A Sign of the Dry Times a-Comin'

Hello I)AVI)

We presently have the "Oil Wars".

It's not going to good when we have the "Water Wars", that's for sure.

There are so many places where the population has increased far above the infrastructure needed to support them.

The looming Lake Mead problem is only the "tip of a very large iceberg".

Kind Regards....

While we flush half (50 %) of our valuable drinking water down the drain to make our personal wastes magically dissappear, when will we come up with a better system rather than water based toilets? The prices of fuel keeps going up, we are turning food products into fuel, why not our turds? everyone makes one or more per day, presently all we are doing with it is polluting our precious water supplies, without returning any of it to the soil, where it is meant to be. Surely our abundance of scientific minds can come up with a better idea, maybe our focus is a bit out of wack? Thanks CG

Hi,

if farmers change their crops to non thirsty varieties and

if farmers start to irrigate tomatoes and asparagus with ocean-water (possible in highly permeable soils),

then we can manage the rest of the problems.

But if you take a look what happened to the Mexican part of Colorado-river after the canals became effective then we may not be too optimistic.

Seawater desalination for human use is today cheaper (0.5...1$/m³) than riverwater-purification (1 to 8$/m³). I have to pay 8$/m³, half of this for freshwater the other half for wastewater purification.)

So I would estimate that there will be in near future many solar plants growing in the deserts that produce freshwater from brine or wastewater and the bigger communities relying on big desalination plants.

The biggest problem will be with the farming activities as the water used for farming is today not sold at a reasonable cost. Same problem all around the Mediterranean sea. Because the price is low the water authorities do not get enough money to properly maintain the distribution system so they loose up to 50% of the water and the next big drought and difficulties is expected this year!

RHABE

May be we learn next year?

I wonder if those geniuses have looked down stream of Lake Mead? They are releasing water faster than ever. The river level is higher than I have seen in in 40+ years. All to make power for SoCal and water for the ever growing population.

Growth needs to be curbed in the Southwest. Quit letting all the water flow to California.

"They are releasing water faster than ever".

I think they have to meet certain out flows since the states of Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico fought California's voracious appetite for water all the way to the Supreme Court and won their right to certain amounts of water which were far more than California wanted to share. Also Mexico is guaranteed a certain amount by treaty.

It seems to me it is time for the California legislature to decide if southern California is part of California or a separate state. In the past, the northern dominated legislature has consistently refused to divert any of the millions of tons of water which flow into the Pacific Ocean from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

The Peripheral Canal ( http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/delta.html )from the Sacramento River Basin to the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego was designed to significantly reduce southern California's dependence on Colorado River water. The planners were aware as far back as 1980's the Supreme Court would eventually hear the arguments and rule against California. It was only a matter of time. Now that time has come and California's internal bickering is already affecting millions of people in several states.

California also had many opportunities to develop sea water distillation facilities in conjunction with their San Onofre Nuclear Power facility where the heated cooling water would be distilled to make enough potable water to supply part of the San Diego area.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been unable or unwilling to inspire the legislature to commit to funding the building of desalinization plants and no one seems too concerned about the coming water crisis except scientists who are routinely ignored by the liberal press. California is interesting to watch!

Inasmuch as I am critically aware of the problems relating to the Sacramento-San Juaquin Delta, the largest estuarine environment on the W coast of the Americas, I must make comment to taejonkwando's comments, to wit:

"

It seems to me it is time for the California legislature to decide if southern California is part of California or a separate state. In the past, the northern dominated legislature has consistently refused to divert any of the millions of tons of water which flow into the Pacific Ocean from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers.

The Peripheral Canal ( http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/delta.html )from the Sacramento River Basin to the cities of Los Angeles and San Diego was designed to significantly reduce southern California's dependence on Colorado River water. The planners were aware as far back as 1980's the Supreme Court would eventually hear the arguments and rule against California. It was only a matter of time. Now that time has come and California's internal bickering is already affecting millions of people in several states."

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

a. The ecosystem of the delta is collapsing (likely) because of the huge amount of water which is sucked out at the S end of it's scope to feed the profligate water useage of the desert which IS southern california. How much beyond the Owens River valley must be sacrificed to the SoCal metro water district before the lush grasslands and billions of gallons of swimming pool water currently promoted is seen as unwise?

b. "Northern Dominated Legislature"? B.S. It happens to BE in norCal, but the representation is a function of population, and SoCal has the population AND the most legislators.

========

In point of fact, in an environment of inadequate resources, pointing fingers is easy.

