this food but also the resources used to grow and transport it around the globe. And where does all that waste end up?....landfills. Even if we compost this waste the incredible amount of resources, like water, used to get to that point are lost.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

flite said:


> "I take pride in producing less garbage and throwing away less food than almost anyone reading this."-billoutwest





> This is a good point to add. ................


Thanks.

Now here is a bad point to make.

Bottom line, in the State of California anyway, is going to have to cut back on farm/ag water. That means to a degree cutting back on some of those industries.

The Governors signature awaits a farm labor bill that would start in 2019 on a four year phase in of fair labor rules for farm workers. Overtime over 40 hrs and OT for over 8 hrs in any day. Same rules most management non-salaried or non-farm employees have anywhere in the US.

That great idea will up our food costs and/or take some production elsewhere. This sort of thing will make the US less self sufficient.
Especially when combined with expensive water.

Hey, I'm still for both.
But manure happens.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I was proud to read that several American chefs are challenging the "only work with the best ingredients" mantra. Specifically they are critiquing the amount of agricultural waste that is tossed because of appearance. Restaurants and grocery stores are horrible about this behavior. Add to it the amount of vegetable matter we toss since we often only use select portions of it. 

Interesting development. Small proportionally to other form of inefficiencies and waste but with the human population the size it is, anything helps.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

> A single restaurant in the U.S. wastes about 100,000 pounds of food a year, according to the Green Restaurant Association





> There is no available public record of anyone in the United States being sued ― or having to pay damages ― because of harms related to donated food, according to Nicole Civita, a professor and director of the Food Recovery Project .......





> In 1996, Congress passed the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act (“Bill Emerson Act”) to address these issues. The Bill Emerson Act reduces potential donor liability and solves the problems created by a patchwork of various state laws through partial preemption. It also enables and encourages food recovery to help those that are food insecure.


========



> “Chefs do not like to throw food away.”





> In December 2015 Congress passed and President Obama signed into law a provision long supported by the National Restaurant Association. This change permanently extends the enhanced deduction for charitable contributions of food inventory .......


Red Lobster, Olive Garden, LongHorn Steakhouse and Bahama Breeze plus a few other major chains give daily. Directly to 'soup kitchens'.
If you find a restaurant that you like that does this, do business there rather than those who don't.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

Thanks for the list of water hungry foods Billoutwest!! 
I will try to factor that into shopping from now on. With the one exception being the coffee. I feel it might be less harmful from a water use stand point, being raised in a fairly wet climate? May be wrong though, am pretty addicted to it.

One point that seems to go with the water conservation Issue, is SOIL Conservation. Soil that has organic matter added back to it regularly, makes a HUGE difference in the required water to raise crops, it does a lot to hold moisture in the soil, plus of course the food grown is much more nutritious. I have heard soil referred to as our second most valuable resource, after water, and one that has been in steady decline as well. 
A lot can be done to help with the issue on a small scale, such as composting, or building a worm box. Uncle Jim's Worm Farm has a lot of good info on Vermicomposting. Can be done in doors year round,( no smell if done properly) can be done cheaply, and produces a very high quality compost for your plants.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

mattman said:


> Thanks for the list of water hungry foods Billoutwest!!
> I will try to factor that into shopping from now on. With the one exception being the coffee. I feel it might be less harmful from a water use stand point, being raised in a fairly wet climate? May be wrong though, am pretty addicted to it.
> 
> ......


You're welcome although Imyers got it rolling.

I thought that about coffee growing too.
Plus beef can use water in locations not all that competitive.

Milk in Tillamook Oregon isn't a water issue.
The hardware store downtown still had that 'best tarps in town' sign last time I was there.

In Central Oregon the Ft Rock District has cattle grazing allotments that benefit wildlife because of the water provided for the beef. The place is very dry. 1,000 sections with one short lived stream. Pumice based soils and little rainfall.
The cattlemen truck in water for their cattle during the dry season. The deer and elk jump the cattle fences and get that water where otherwise there is none. (Antelope get under the fences. The fences are made to a tight spec.) I suspect that water comes from probably deep wells.

Its complicated.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

This forum focuses on rivers.

Fair enough.

Probably should go back to that.

But aquifers are also a huge deal.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

This thread has amazed me, all this talk as if once the water is pumped from the ground it's lost. The data presented (1800 gallons of water used per lb of beef, et. al) while probably accurate for their part are only one side of the coin - Just the input side. It should come as no surprise to anyone that every drop of water applied to mature a lb of beef is returned to the system, albeit in various different localities). 

