Not So Poor outlook for the lake this year

Status
Not open for further replies.
sorry you think I am a Goblin. I have been here for years but never have posted or had an account. I don't consider a post number as anything but a number. I appreciate your info. and am not accusing you of being a drainer. It is just a sore spot with me when I live next to Blue Mesa and it is almost empty. I live where there is a lot of water and still try to conserve. It pisses me off to see green golf courses though when we have a water shortage.
Oh no my friend I wasn't trying to reply to you directly at all! I was just trying to bring some info and another point of view to outlook on LP to the entire thread. I just know Goblin from some posts I've seen around here and that guy is VERY Detailed.
-Flow
 
The most effective way to reduce California water consumption would be to stop growing all those things like almonds, berries, lettuce, grapes, etc… but people all over the world like to eat those from California, and until that changes, you’re going to see a lot of water consumption in CA…

Maybe they should let the golf courses dry up and empty the swimming pools?
Actually, its an interesting idea to explore what the effect of draining the backyard pools and letting the golf courses in CA dry up would do. There are about 1.2 million backyard pools in CA, which hold an average of 20,000 gallons each. Let's say each pool is refilled every 3 years, probably less often than that, but to be conservative we'll use that figure. That translates to about 25,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). And for golf courses, there are 866 (!) in CA. The average 18-hole golf course has about 80 irrigated acres, and a course uses about 0.8 AFY per irrigated acre. So that amounts to about 55,000 AFY. Combined water use between pools and golf courses in CA is about 80,000 AFY. (That's 0.08 million ac-ft - MAF.)

That's not nothing, but as a percentage of of total CA water use, it's very small. Estimates of CA total water use range from 80-100 million AFY, so that amounts to about 0.1% of total water use in the state. But put in the context of the state's allocation from the Colorado River (4.4 MAF), the 0.08 MAF used by pools and golf course is larger, but still less than 2% of that total. But it's not nothing.

For sure water conservation in CA is a big deal, and part of the solution. And in terms of domestic per capita water use, CA falls somewhere in the middle of the pack among western states (124 gallons per person per day), with Alaska and Washington at the low end (92 and 103), and Nevada, Idaho and Utah at the high end (all nearly 200 gallons per person per day). The overall numbers in CA just end up being huge because nearly 40 million people live there--that's 12% of the national population...

And yet for all that huge population in CA, and all those golf courses and backyard pools, it's still irrigated agriculture that sucks up 85-90% of the water used in the state! That's roughly 20 times the amount of water the state is allocated from the Colorado River! So it really does come down to lettuce, grapes, berries, almonds and all those other good things in the grocery store... and getting rid of the golf course and pools won't really do much...
 
Last edited:
JFR, I appreciate the numbers you have gave, I won’t even try to verify them. In my opinion let’s send 2 percent less down the Colorado. I imagine that would probably fill Blue Mesa 20 times over. We need to start somewhere, can’t eat grass clippings and drink the pool water.
 
There's yet another huge storm moving in tomorrow. We are officially in El Nino. I will be shocked if we don't have a very good runoff year. The good news is we have a lot of snow in Arizona White mountains, which helps the Little Colorado into the main Colorado below Glen Canyon Dam and will help Lake Mead.
 
Well, this old dog lernt somethin. White Mountains drain to the Colorado River. Who da thunk it.
 
Well, this old dog lernt somethin. White Mountains drain to the Colorado River. Who da thunk it.

The headwaters of the Little Colorado is in the White Mountains, you cross over on the way to Show Low out of Winslow. The Whites also drain into the Salt River drainage.