Accommodations will have to be made, and I would suggest that sacrificing ecosystems remote from your current and local interests is not the answer to your, my, OR the Planet's REAL needs.

Presuming that the Taekwondo portion of your username has any significance, would references to Lao Tsu's writings have any suasive powers with you?

regards,

D

Welcome to reality I)AVI) Since you seem to be ignorant of California's political history my comments wil never meet with your approval. However that is not my intent. The statements I made are correct and easily verified.

California's long history of infighting over water resources is well documented. Even Hollywood, in a highly fictionalized account as presented in the movie "Chinatown", showed the political forces which now shape the current warfare between the "save the delta" constituents and the "feed the growth of California" politicians.

Perhaps you are in the "save the delta" category and as such, you will unlikely never understand the complete problem until you approach California's need for water to sustain it's economic potential as the fifth largest economy in the world verses the desires to maintain a partially artificially constructed wildlife sanctuary.

As to my name and Lao Tsu's writing, I see no reason for personal issues such as this to be discussed in this forum. If you care to discuss personal issues you may contact me at taejonkwando@hotmail.com .

I impute values to you based on my own projections derived from what paucity of information may be available. Those values in this case would be regarded as very positive, as regards derivations from what you chose as your "user name".

Having found a significant conflict between what you have written, and those imputed values, I have commented on same.

I will withdraw from any other public projection on you of those positive maters associated with Lao Tsu, and contend with you publically in regard to what you have written.

You have stated that I am ignorant of "water politics", and that may be true: I accede to your apparently superior knowledge on the subject.

However, as for the underlying reality (as usual, true value is determined by "the Earth") concerning the Delta and it's failing ecosystem; the past depredations caused by the LA water interests to the Owen's Valley; and the unwise use of water in the greater LA DESERT area: I am NOTSO ignorant: and I find what appears to be your callous willingness to sacrifice this (Delta) ecosystem demonstrative of great error.

Southern California's water problem is a subset of the Colorado River drainage system "problem" which was the opening item of this thread.

YOUR answer appears to be "Lets find another Owen's Valley to decimate.."

Your reasoning is short-term, and therefore faulty.

A better answer is reducing consumption, and de-salinization: and I've proposed a more tentative "solution" elsewhere, which even if it has ZERO potential, beats the SNOT out of your "rape the Delta" implication..

Whatever "vested interest" you may feel you have in your current mindset as regards this issue, I assure you that ultimately, "values accrue from the Earth", and your tenets will lead to further disaster. "You" are not separate from the Earth.

Regards,

D

Welcome to reality I)AVI) Since you seem to be ignorant of California's political history my comments wil never meet with your approval. However that is not my intent. The statements I made are correct and easily verified.

(deleted).

Perhaps you are in the "save the delta" category and as such, you will unlikely never understand the complete problem until you approach California's need for water to sustain it's economic potential as the fifth largest economy in the world verses the desires to maintain a partially artificially constructed wildlife sanctuary.

As to my name and Lao Tsu's writing, I see no reason for personal issues such as this to be discussed in this forum. .........(deleted)

Okaaay! clearly you are emotionally involved and your choice of words such as "callous" ,"sacrifice", "decimate", and "rape" (which is totally inappropiate to a technical discussion) are evidence you are not capable of a rational discussion about this subject.

If you even bothered to read my other posts you would have discovered I lament the lack of desalinization and decry the water politics of California.

You are totally wrong in your accusation that I am in favor of another Owens Valley water diversion. I said nothing at all about the Owens Valley.

I am only looking at every citizen's right to water and yes it may cause the sacrifice of some nesting grounds for wildlife. Those nesting grounds would not exist at all if it were not for the tax dollars generated by the water using California economy.

Apparently your idea is to keep a certain environment the way you want it to be rather than the way the resources of California must be managed to support the greater good for all Californians. Environments change. The same issues and protests are heard when any dam or new construction is proposed but in retrospect, growing populations force changes whether they are acceptable or not.

Mankind will always reshape the earth and use it's resources for mankinds' own benefit. Get used to it!

"Mankind will always reshape the earth and use it's resources for mankinds' own benefit."

Too true. But hopefully we will eventually see there are correct ways to do these things that are less harmful to the system as a whole. I have been silently following this thread, and have observed two extremely passionate individuals posting nearly identical concepts, but worded just enough differently to have escaped both. I urge you both to go back and re-read ALL of the entries by BOTH of you, before we come to (metaphoric) blows here. Indeed, I plead with you both to do so before posting a single other thought!

