Peak Water: Until Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head

Status
Not open for further replies.
1nf1del said:
Wanna try again?
Click to expand...

I am not really sure what your point is. The bottom line is, there is not enough water in the Colorado river basin, end of story...

From your own link:

"Water managers are trying to address growing challenges associated with over-allocation, rapidly increasing urban populations, development of unused water rights, and expected climate change. The water levels of the river’s two largest reservoirs—Lake Mead and Lake Powell, stored by Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams—have dropped significantly in recent years, threatening supplies for major cities. In addition, the trapping of silt behind dams also limits the quality and extent of river habitats."
 
1nf1del said:
You don't know what an outflow is? I can count six outflows after Glen Canyon, you better look at it again! All the green arrows are outflows!
Click to expand...

Again all you are doing here is displaying more of your own ignorance. Those outflows are not rivers (just as we have clearly told you) - they are the water being diverted (translated: removed) from the river for various human uses.
 
Syzygys said:
You can say the same about oil or coal. The bottom line is that it is lost for the original usage...

The rest of your post is garbage, not requiring a response...
Click to expand...
They are not lost from their original usage. It's recyclable.

If you're not going to respond to my post, you can't pretend like you have a valid point to make, because you don't.
 
Syzygys said:
You can say the same about oil or coal. The bottom line is that it is lost for the original usage...

The rest of your post is garbage, not requiring a response...And describing a fact is not being alarmist...
Click to expand...

So you're saying coal can be recycled and used again?
 
Read-Only said:
Again all you are doing here is displaying more of your own ignorance. Those outflows are not rivers (just as we have clearly told you) - they are the water being diverted (translated: removed) from the river for various human uses.
Click to expand...

Not all of those are man made diversions, I'm done discussing this with you if you are not going to look at what I posted and educate yourself, there is a legend underneath the map, take a look at it!
 
Last edited:
1nf1del said:
You are pretty dense aren't you, if all the water is used for drinking and farmland before it reaches Mexico, how much water do you expect to get there?
Click to expand...

Nope, you are still the only one being dense here. Your sentence above is *exactly* the point I've been trying to get across to YOU! I've already shown you - and your own reference map confirms it - that practically every drop of water in the river is already allotted and allocated for use. And that leaves nothing left over for use in Kansas or anywhere else. You certainly aren't going to be able to wiggle out of this by claiming you never said otherwise. Here's a partial DIRECT quote from one of your posts: "I'm apparently not the one that needs educated, we were talking about diverting water to Kansas, there is plenty of river water before Glen Canyon Dam to divert to Kansas..."

By now it's beginning to seem that you do NOT understand the simple terms "allotted" and "allocated." The first means a specific division (amount) and the second means that the water has already been contractually PROMISED for specific use. So it doesn't matter if you see "plenty of river water before Glen Canyon Dam" or above it, that water isn't available to be sent to Kansas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
1nf1del said:
No, only the ones with red lines, I'm done discussing this with you if you are not going to look at what I posted and educate yourself, there is a legend underneath the map, take a look at it!
Click to expand...

I've looked at *everything* you've posted and the majority of it is muddled and confused nonsense. You are the one that cannot read and apply the legend on that map correctly NOR understand simple things that practically everyone else does.

Actually, you've shown your true colors in this thread (and other threads as well, but just more obvious here). You are clearly a school drop-out OR someone that is still too young to have made it all the way through high school. I suspect - and HOPE - it's the latter. Because that would mean you still have the time and resources at hand to overcome your glaring ignorance and become educated.
 
I think the point of contention appears to be that yes, physically, there is plenty of water in the river at the Glen Canyon Dam, however, the fact that only 10% of the flow reaches Mexico suggests that the entire catchment is overallocated. This in turn means that while physically there is plenty of water at the Glen Canyon Dam, it's not water that's actually available for diversion because it's already been allocated and used downstream of the Glen Canyon Dam. The consequence of this is that although there might be plenty of water at the Glen Canyon Dam, using it to divert to Kansas means that someone downstream has to go with out, or the river will start drying up before it gets to the river. For example, if you start taking water for Kansas at Glen Canyon Dam, then there's less available for Los Angeles or Phoenix.

Just because there's water in the river at any given point, doesn't mean it's neccessarily available for diversion.

(I deal with water rights and catchment allocations as part of my job, if you're wondering).
 