Course
The river rises as two forks in the White Mountains of mid-eastern Arizona, in Apache County. The West Fork starts in a valley on the north flank of Mount Baldy at an elevation of nearly 10,000 feet (3,000 m), while the East Fork starts nearby. The forks meet in a canyon near the town of Greer, forming the main Little Colorado River. It flows into River Reservoir, then leaves the canyon near Eagar. The river then turns north, meandering through Richville Valley, before emptying into Lyman Lake, impounded by an irrigation dam built in 1912.[4] From there the river continues north, past the town of St. Johns. Shortly afterwards, the river transforms from a perennial stream to an ephemeral wash as it travels northwestwards through Hunt Valley, where it receives the Zuni River, then receiving Silver Creek and the Puerco River—its main tributaries—near the town of Holbrook as it flows into the Painted Desert.[5]




The Little Colorado River in its canyon



The Grand Falls of the Little Colorado River, seen at peak flow in April



Navajo Indians crossing the Little Colorado River, ca.1900

The Little Colorado passes Joseph City and crosses the Southern Transcon route of the BNSF Railway (originally the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad), now winding north into Coconino County. The river enters the Navajo Nation, and drops over the 185-foot (56 m) Grand Falls of the Little Colorado shortly after. Below Grand Falls, the river flows through a short but rugged canyon for about 15 miles (24 km). Emerging into the desert again, the Little Colorado skirts the eastern edge of Wupatki National Monument and passes the town of Cameron, where it is bridged by U.S. Highway 89.

From Cameron, the Little Colorado River carves an extremely steep and narrow gorge into the Colorado Plateau, eventually achieving a maximum depth of about 3,200 feet (980 m). The depth of the canyon is such that groundwater is forced to the surface, forming numerous springs that restore a perennial river flow. It joins the Colorado deep inside the Grand Canyon, miles from any major settlement.[5] The confluence marks the end of the Marble Canyon segment of the Grand Canyon and the beginning of Upper Granite Gorge.[6]

Discharge
The Little Colorado River is one of the two major tributaries of the Colorado River in Arizona, the other being the Gila River.[7] Runoff typically peaks twice a year, first in the early spring (February–April) from snow melt and highland rain; and in the summer (July–September) from monsoon storms. The annual runoff is extremely variable with the possibility of no flow occurring due to a weak snow pack or lack of summer rain. Conversely, years such as 1949, 1973, 1979, 1983 and 1993 have seen massive volumes of spring snowmelt while large monsoon runoff has occurred in 1955, 1964, 1984 and 2006. Monthly average flows in the springtime average several hundred cfs and can reach 2,000 to 3,000 cubic feet per second (57 to 85 m3/s). Only the upper reaches of the river above St. Johns, and the lowermost stretch below Cameron, flow year round; the middle section is basically a huge arroyo that carries water only during the wet seasons.

According to a streamflow gauge near Cameron, before the river enters the Grand Canyon, the river's average annual flow was 367.2 cubic feet per second (10.40 m3/s) from 1948 to present. The highest annual average was 1,127 cubic feet per second (31.9 m3/s) in 1973, and the lowest was 14.1 cubic feet per second (0.40 m3/s) in 2000.[8] The river's peak flows can be far higher than its average flow, because of quick desert runoff from cloudbursts. At the same gauge, peak flows were recorded from 1923 to 2008, with spotty data from 1924 to 1947. The highest recorded peak was 120,000 cubic feet per second (3,400 m3/s) on September 20, 1923, while the lowest was 1,590 cubic feet per second (45 m3/s) in 1974.[9]

History
 
It’s a good concept to figure out how to tweak California’s storage potential, but before going there, it’s worth summarizing the reality of water consumption in the state.

The state consumes roughly 100 million acre feet (MAF) per year, about 90% of which is used for agriculture, and the remainder for municipal/industrial uses. Agriculture is becoming an increasingly higher share of the total, and certain crops that people like, such as grapes (wine) and strawberries, use a lot per tons of crop. Alfalfa, lettuce and other irrigated crops use a lot too. Almonds are another big one.