Although attacked for use of appropriate words, I shall not defend them individually. A review at "Dictionary.Com" will suffice for those interested in the diversion.

Meanwhile, we have an issue with engineering, social, and wildlife ramifications to discuss.

My associate in this discourse has expressed

"I am only looking at every citizen's right to water"...

Please express from what source you extract that "right" you expressed, and further characterize it as regards quantity. "Right" to have enough clean water to drink? "Right" to have enough to bathe with? "Right" to have enough to water lawns with? "Right" to have enough to fill swimming pools with?

Does this "right" extend to (a) the citizens of the LA basin only: (b) the citizens of north America only: (c) The citizens of the world at large?

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

"yes it may cause the sacrifice of some nesting grounds for wildlife. Those nesting grounds would not exist at all if it were not for the tax dollars generated by the water using California economy."

As an expression of intent, I hereby extend to my associate an opportunity for a two night excursion on the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta in my personal 30 foot L&S boat, conveniently currently floating at Arrowhead harbor. I will sleep on the flying bridge, and she can bring any other one person she desires and sleep in the Master Suite. I will acquire all provisions, but she has to buy the gas. What a deal.

As for her above comment, I would invite her review of the early history of Chinese workers activities in creating the first tidal dikes which evolved over time into the poulders now (temporarily) extant in the region. She will find her comments false.

Further, "nesting grounds" is not the issue.

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

"growing populations force changes whether they are acceptable or not."

Now here we have another assertion whose premise is faulty, and reflective of "why it is" that humankind is in the situation currently experienced.

You were correct in a prior assertion that everything changes over time. However, in the intent of your statement here, I think you are referring to a "Force Majeure" related to the "will of the majority" over those who stand in it's way.

However, this "forcing of changes" is not applicable to a system of which you are a part, when the system is at the edges of it's capacity. You may be mesmerized by the "power" of a majority; or the "power" of enginering; or whatever:

but I will tell you now a truth: "Power" is almost always "the Power to Destroy".

Presume somehow that you had two flows of water available to you in any part of the world you wish = to what flows into the Delta. Go ahead and make an estimation of what it would cost and how long it would take to create an ecosystem as rich as the Delta is..

OK I can't guess either, but value what YOU have here in the Delta, because once it's gone................

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

" Mankind will always reshape the earth and use it's resources for mankinds' own benefit. Get used to it!"

You are young.

Do NOT get used to it..

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

(I do not rescind offers unilaterally. If you want the Delta Tour, please advise)

*It would be in May or June)

Read the link below. Then we'll discuss your "right" to use this precious resource for your recreational boating vs the citizen's "right" to fill their swimming pools or whatever they care to do with this water. Apparently you are confused by the term "citizen" and are unable to understand the "citizens" I refer to are the taxpayers whose multi million dollar tax burden make it possible for you to enjoy your recreational boating.

. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18031391#share

OK I discern from your projections

that I am so limited by my inherent beingness

that I am unable to comprehend your inherent rightness

and thus our dialogue is fruitless.

Does this mean you will not accept my invitation?

thank you.

DN

Having lived in southern (Apple Valley) and northern (metro Sacramento area) CA, as well as Las Vegas, NV, I can attest to the fact that western water law is a complex, contentious subject. Being an environmental scientist by education and employment, I can also attest to the fact that both the Los Angeles suburban sprawl and the leveed delta are not natural areas. Nor, for that matter, is the heavily agricultural central valley between them. All of these are competing interests for the water in question.

None of them will win the day if a natural disaster (massive earthquake, global climate change, etc., even an influx of beavers) changes the landscape. As pointed out in the NPR article provided above, the cost of materials alone to raise the levee system by one (1) inch would be in excess of $100M. Obviously an inch would serve no useful purpose. A foot might, but would cost well over $1B. Without the labor. That is a realistic dollar value, by the way. I'm currently working in a heavy construction millieu, so have the resources to check on such figures rather independently.

As I mentioned before, the viewpoints I have read expressed here are not identical, but exceedingly similar. Perhaps two sides of a coin, perhaps the same side viewed from different angles. But at any rate, no significant cause for disagreement. At the worst, a difference in semantics, definitions. Not in values.

I am of the opinion that the Delta, with it's many thousands of acres of below sea level poulders, will not survive the increasing sea levels contemplated, in any way similar to it's current configuration. A spring flood combined with spring tides already threatens it when they correspond.