The primary affect of western agricultural practices has been a redistribution of water. A short circuiting of the hydrologic cycle (when discussing deep aquifers anyways). Ditches distributing surface waters have artificially elevated the water table here in the Gallatin Valley (a shallow unconfined but prolific aquifer). Now as farms are being replaced by condos, people are bitching that development of the land is using more water (if the water table goes down, we're mining water right?). This cause/affect analysis is absolutely wrong. Development uses much less water than does agriculture. The aquifer has been benefiting by ditch leakage and return flows for the past 100 years and is currently higher in most portions of the valley. For the most part this water is spring runoff that was captured and distributed to the aquifer each spring. 

The main thing missing from all the estimates presented by others below is return flows. if an average beef cow produces a 1000 lbs of beef (wild ass guess, actual value irrelevant), it does of course not contain 1,800,000 gallons of water - the vast majority of that water is returned to the ground in relatively short order. Sure if it was pumped from a 1000 feet in the ground it won't be recharging that aquifer anytime soon, but it will recharge others or make it's way back to some surface water (discussions on agricultural pollution surely to follow). At any rate, that water wasn't used, it was moved, redistributed, etc. and will benefit other local ecosystems (as Billoutwest alluded to in the Ft. Rock area). 

I'm not saying that nothing should change, I just felt I needed to interject some additional realities into this conversation. There is more to the 1800 gal/lb of beef story, please everyone, try and remember that. It's very easy to focus on the biased numbers presented by either side of the argument. But it's important to remember to question any statistic to be sure you know exactly what it's saying (not just what the presenter wanted you to see).


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Good points Elkhaven.

I think the keys to remember when assessing the current water crisis in the west is one,

That we are taking water from both the aquifers and natural basins generally faster than the natural water cycle replenishes them, 

and two, that many of the municipalities in the west are drawing water from a trans-basin source that accelerates an unnatural and unsustainable draw on the supply.

I tried to do some research on water return vs consumption and all I could find is that when animals are at their optimal hydration level nearly 100% of the water consumed is expelled.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Here is a place where the aquifer is replenished generously.

At the deep Deschutes Regional Aquifer. Up to 23 wells are used to pull ground water from nine well fields for the Bend City.

Sounds scary.

But.
Most of their water comes from the for now Pristine Tumalo Spring in the Bend Watershed. USFS Managed.



> This aquifer is unlike any in the United States as the porous Upper Deschutes Basin readily absorbs both snowmelt and rainfall, which recharge an estimated 3,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) each year. Averaged over the year, that is equal to about 2.4 billion gallons per day of recharge to the aquifer.


Think geology.
Think orographic rainfall.
Think pumice soils.

The volcanoes lay down pyramid lava flows.
Some are not porous.

They extract moisture from the jet stream driven Pacific moisture laden clouds.

The soils are extremely porous. Very little in the way of streams over here even with that moisture up high.
The lava flows that angle down to the east collect that moisture.
The Sisters area has the #2 drop off of moisture in the world after some place in Mongolia. Something like 100 inches difference from crest to sagebrush flats down below. Who would have thought about a great aquifer under sage?

A couple of slightly off set mountains, Bachelor and Broken Top, take some more of that moisture and feed even more into the eastside aquifer.

*2.4 billion gallons per day of recharge*

The primary user, Bend City, has been successful at keeping its typical groundwater use at around 2 billion gallons per *year*.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Some places don't have aquifers that match up to human use/abuse.

California.

Water pumped from the ground there is lost for our lifetimes and our children lifetimes.


----------



## ob1coby (Jul 25, 2013)

BilloutWest;
I suspect that charging a huge fee for water is the only answer.
[/QUOTE said:


> I suspect this is the primary motivation for most of these crisis. And if you don't have a crisis...make one.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

ob1coby said:


> I suspect this is the primary motivation for most of these crisis. And if you don't have a crisis...make one.


Or take the crisis that is there already.



> It will take at least 50 years for the Central Valley’s aquifers to naturally refill, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. But that’s only if everyone stopped pumping groundwater immediately.


https://www.revealnews.org/article/9-sobering-facts-about-californias-groundwater-problem/


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Great to see the discussion going on here and hear what folks think. Like Elkhaven and others say, it's a complicated topic, especially when you start looking at the integrated hydrologic cycle, transbasin diversions, and all the other things involved. As for the figure that's being batted around, that a pound of beef requires 1,800 gallons of water to produce, I'd expect the great majority of that is water required to irrigate cattle feed crops and that what the steer actually drinks is a very small portion of what's consumed. 