The Colorado River provides about 4.4 MAF to California, or less than 5% of the state’s consumption total, and most of that is used for agriculture in the Imperial Valley. The vast majority of the water used in the state either comes from groundwater or from one or another reservoir associated with the State Water Project (SWP). Certain large cities have their own unique supplies: LA gets a lot of its supply from its own aqueduct up into the Owens Valley, SF from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. Many smaller cities and counties up and down the state subscribe to the SWP, but it’s becoming an increasingly difficult source to sustain. Thus, some call for “more reservoirs”. The problem with that is that nearly all of the good accessible reservoir sites have been built, and the storage capacity of the remaining sites is relatively small.

For the future, the best bets for augmenting water supply in CA are 1) more groundwater injection (storage), including recycled treated water from wastewater plants; 2) desalination; and 3) more conservation, including plumbing retrofits. Conservation efforts are already nearly maxed out on the municipal side. Desalination is still expensive, but getting more cost effective per acre-foot, and some plants are already online. But the big one is going to be recycled wastewater…already happening in places like Orange County, and state law will be changing soon to really open up this concept in general. I’m working on building such a plant in the City of Morro Bay. This is a way cheaper and more effective solution than the infrastructure and environmental costs of building new reservoirs, even if suitable sites could be found.

The most effective way to reduce California water consumption would be to stop growing all those things like almonds, berries, lettuce, grapes, etc… but people all over the world like to eat those from California, and until that changes, you’re going to see a lot of water consumption in CA…

Tough problem to solve… but not really a “choice” between water storage and bullet trains…
Or find new ways to water those crops? Crazy idea incoming. Feed the Salton Sea as the "catch basin" with canals from the Sea of Cortez by gravity. Salton Sea sits about 400feet below. Let gravity work and do reverse osmosis along the about 100 mile long project. Benefits would be irrigation water for the Imperial Valley, revitalization of the Salton Sea to 1950's "SoCal Riviera" levels, reducing the saline levels which are higher than sea water to begin with, and possibly hydroelectric energy production with the natural downflow. This might also help to replenish the aqufiers in this region which are slowly but surely being sucked dry. The amount of water is only limited by the size of canals. Possible other storage or "catch basin" could be Laguna Salada on the way. Biggest benefit would be taking demand of the Colorado River.
 
Or find new ways to water those crops? Crazy idea incoming. Feed the Salton Sea as the "catch basin" with canals from the Sea of Cortez by gravity. Salton Sea sits about 400feet below. Let gravity work and do reverse osmosis along the about 100 mile long project. Benefits would be irrigation water for the Imperial Valley, revitalization of the Salton Sea to 1950's "SoCal Riviera" levels, reducing the saline levels which are higher than sea water to begin with, and possibly hydroelectric energy production with the natural downflow. This might also help to replenish the aqufiers in this region which are slowly but surely being sucked dry. The amount of water is only limited by the size of canals. Possible other storage or "catch basin" could be Laguna Salada on the way. Biggest benefit would be taking demand of the Colorado River.
That's a very interesting concept, and worth discussion. I can see some challenges (technical, legal, political, and cost) but still an idea worth exploring. The big legal challenge is that California would still have a right to 4.4 MAF of the Colorado River with or without this approach, so it doesn't solve the basic problem of river water usage---you'd have to renegotiate the River Compact first. From a technical standpoint, it's doable, but probably the most efficient way to deal with desalination is right at the intake from the Sea of Cortez...otherwise, you have sea water crossing the irrigated desert, and better to have one water treatment facility than many, which is also a cost issue. The cost of such a concept would be huge (pipelines and treatment facilities mostly, but also some pump stations because it's not a straight shot downhill from there to Salton Sea)... And then there's the fact that the Sea of Cortez borders Mexico but not the USA, so you'd need to have Mexican cooperation...plus who would build the pipeline and treatment facilities in Mexico? The State of California? The US Government? I think both would be non-starters... And who would be liable for a flood in Mexico from a sea water spill in Mexico on Mexican crops? And never mind how to get the pipeline across the border if there is a wall in the way there someday (hopefully not)...

All those challenges aside, it's the beginning of an interesting discussion... thanks for thinking outside the box.
 
