My Solution- Colorado River Levels

Status
Not open for further replies.
AzTacoma said:
The Mexican proposal is something worth exploring. Yes it'll take time, yes it'll be expensive. However, we cannot pretend to live in the past with fantasies of easy, inexpensive water. Our reality has changed and we can dither forever over the obstacles or we can deal with the situation we're faced. Still, what we really need is California to get on the ball and build a desan plant or two. They are on the ocean and it's ridiculous that they hoard most of the River's water for cheap.

I would also have to disagree with Arizona's growth being the primary problem. It is a large issue, but let's not pretend California's population didn't grow from 10.5m in 1950 to 40m+ in 2020. Their growth over that period is 4 times bigger than Arizona's current population. The bottom line is we need big action, big leadership, big coalitions, and big lawsuits to deal with how things are now, not how they were in 1922. The Colorado River problem is one of the most important domestic issues nationally... but when our toxic and dysfunctional politics means the Left is preoccupied with what’s on syrup bottles and other woke trivialities, while the Right is busy trying to pass laws forcing teachers to ‘out’ their gay students among other absurdities, we take our eyes off the prize on issues that matter.

Yes I have a little frustration building up because I'm growing tired of the years of hemming and hawing, making excuses, and pussyfooting around. You're right, there are no easy answers, there are a lot of factors and issues to address with some serious costs involved. All the more reason to start properly planning in a serious and meaningful way.
Click to expand...
You raise a lot of interesting points, the most important of which is that we need a meaningful discussion with a lot of practical compromise to come up with some creative solutions. But it can be done.

On the population question, you can parse the numbers a lot of ways. Yes, CA has a population 4-5 times as big as AZ. If I'm CA, do I argue I deserve 4-5 times as much water as AZ? It's a fair argument, but not a helpful discussion if we're looking for solutions. Similarly, do we penalize AZ for a 10-fold increase in its population since 1950? Or Nevada for a nearly 20-fold increase in its population since then?

We are where we are.

It is very true that CA has a coast, and with that there's the potential for desal plants. Actually, it already has quite a few (see map). Most are small, and often connected with a power plant or wastewater plant, but they are there. The one in Carlsbad near San Diego is the largest. But they are expensive, and it's difficult to get people to buy expensive water when there is a cheaper option. And nobody wants to give up existing water rights, such as those baked into the existing arrangement with regard to the Colorado River. Perhaps one solution along these lines is to have AZ help subsidize CA desal plants in exchange for some of CA's water rights from the river. A stretch maybe, but a discussion to explore.

A more practical solution for everybody is recycled water plants. Treat the wastewater and drink it. It's already happening in CA--there are many such plants already online or about to come online. The biggest obstacle isn't even cost or technology--it's that existing regulations require the recycled water to sit in the ground for a while before you can drink it, but that's changing too. This is a source everybody can pursue... yes, there is a cost, but when there are few or no other options, the cost suddenly doesn't seem so bad...

But yes, a good discussion on this topic is a good start...

BF659E6E-B418-4778-BDEA-30CF28CAD7B3.jpeg
 
JFRCalifornia said:
You raise a lot of interesting points, the most important of which is that we need a meaningful discussion with a lot of practical compromise to come up with some creative solutions. But it can be done.

On the population question, you can parse the numbers a lot of ways. Yes, CA has a population 4-5 times as big as AZ. If I'm CA, do I argue I deserve 4-5 times as much water as AZ? It's a fair argument, but not a helpful discussion if we're looking for solutions. Similarly, do we penalize AZ for a 10-fold increase in its population since 1950? Or Nevada for a nearly 20-fold increase in its population since then?

We are where we are.

It is very true that CA has a coast, and with that there's the potential for desal plants. Actually, it already has quite a few (see map). Most are small, and often connected with a power plant or wastewater plant, but they are there. The one in Carlsbad near San Diego is the largest. But they are expensive, and it's difficult to get people to buy expensive water when there is a cheaper option. And nobody wants to give up existing water rights, such as those baked into the existing arrangement with regard to the Colorado River. Perhaps one solution along these lines is to have AZ help subsidize CA desal plants in exchange for some of CA's water rights from the river. A stretch maybe, but a discussion to explore.