Then, in irrigated watersheds like the South Platte Basin, a lot of the water that's applied to crops percolates to the aquifer and returns to the river to be used by farmers downstream to be used again. These "return flows" feed the system and provide a year-round river flowing to Nebraska whereas prior to the diversions and wide-spread irrigation the South Platte only flowed during spring runoff, and may not have even flowed into Nebraska on some years. Now days the inefficiency of the system is what allows the SP to meet the demands of all the irrigators all the way downstream on a lot of years (and produce that cattle feed that brings us such affordable cheesburgers).

This is not to say that we shouldn't strive for efficient irrigation technologies, but just underscores the complexity of the system. Then when you overlay the administrative system, and aspects such as the "use it or lose it" water rights aspect, over the hydrologic system things really get interesting...

It's not all hopeless and with opposable thumbs and a frontal cortex, surely we can figure some of this stuff out. So I have to re-recommend the article on decoupling that I linked above.

Thanks again for kicking this stuff around!

-AH


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

> It's not all hopeless and with opposable thumbs and a frontal cortex, surely we can figure some of this stuff out. So I have to re-recommend the article on decoupling that I linked above.



My belief is that with ongoing droughtish conditions *we are toast*.
Too many selfish thumbs with too many needs.

We can't fix this in a proactive manner.

Your link bragged about a California 40% reduction in ag water use with increased production since 1980.
Where has that gotten us?

Trivia for the day.
Warmer air drys out plants and soil faster. It can hold more moisture so it takes it.


----------



## Panama Red (Feb 10, 2015)

I don't think a drought is 100% of the problem when you have reservoirs in the high country used to divert water to the east.

VOTE DONNELLY!!!


----------



## Hartje (Oct 16, 2003)

BilloutWest said:


> My belief is that with ongoing droughtish conditions *we are toast*.
> Too many selfish thumbs with too many needs.
> 
> We can't fix this in a proactive manner.


food production is being disrupted in a big way. animal protein of the future will not require an animal in the typical sense. look into investment trends in regard to meatless startups and there's lots of money betting on the disruption of meat. Egg producers are already worried enough to have embroiled themselves in a scandal trying to sabotage the chicken-less competition, using gov. funds nonetheless. We've gone just about everywhere else in regards to tech, it seems naive to think it can't happen to meat. The taste is already there, the price is still the issue--it needs to come down, and it will with more investment and competition. Unfortunately Big Ag uses the same playbook as Big Oil, so I'd expect some more bumps on that road...


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Andy H. said:


> Then, in irrigated watersheds like the South Platte Basin, a lot of the water that's applied to crops percolates to the aquifer and returns to the river to be used by farmers downstream to be used again. These "return flows" feed the system and provide a year-round river flowing to Nebraska whereas prior to the diversions and wide-spread irrigation the South Platte only flowed during spring runoff, and may not have even flowed into Nebraska on some years. Now days the inefficiency of the system is what allows the SP to meet the demands of all the irrigators all the way downstream on a lot of years (and produce that cattle feed that brings us such affordable cheesburgers).



Then you have to compare irrigated watersheds like the South Platte to irrigated watersheds like the Arkansas. Even though the Ark is supported by a few trans-basin water diversions the water doesn't flow over the state line, and the lower Ark Valley is a substantial agricultural area with heavy irrigation. Many irrigation ditches have been lined with concrete though, John Martin reservoir holds back floods and more and more water rights are being sold and the water taken out of the basin before reaching formerly irrigated lands. Much of this water is now flowing into the South Platte basin....

These photos say a lot. They were taken only a few days apart. The first is the Numbers stretch of the Upper Arkansas near Buena Vista. Only around 50-60 miles from the headwaters.



The second is the Arkansas River bed approximately 320 miles downstream, just over the Kansas state line near Syracuse....


----------



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

As far as the Arkansas River in Kansas, even they admit draining the Ogallala Aquifer, by multiple states, has led, in part, to the river going underground shortly after the state line. It seems like the problems are multiple and varied on every western river. After 150 of the wettest years, according to national geographic, we seem to be entering a drier and more historically normal pattern, in addition to the issues already raised.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

There is definitely something wrong when a river can be flowing over 4,000 cfs at it's headwaters and be bone dry just over 300 miles downstream... I can only imagine what the riparian corridor through extreme western Kansas was like when covered wagons first rolled through...


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Agreed, lmyers. I think that and the Colorado River delta are prime examples of how we affect water distribution in place and time. The ecological maxim "there is no away" that Elkhaven highlighted is true but fails to account for the complex ways humans alter the landscape. Water obviously stays in our larger system but not always in ways that support us or our environmental values.