Trippy said:
I think the point of contention appears to be that yes, physically, there is plenty of water in the river at the Glen Canyon Dam, however, the fact that only 10% of the flow reaches Mexico suggests that the entire catchment is overallocated. This in turn means that while physically there is plenty of water at the Glen Canyon Dam, it's not water that's actually available for diversion because it's already been allocated and used downstream of the Glen Canyon Dam. The consequence of this is that although there might be plenty of water at the Glen Canyon Dam, using it to divert to Kansas means that someone downstream has to go with out, or the river will start drying up before it gets to the river. For example, if you start taking water for Kansas at Glen Canyon Dam, then there's less available for Los Angeles or Phoenix.

Just because there's water in the river at any given point, doesn't mean it's neccessarily available for diversion.

(I deal with water rights and catchment allocations as part of my job, if you're wondering).
Click to expand...

Thanks, Trippy - that's exactly what I've been trying to get across. :) I honestly believe his problem is that he's not far enough along in school yet to understand the meaning and importance of allotments & allocations and also that they are legally binding. He's shown his rather childishness (and I do not mean that as a slur! Just an honest observation) in several other threads. I sincerely hope he continues with his education because he does appear quite intelligent, just not well-informed due to his young age. Time and effort will easily correct that minor problem.
 
Read-Only said:
Thanks, Trippy - that's exactly what I've been trying to get across. :) I honestly believe his problem is that he's not far enough along in school yet to understand the meaning and importance of allotments & allocations and also that they are legally binding. He's shown his rather childishness (and I do not mean that as a slur! Just an honest observation) in several other threads. I sincerely hope he continues with his education because he does appear quite intelligent, just not well-informed due to his young age. Time and effort will easily correct that minor problem.
Click to expand...

Part of my job is revoking unused water allocations in over allocated catchments ;).
 
Trippy said:
Part of my job is revoking unused water allocations in over allocated catchments ;).
Click to expand...

Great! It's nice to know that important job is in capable hands. :) Is there much political infighting and pressure put on you by ones wanting the newly-surplus water? I could imagine a long waiting list.
 
Read-Only said:
Great! It's nice to know that important job is in capable hands. :) Is there much political infighting and pressure put on you by ones wanting the newly-surplus water? I could imagine a long waiting list.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem I have in that regard is mining privelges and deemed permits. Under NZ law you've got something like 20 years to use them before they're phased out. There's no requirements for monitoring the amount of water they take, but we remind them that eventually they're going to have to prove how much water they're taking.

As far as new takes go, we have a flow regime. Basically, IIRC if you're on a primary take, you can take regardless of flow conditions, but secondary takes are limited by the flow rates at a specific gauging site.

But my job is enforcement, rather than policy.
 
TravisW said:
They are not lost from their original usage. It's recyclable.
Click to expand...

OK, so if it was in Kansas and it is now in the Pacific Ocean, than it is lost for the good ol' folks of Kansas...

You would have a valid point if you could show that the aquifer's amount of water showing up in at least the West Coast. Because if it is just extra raining in the Pacific, then it is lost forever for practical usage...
 
OK, let's forget about the USA for a moment, and let's take a look at the situation with the Aral Sea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

As you can see on the Wiki page, due to over irrigation and over usage, the sea (a whole sea!!) pretty much disappeared!!!

"Formerly one of the four largest lakes in the world with an area of 68,000 square kilometres (26,300 sq mi), the Aral Sea has been steadily shrinking since the 1960s after the rivers that fed it were diverted by Soviet irrigation projects. By 2007, it had declined to 10% of its original size, splitting into four lakes –

By 2009, the southeastern lake had disappeared and the southwestern lake retreated to a thin strip at the extreme west of the former southern sea.

The shrinking of the Aral Sea has been called "one of the planet's worst environmental disasters". The region's once prosperous fishing industry has been essentially destroyed, bringing unemployment and economic hardship. The Aral Sea region is also heavily polluted, with consequent serious public health problems. The retreat of the sea has reportedly also caused local climate change, with summers becoming hotter and drier, and winters colder and longer."

Now I want you guys to argue that the missing water is somewhere in the great Russian plains showing up as extra....
 
I googled "disappearing fresh water", here is a nice NG article:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rld-water-day-2010-pictures-melting-glaciers/

Draught in Venezuale, the snow of Kilimandjaro, melting Swiss glaciers, you name it....

Let's throw in pretty pictures and a video of the endangered Lake Baikal, the world's biggest fresh water lake:

http://dennylyon.hubpages.com/hub/Our-Planets-Disappearing-Drinking-Water

Actually, it looks like warmer temperatures are more dangerous than human usage:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2007-06-13-lake-superior_N.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top