That's a very interesting concept, and worth discussion. I can see some challenges (technical, legal, political, and cost) but still an idea worth exploring. The big legal challenge is that California would still have a right to 4.4 MAF of the Colorado River with or without this approach, so it doesn't solve the basic problem of river water usage---you'd have to renegotiate the River Compact first. From a technical standpoint, it's doable, but probably the most efficient way to deal with desalination is right at the intake from the Sea of Cortez...otherwise, you have sea water crossing the irrigated desert, and better to have one water treatment facility than many, which is also a cost issue. The cost of such a concept would be huge (pipelines and treatment facilities mostly, but also some pump stations because it's not a straight shot downhill from there to Salton Sea)... And then there's the fact that the Sea of Cortez borders Mexico but not the USA, so you'd need to have Mexican cooperation...plus who would build the pipeline and treatment facilities in Mexico? The State of California? The US Government? I think both would be non-starters... And who would be liable for a flood in Mexico from a sea water spill in Mexico on Mexican crops? And never mind how to get the pipeline across the border if there is a wall in the way there someday (hopefully not)...

All those challenges aside, it's the beginning of an interesting discussion... thanks for thinking outside the box.
I was first thinking pipeline as well but figured that canals would be probably cheaper and could be scaled larger to the amount of water desired. I found that on cost: "Suez canal authority has recently planned to dig new waterway parallel to Suez canal and they have advised that digging of 35km (=21.748miles) of a new parallel waterway, to a depth of 24m (=79'), and a width of 317m (=343.4 yards) at water levelI will cost them 19.5 Billions EGP (2.5 Billions USD)." Of course this would be a shippable canal for super-tankers. That would be about $10billion for the length needed here. Thinking about recent discussions about the cost of a certain wall this seems a better investment with some guaranteed returns.

Those necessary pump stations, or locks, can easily be powered by solar panels. And it would not be the first time in history that a "canal" traverses political borders. And those canals in Europe hardly ever spill after 100 and 100's years of use, at least I do not know about that. And without doing any research on that I believe that the Mexicali Valley as an agricultural region would not be opposed to additional water supplies either? The only thing I really know about desalination is, that gravity fed reverse osmosis takes the least amount of energy therefore making it cheaper to produce potable water. That is why we have engineers to figure that out.
It could be a Mexico/USA enterprise on government level, or if the rights exist, a Baja California/California state project, all the way to a private enterprise selling the water and possibly renewable energy in addition to potential windfalls of $$$ in revitalizing todays wasteland to previous "resort qualities"of the Salton Sea as the SoCal "Riviera".
 
I was first thinking pipeline as well but figured that canals would be probably cheaper and could be scaled larger to the amount of water desired. I found that on cost: "Suez canal authority has recently planned to dig new waterway parallel to Suez canal and they have advised that digging of 35km (=21.748miles) of a new parallel waterway, to a depth of 24m (=79'), and a width of 317m (=343.4 yards) at water levelI will cost them 19.5 Billions EGP (2.5 Billions USD)." Of course this would be a shippable canal for super-tankers. That would be about $10billion for the length needed here. Thinking about recent discussions about the cost of a certain wall this seems a better investment with some guaranteed returns.

Those necessary pump stations, or locks, can easily be powered by solar panels. And it would not be the first time in history that a "canal" traverses political borders. And those canals in Europe hardly ever spill after 100 and 100's years of use, at least I do not know about that. And without doing any research on that I believe that the Mexicali Valley as an agricultural region would not be opposed to additional water supplies either? The only thing I really know about desalination is, that gravity fed reverse osmosis takes the least amount of energy therefore making it cheaper to produce potable water. That is why we have engineers to figure that out.
It could be a Mexico/USA enterprise on government level, or if the rights exist, a Baja California/California state project, all the way to a private enterprise selling the water and possibly renewable energy in addition to potential windfalls of $$$ in revitalizing todays wasteland to previous "resort qualities"of the Salton Sea as the SoCal "Riviera".