A fundamental engineering limit has been realized in the Delta: the load -carrying capacity of the soil itself has been reached at many levees:

You can raise the level of the levee as much as you want, but the increased load will cause the levee to sink into the soil below in short order.

The soils are some of the richest in the world.

Unfortunately, the soil is subject to breaking down and disappearing as the finest of dusts, if not subject to the usual rhythms of the tides, and seasons. When the Chinese first farmed the area 100 years ago or so, they built small 6" or so dikes, which now by necessity have grown to 20 to 30 ' height.

=========

I disgree with your statment that the values inherent in the discussion between myself and the attractive young lady above were the same. BUt it is of no import.

Yes, I've seen spring snowmelt and rain combine to wash out levees and cause severe flooding far inland from the delta, and the delta is, as you noted, extremely fragile. You bring up an interesting point - well over 100 years ago, small farming interests began the levee construction, and look how it has had to progress.

Ohbytheway, that rich soil is mostly from the hills up along the American and Feather Rivers, washed down back in the mid-1800's by placer mining. Have you been up that way (towards Yuba City for example) to see the remaining signs of that activity?

"Ohbytheway, that rich soil is mostly from the hills up along the American and Feather Rivers, washed down back in the mid-1800's by placer mining. Have you been up that way (towards Yuba City for example) to see the remaining signs of that activity?"

No Sir, the principle source of the richness of the Delta Soils derives from the millions upon millions of tons of decomposed plant materials which has been laid down in rich peat over untold thousand years. The placer mining activities DID do a huge amount of damage to the upstream rivers, and contributed to the accretion of soil along the margins of the incoming river sources, but as the rivers slowed down and entered the delta, they dumped their load of conveyed sand and muck, causing significant flooding in Sacramento and Stockton as the river beds were raised.

Unlike a typical delta, the Sac San Juaquin delta is an "inverted" delta. Most rivers form deltas as they enter the ocean, and fan out as they do into various channels:

this one "starts out" fanning out into many channels, and focuses DOWN to pass thru the Carquinez Straits and into the salty San Francisco Bay.

The underlying sediments in the Sacramento Valley, however, from the erosion of the Sierra Nevadas (new) and Coastal ranges (old) are thousands of feet thick.

NRDC Warns the West is Warming Faster

April 10, 2008

The American West is heating up more rapidly than the rest of the world, according to a new analysis of the most recent federal government temperature figures. The news is especially bad for some of the nation's fastest growing cities, which receive water from the drought-stricken Colorado River. The average temperature rise in the Southwest's largest river basin was more than double the average global increase, likely spelling even more parched conditions.

"Global warming is hitting the West hard," said Theo Spencer of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). "It is already taking an economic toll on the region's tourism, recreation, skiing, hunting, and fishing activities. The speed of warming and mounting economic damage make clear the urgent need to limit global warming pollution."

For the report, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization analyzed new temperature data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for 11 western states. For the five-year period 2003-2007, the average temperature in the Colorado River Basin, which stretches from Wyoming to Mexico, was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the historical average for the 20th Century. The temperature rise was more than twice the global average increase of 1.0 degree during the same period. The average temperature increased 1.7 degrees in the entire 11-state western region.

"We are seeing signs of the economic impacts throughout the West," said study author Stephen Saunders of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. "Since 2000, we have seen $2.7 billion in crop loss claims due to drought. Global warming is harming valuable commercial salmon fisheries, reducing hunting activity and revenues, and threatening shorter and less profitable seasons for ski resorts."

The Colorado River Basin is in the throes of a record drought, shrinking water supplies for upwards of 30 million people in fast-growing Denver, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Diego. Most of the Colorado River's flow comes from melting snow in the mountains of Wyoming, Utah, and Wyoming.

Governors of Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington have signed the Western Climate Initiative, an agreement to reduce global warming pollution through a market-based system, such as cap-and-trade. The agreement calls for states to reduce their global warming emissions 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Conservationists say the states should commit to meeting these targets and that there should also be a firm target of an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

Three years later,

the State is BROKE,.

Shwartzie is out of office,

and we (the people) will be asked to fund a $12 billion dollar bond next year

to dig a (freaking) tunnel under the Delta,

so that the H2O can continue to be pumped South

to keep SoCal desert dwellers happily unthirsty

(a noble goal, despite the fact that $$BIG AGRIBUSINESS$$

will use over 80% of the water..)

when (not IF) the Delta Levee's fail.

W@onder if Taikwan whatever is still as "convinced" as she was 3 years ago?