Well, as long as gvwua is taking it for a beneficial use the DE should
(Maybe emphasis on “should”?) be able to get it there
We/I just had to coordinate another one of those yesterday
Glen Canyon
- Thread starter Hayduke
- Start date
Well, as long as gvwua is taking it for a beneficial use the DE should
(Maybe emphasis on “should”?) be able to get it there
We/I just had to coordinate another one of those yesterday
marksjeep
Well-known member
Here we are, two months later, and nothing substantive has happened. Pretty good letter from Entsminger to DOI and BOR at the bottom of this article.
I read that letter yesterday, I was surprised by it, almost entirely.
"To the broader river community, I say this: The Law of Mass Balance dictates that the Colorado River cannot provide enough water for the current level of use. The magnitude of the problem is so large that every single water user in every single sector must contribute solutions to this problem regardless of the priority system. The math is simple, even if the law and the politics are not: the bulk of the responsibility to reduce use falls upon water users downstream of Hoover Dam, because that is where the bulk of the water is used."
A lower basin state placing bulk responsibility on.... lower basin states? Surprising, yet true, IMO.
I like the call out on these "drought profiteering proposals" too.
Granted, I would argue nobody, not even the upper and lower river commissions should be expected to solve the problem and make tangible progress in 62 days. Proposals and plans that make sense as a start, yes.
but man, such a complicated beast it can't be solved in two months.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
But they haven't had 62 days, they've had decades, and have failed to do anything substantial to address the issue. But then again, being proactive never pays...
well yeah, true.
obviously 62 days since camille touton started the clock though.
i'll be frank, (these are purely my own words, i don't represent anybody or anything) the lower basin states are a 50 year old man still being breastfed. they need to be weaned from the on-demand teat that is lake mead. they need to learn to deal with shortage and they need to learn to do it yesterday. the upper basin states have a role in this, but in some contexts, this is not our problem and we are not why the lake levels are falling.
IMO
Irrelevant
Well-known member
If society has to weight in, I think they'll look at all the irrigated corn/grass/alfalfa in CO and find a "solution" that CO farmers aren't going to like.
i personally feel that society will have a little more scorn in their eyes over the alfalfa being grown in the mojave than the alfalfa being grown in the yampa or even the grand valley in colorado.
i mean we're still talking about a nearly 2-fold+ difference in colorado river depletions between upper and lower when the apportionment between upper and lower is equal. one (we all know who) is even over apportionment in their depletions - though, they would argue they're not when you just measure "use" rather than system-wide depletion - and the other is far under apportionment. it is for many reasons, but especially that one, that the upper river commission's official letter to DOI and Commissioner Touton basically stated "we'll work on being more water wise for sure, but until we're in breach of compact compliance we're not doing chit"
until congress can find political will to abrogate an interstate treaty or the upper and lower commissions find willingness to renegotiate this is the way it will be.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Yes, those areas too. But no corn farmer will be outside of the scorn of the public's eye.
Which is also sorta why we're here, because the basic idea of that until we're forced to, we're not going to be proactive. I mean I get where the upper is coming from, a place of "fairness" and "lawfulness" but their definition of fair, may not hold much water in the end.
i mean, you're very right. but i do think the proactivity exists, i see it. but it's the amongst the water users and the water providers, it's not so much something the state itself is capable of doing and the fire is certainly lit under the water providers, they are definitely worried and thinking of ways to do more with the same or even less.
though, the commissioners on the upper river commission are also stuck in a place of having to respect the water rights. they essentially can't do anything about it other than revitalize costly state programs that incentivize water cuts or direct the legislature to create new programs that incentivize water efficiency, or hope that municipalities continue down a path of reducing non functional turf, etc etc.
Commissoner/Director Mitchell and State Engineer Rein in colorado can't legally do anything until we're facing a breach of compact compliance.
insofar as that's the reality the state's official position has to kinda be, "we're in compliance, we agree this really important and we will work hard on ways to conserve, but right now that's the best we can really do"
meanwhile nevada and california are quite literally sucking lake mead dry while we've been sending well over our allotment down to it the whole time
The Salt Lake Tribune had a graphic in their Lake Powell special report yesterday that does a good job of showing what I attempted to articulate with my bathtub comment. It’s noteworthy that “dead pool,” where water could no longer be released, is 240’ higher than the river channel.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Someone agrees with you.
As Colorado River Dries, the U.S. Teeters on the Brink of Larger Water Crisis
The megadrought gripping the western states is only part of the problem. Alternative sources of water are also imperiled, and the nation’s food along with it.
It looks like BOR is planning to take greater control of the spigots on Glen Canyon and Hoover.
Interior Department Initiates Significant Action to Protect Colorado River System
Interior Department Initiates Significant Action to Protect Colorado River System
OriginalOscar
Active member
In Vegas for tradeshow a few weeks ago it feels like the band playing on Titanic.
Interesting article (1st of a series) in the SL Tribune here. It says subscribers only, but I, a non subscriber, was able to read it.
It says 68% of diverted water in Utah goes to alfalfa and hay production. Of that production, 29% is shipped overseas.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I've heard that about a lot of our ag up and down the west coast. Everything from hay to apples. Certainly doesn't have great optics.
Have a link for that clip? I’d like to look at the data.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Experience
Irrelevant
Well-known member
You'll have to rabbit hole a bit for the data I suspect
Thanks!
Similar threads