Interesting take... Yes, canals are probably cheaper and more practical than pipelines, especially for the water volumes were talking about. And her you balance construction and maintenance costs vs. water loss from evaporation or the possible introduction of contaminants. I'm guessing the costs are probably in the billions as you say, and agree it's a better investment/return than other possible dubious infrastructure expenditures along the border...

I agree that solar makes sense for the energy to power pump stations, especially in the desert... And although I agree there would be a demand for water among growers in the region, there is never a demand for expensive water when cheaper options are available, and this would be very expensive water--particularly if it's a private enterprise, they would need to make their money back via subscribers, and hard to imagine what arrangement would be cheaper than pumping groundwater through wells or simply using existing water via the existing canal infrastructure to the Colorado River. I work with a lot of farmers on water projects in CA, and those guys are a lot of good things, but willingness to spend extra money on something they already get more more cheaply isn't one of them, especially since their margins are already thin to begin with.

A joint venture between Baja and CA would be interesting, but the legal framework just isn't there right now, especially in terms of water rights...

But yes, if there was a good way to produce more water cheaply enough, that could definitely relieve pressure on the Colorado River system... and you're right to be thinking toward the ocean for that, and of course the other place to look is to the toilet--recycled water is on the horizon for sure...
 
Interesting take... Yes, canals are probably cheaper and more practical than pipelines, especially for the water volumes were talking about. And her you balance construction and maintenance costs vs. water loss from evaporation or the possible introduction of contaminants. I'm guessing the costs are probably in the billions as you say, and agree it's a better investment/return than other possible dubious infrastructure expenditures along the border...

I agree that solar makes sense for the energy to power pump stations, especially in the desert... And although I agree there would be a demand for water among growers in the region, there is never a demand for expensive water when cheaper options are available, and this would be very expensive water--particularly if it's a private enterprise, they would need to make their money back via subscribers, and hard to imagine what arrangement would be cheaper than pumping groundwater through wells or simply using existing water via the existing canal infrastructure to the Colorado River. I work with a lot of farmers on water projects in CA, and those guys are a lot of good things, but willingness to spend extra money on something they already get more more cheaply isn't one of them, especially since their margins are already thin to begin with.

A joint venture between Baja and CA would be interesting, but the legal framework just isn't there right now, especially in terms of water rights...

But yes, if there was a good way to produce more water cheaply enough, that could definitely relieve pressure on the Colorado River system... and you're right to be thinking toward the ocean for that, and of course the other place to look is to the toilet--recycled water is on the horizon for sure...

Maybe those farmers need to have a look of what "cheaper options" like pumping groundwater can have as unintended side-effects. I came across this in a story about a "sinking city", not Venice, but some city here in SoCal? aquifiers and san andreas fault https://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014...-andreas-fault-and-increasing-earthquake-risk. I bet that a large earthquake would be a very expensive way to pay for that groundwater. Something we should have learned from all that fracking already but exploding, burning gas out of a water-faucet is not really news if it happens to some small town in the middle of nowhere USA.

Another story from around the world https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ Kind of funny that stuff like that always seems to work somewhere else but here. Kind of like HealthCare.

And with every "renewable resource" we have to learn that wasting it, like flushing it down the toilet makes it less and less renewable. "Save that s h i t" sorry, that joke just offered itself. But as you said before, us as the individual citizens use the least amount of water. Trying to save on that is a drop in the bucket while going after the large consumers like agriculture, yes ,we do eat the vegetables which makes us responsible as well, and supplying those with recycled or desalinated water might just be an extra bucket instead of just a drop.
 
Maybe those farmers need to have a look of what "cheaper options" like pumping groundwater can have as unintended side-effects. I came across this in a story about a "sinking city", not Venice, but some city here in SoCal? aquifiers and san andreas fault https://sfpublicpress.org/news/2014...-andreas-fault-and-increasing-earthquake-risk. I bet that a large earthquake would be a very expensive way to pay for that groundwater. Something we should have learned from all that fracking already but exploding, burning gas out of a water-faucet is not really news if it happens to some small town in the middle of nowhere USA.