A more practical solution for everybody is recycled water plants. Treat the wastewater and drink it. It's already happening in CA--there are many such plants already online or about to come online. The biggest obstacle isn't even cost or technology--it's that existing regulations require the recycled water to sit in the ground for a while before you can drink it, but that's changing too. This is a source everybody can pursue... yes, there is a cost, but when there are few or no other options, the cost suddenly doesn't seem so bad...

But yes, a good discussion on this topic is a good start...

View attachment 17576
Click to expand...

Absolutely, my original post was more of a thought experiment, but there will have to be many, many variables (big and small) towards a reasonable "fix." (and the recycled water could definitely be one strong component). We could be looking at everything from cloud seeding snowpack to enacting stricter conservation methods, and everything in between. I'm certainly no expert, but I have enough common sense to know a few things: 1) the climate isn't going to be getting better anytime soon 2) the demand will continue to increase, and 3) the problem will require a thoughtful, comprehensive strategy on a variety of fronts to effectively deal with 1 and 2. We need the political energy and funding to make it happen.
 
We're getting pretty far away from fishing, but if push comes to shove we need a way to sustain a population with less water, which may mean eating more plants and less meat from animals eating plants. Most of us like juicy steak, but if we were not using water to grow animal feed in the desert, there would be a lot more water available in the rivers. (I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but try to keep my meat consumption down.) As water becomes more expensive, market forces may push us that direction.

Back to Lake Powell, maybe somebody can figure out a way to filter quagga mussel larvae out of the water and feed them to cows.
 
drewsxmi said:
We're getting pretty far away from fishing, but if push comes to shove we need a way to sustain a population with less water, which may mean eating more plants and less meat from animals eating plants. Most of us like juicy steak, but if we were not using water to grow animal feed in the desert, there would be a lot more water available in the rivers. (I'm not a vegan or a vegetarian, but try to keep my meat consumption down.) As water becomes more expensive, market forces may push us that direction.

Back to Lake Powell, maybe somebody can figure out a way to filter quagga mussel larvae out of the water and feed them to cows.
Click to expand...
Great post, and If I may pontificate: Everything is morphing and changing rapidly in our lake and world, becoming more inclusive and holistic.

WW started as 'fishing' but we're seeing how climate, politics, mussels, fuel costs, Antelope cables, etc etc etc all are a part of even just having a place to fish.

So Love all the well thought out ideas and comments, that affect us all.

Your 'filter' comment deserves consideration. Have folks with letters after their names thought about filter stations placed up and down our Lake?

......or is that useless, a drop in the bucket?

:unsure:
 
Introducing Mississippi River water into the Colorado Rive would create an environmental mess.... You think the mussels are bad now. Think of the mess if we introduce additional species...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
During the 2019 Mississippi floods the peak flow was 1,730,000 cubic feet per second, or 39.715 acre-feet per second. That flow would fill Lake Powell from dead pool to full pool in just over 7 days. But that kind of precipitation on a regular basis would mean a completely different geography in the Southwest. It feels like "they" should be able to spare some of that water for the parched Southwest, but others have calculated how massive a pipeline would need to be to provide anywhere near the amount of water needed, not to mention the amount of power that would be needed to lift that water from the Mississippi River over the Continental Divide.
 
Peto said:
Introducing Mississippi River water into the Colorado Rive would create an environmental mess.... You think the mussels are bad now. Think of the mess if we introduce additional species...
Click to expand...
Now, Peto.....folks from Mississippi are not 'invasive' species......folks from 'London'.....Hmmmmmm.....?

just kidding....just kidding......( I love you, Bob, when you are playing nice.......)

Seriously, you have a great point!! the whole 'lets bring in another species in' totally backfired in Hawaii with the mongoose intervention.....now, they rule.....(well, not counting Ige and Green) PM me for more thoughts on that.........!!!