The decoupling idea Andy highlights is likely the crux to changing water management in the west. It's a trope much older than the western boosterism that launched pioneers (and continues to drive much of our population growth) and will be difficult to alter. We see it's influence in many cities in the west as more dams continue to be proposed, like the Bear River dam (s) SLC and outlying burbs want to build. The trope is largely driven by the themes of scarcity and competition in the places I have lived. That and political power differential (rural Utah vs Vegas for Utah aquifer rights). 

Until we tackle those powerfully entrenched memes I can't imagine ideas like decommissioning dams in the arid west are ever more than romantic pipe dreams. I would wager our region might be entering a new age of reservoir construction if the implications of climate change ever fully enters political discourse. Climate change could be co opted by the historic coupling already outlined in a manner that could easily drive infrastructure projects to outshine the importance of efficiencies.

I say that as Washington, Kane and Iron Counties have shown that "use it or lose"mentality is alive and well in much of the west. There is still a festering tension between those in the region who want to focus on our local water source and the others (very much influenced by developers) who still think moving water uphill from Powell is a good idea. The idea just doesn't seem to want to die.


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

BilloutWest said:


> Bottom line, in the State of California anyway, is going to have to cut back on farm/ag water. That means to a degree cutting back on some of those industries.
> 
> .


Your point is well taken, but until the federal government rescinds the law of prior appropriation, or abrogates (or inconceivably buys) existing very senior Imperial Valley water rights, the Colorado Compact guarantees the lower basin states no less than 7.5 maf yearly average over a 10 year period (or 8.3 - 9.0 maf if you include Mexico, depending on your particular basin's interpretation of Minute 319 and/or degree of shortage). These numbers have been more recently modified by the interim 2007 resolution based on degree of shortage to Lake Mead but still with only minimal drop in delivery even during extreme shortage periods. It is the upper basin states which are initially at greater risk, which is precisely why Powell will be preferentially drained before Mead. The water level at which each dam's penstocks will no longer function will also be a determinant.

We need another 1983. Three or four of them.

Jon


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

I don't think anyone in Detroit, say, are worrying about drought and houses are only a dollar. Plenty of area and water to raise cows. 2 cows can easily be raised on a few acre homestead being fed only what is grown there. Their Milk, Cheese and Meat is enough to feed a family all year and a pair will rejuvenate themselves.

People really only migrated to the West about a half century or so ago, so it will probably go down as one of the shortest occupations of such a large area ever in history.

To quote Sam Kinison " It's a desert. It's always going to be a desert. Move to where the food is. "

The amount of water on Earth is the same as it has always been. The distribution merely changes over time. People will eventually move with it and take their cows with them.

In the meantime, if you live in the SW, a really good investment right now would be some water rights shares, but be sure to sell them at the right time.


----------



## paulster (May 27, 2011)

duct tape said:


> We need another 1983. Three or four of them.


Sadly, wishful thinking seems to pass for strategy. Doesn't bode well


----------



## duct tape (Aug 25, 2009)

Too right.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

duct tape said:


> ......... It is the upper basin states which are initially at greater risk, which is precisely why *Powell will be preferentially drained before Mead*. The water level at which each dam's penstocks will no longer function will also be a determinant.
> 
> We need another 1983. Three or four of them.
> 
> Jon


Your point is well taken.
No, no. After you. I insist.

I love chipmunks. BTW


==========
*
Lake Mead levels are seriously low.

Drought has left the country's largest reservoir with the lowest water level ever recorded*

Lake Mead: Drought Leaves Reservoir at Lowest Point

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/lake-mead-lowest-point.gif?w=1200


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

restrac2000 said:


> .....
> Until we tackle those powerfully entrenched memes I can't imagine ideas like decommissioning dams in the arid west are ever more than romantic pipe dreams. I would wager *our region might be entering a new age of reservoir construction* if the implications of climate change ever fully enters political discourse. Climate change could be co opted by the historic coupling already outlined in a manner that could easily drive infrastructure projects to outshine the importance of efficiencies.
> ...


I believe you are correct.

Unfortunately.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

California drought science rears its head.

Prolonged California aridity linked to climate warming and Pacific sea surface temperature

Prolonged California aridity linked to climate warming and Pacific sea surface temperature : Scientific Reports

By studying sediments and stuff they linked Connections between California Aridity and the Pacific Ocean over a few thousand years.



> The fossil pollen and charcoal records also indicate enhanced aridity between 8 to 3 ka .......


Starting 8,000 years ago it looks like we had a *5,000 year California drought* that matched cooler waters in the Eastern Pacific.

Cheery news here today.


----------