Another story from around the world https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ Kind of funny that stuff like that always seems to work somewhere else but here. Kind of like HealthCare.

And with every "renewable resource" we have to learn that wasting it, like flushing it down the toilet makes it less and less renewable. "Save that s h i t" sorry, that joke just offered itself. But as you said before, us as the individual citizens use the least amount of water. Trying to save on that is a drop in the bucket while going after the large consumers like agriculture, yes ,we do eat the vegetables which makes us responsible as well, and supplying those with recycled or desalinated water might just be an extra bucket instead of just a drop.
Well I agree with all you’re saying, but as with many things, there’s the legal way, the right way, and the cheap way. Ideally the three align but rarely do, but when push comes to shove, those with limited resources (most of us) opt for the cheap way, especially when the law encourages it... and in this case, in CA there’s really no limit to how much groundwater you can extract, unltil your neighbor’s well runs dry and takes you to court. Which is rare. Fundamentally, there is little incentive in CA not to sink a well if you’re a farmer, and as the article points out, the consequences especially in the Central Valley are measurable in terms of water quality, dust, and notably, ground subsidence. Yes, groundwater’s role in stabilizing the ground is often overlooked... and of course, changing the approach to water extraction (or many things) usually requires a catastrophe first...

In the end, the costs (money and environmental) of unrestrained groundwater use will inevitably push industry and government together toward desal and recycled water...which will drive down costs one day, so that the legal, right and cheap way will be the same.

We’re getting there... at least we’ve come a long way since some engineers proposed (and abandoned) NAWAPA in the 1950s, a truly gargantuan scheme to move water all over North America through gigantic dams and reservoirs that would make Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell seem small...

 
This is an interesting discussion and is similar to the Renewable Energy conversation that needs to take place in the US today. Solar/wind technologies have improved and costs have come down dramatically in the past 15 years, but the prices are still too high to be widely instituted(even with a 30% Federal Income tax subsidy the ROI/break even point is almost 15 years). The market will drive a change to desalination when the cost of water from the Colorado river(or other sources) becomes more expensive than water from desalination. This price inversion will have two potential sources: a lack of supply in the Colorado river/groundwater sources should drive up costs, or desalination technology may be improved to a point where the water costs less than that water from other sources. Just because the technology exists, does not make it practical, efficient, or affordable.
 
I thought a little bit more of how it actually could work in a very simplified, cheap way. Just for the sake of simplification let's go with the premise that we feed a catch-basin, the Salton Sea, that is 400 feet below from where the water comes from, the Sea of Cortez. A normal canal where you transport goods on boats, you would have ship-locks to negotiate the different levels of terrain. Here we would use a kind of a "dry lock" with 2 gates at each end and filled with sand, filter materials and such to filter out the salinity of the sea water. Once this lock is saturated with sea water there should be a constant flow of filtered water coming out the downside gate. Off we go to the next lock that could produce hydroelectricity from that constant flow pretty much 24/7. The only way you would loose flow is with taking water off in between for irrigation of the "lower parts"of ImperialValley and the growing regions in Mexico. Apply that principle for the entire length and you could probably have 4-5 locks of either filtering or producing electricity with that 400' height difference you have to work with. How much water that actually is in a canal of that size of the Suez Canal to feed that catch basin and the agricultural needs, I have no clue? But I would guess it might equal or exceed what the Colorado River supplies?

And you create prime real estate along this canal as waterfront-properties with a width of that canal 300 yards plus as of that $10 billion project taken from above. About 2 ½ hours from San Diego and 4 hours from Phoenix with Mexicali right across the border
 
We’re getting there... at least we’ve come a long way since some engineers proposed (and abandoned) NAWAPA in the 1950s, a truly gargantuan scheme to move water all over North America through gigantic dams and reservoirs that would make Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Powell seem small...


From a time when we were still dreaming. And what did we do instead? A lot of things we are trying to undo and have undone to some extend thinking of polluted air, polluted rivers and acid rains
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top