In 2022, introducing ANY non native species ....has to be really well thought out........

in the old days consequences were not considered.....

but we are more 'advanced'.......( I hope)...???

:cool:
 
drewsxmi said:
During the 2019 Mississippi floods the peak flow was 1,730,000 cubic feet per second, or 39.715 acre-feet per second. That flow would fill Lake Powell from dead pool to full pool in just over 7 days. But that kind of precipitation on a regular basis would mean a completely different geography in the Southwest. It feels like "they" should be able to spare some of that water for the parched Southwest, but others have calculated how massive a pipeline would need to be to provide anywhere near the amount of water needed, not to mention the amount of power that would be needed to lift that water from the Mississippi River over the Continental Divide.
Click to expand...
For a wide variety of reasons - economic, political, topographic - any such giant water redistribution project will not happen in my lifetime. And I have decades to go, if the actuarial tables are to be believed.

There are a variety of approaches to the problem as the West hits the limit of its water supply, just as John Wesley Powell, for whom the lake is named, predicted over it would 150 years ago. He noted that the West is an oasis civilization, and would need to live within the limits of its existing water resources. We have tried to escape those constraints ever since, but at this point we are basically there, and any big fixes from beyond the basin are decades out. So for now, we have to adapt locally.

To paraphrase a former defense secretary, you build a civilization with the water you have, not the water you wish you had.
 
drewsxmi said:
There was also a proposal in the 1950's to divert massive amounts of water from the Canadian Rockies and the Northwest down to the Southwest. The costs and impacts would have also been massive, and would have transformed both areas completely. I'm not advocating for the project, but you can read more about it on BuzzFeed: The Abandoned Plan That Could Have Saved America From Drought
Click to expand...
That is a great find. Completely ridiculous, but a great read, full of all kinds of gems.
 
Can't pull water from the Platte, it already pulls water from the Colorado and via Robert's tunnel dumps into the south Platte for Denver. I live in Colorado and it would not hurt (in the wintertime) to seed clouds and make it snow. I feel our water situation is very severe and I have seen weather modification cause different effects. The Rio Grande basin is in the very same situation as the Colorado.
 
Cookie said:
We have no problem pumping fuel/gas/natural gas/propane all over the country, but not water???
Click to expand...
To move 1maf of water per year is 28 million barrels per day. This is almost 10x the capacity of the largest oil pipeline system in the US (Colonial Pipeline)

And that pipeline is economically viable only because the product it's carrying is worth more than $1/gal. The average household in the US is paying less than $0.03/gal for water. Ag water is much cheaper.
 
Last edited:
SDuncan said:
The average household in the US is paying less than $0.03/gal for water. Ag water is much cheaper.
Click to expand...
This is the true problem, water is just far too "cheap" relative to it's current availability. Added cost will lead to conservation, but food prices are going up already and will increase as production costs increase(fuel, water, fertilizer, labor). It's going to get ugly over the next couple of years.
 
Use some of the power generated (supplemented with wind/solar) to pump 20% of the outflow back into the lake, slowing down the drop. Start buying up and buying out water rights agreements, especially in Cali where like 70% of the water goes. Implement stricter water regulations regionally to more accurately reflect the true cost of the resource. Properly manage and restore drainages. Do some diverting and piping. More and bigger desal plants. Strategic cloud seeding. Drop Mohave and Havasu by 5' until Mead and Powell are both above 55%. And a half dozen other measures, all combined can help mitigate the problem... but the government is doing literally the two easiest and most temporary things as a band-aid stop gap measure. Where is the comprehensive plan? This type of mismanagement is practically criminal. They are 5-10 years behind the curve and at this rate things are going to get much worse before there's any hope of getting better.
 
Dunedawgs said:
I told my husband the same thing about the pipeline, easy solution!!!
Click to expand...
Not enough water on the plate as denver is already taking water form the pacific side
Mississippi way too far and you will need a lot of energy to pump the water over the rockies.
so not feasable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top