> [1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...
I don't trust that a 2012 report is up to date on our latest climate modelling, or even that this is a climate-adjusted projection at all. Actual data past the point of publishing has not followed this graph. Anything more recent that supports your claim?
Your source also says:
> In the long-term (2041 through 2060), the futures that consider the Downscaled GCM Projected water supply scenario [not shown], which incorporates projections of future climate, show a high inability to meet resource needs, regardless of the demand scenario and the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead.
Sure, you have a whole host of local disasters caused by local mismanagement (agricultural water use, failure to prevent fuel build-up in forests, etc). And the local mismanagers point to climate change to say "don't blame us".
However, when discussing these things in the large, you have people pointing to the local mismanagers and saying "don't blame climate change", which is pretty much the reverse sort of bullshit. Of course climate change has made these already bad problems worse. Of course, the first way the problems of climate change appear is this making bad problems worse thing. What else would you expect? That climate change appears in a nice, neat way that lets you exclude other causes? Ha (except that results aren't funny at all).
And this mutual finger-pointing works well to prevent anything being at any level.
Charge market prices for water and build desalination. Create abundance.
They are bickering over whether 40 units of a building might have a net decreased rent of $200 a month and instead may get 0 units built instead of 400. The 400 units would likely reduce the rent in the area by more than $200.
Create abundance and then let the market set the price and be happy.
This is true for basically every human endeavor.
As noted by others, this isn't entirely cost-free, and there are ecological impacts. Still, on net, many dams do provide real benefits.
Having said that, merely hoping that people will make significant changes in their lifestyle for indirect and abstract benefits is simply burying one’s head in the sand with a rationalization that makes them feel good. The population is growing, and we will either innovate our way out of this, or it’s famine/war/etc.
Edit: go into /r/environment on Reddit and suggest people eat a lot less meat and see how quickly it’s downvoted into oblivion. And those are the people who actively care!
I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.
In general it's better to be accurate about cause and effect and then choose what to do. That way you can make sure the way you're measuring "good" is real.
In 2015, the Southern Nevada Water Authority completed a "3rd straw" into Lake Mead to safeguard water availability, at a cost of $817M [1], which is enough to cover the power costs to desalinate Nevada's CO river allotment for ~23 years. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I once ran the numbers and the cost of that 3rd straw was comparable to the cost of building a solar power plant that would generate enough electricity to cover the desalination for NV's allotment as well.
Notes:
Nevada's allotment of water from the Colorado River is 279k acre ft / yr (actual use is 242k acre ft / yr in 2021) [2]. There are desalination systems available that require 3452 kw / acre ft [3]. Southern Nevada wholesale rate of $.37 / MWh [4].
[1] https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn/the-third-straw.htm [2] https://www.lasvegasnevada.gov/News/Blog/Detail/lake-mead-wa... [3] http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/water.html [4] https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/nv-energy-introduce...
The ocean is traditionally the answer to both these needs. Nevada is not a good candidate for a desalination plant.
No, but it's a good candidate for a solar power plant, and the water source is shared with major coastal metro areas. You'd of course want to move the power to the coast; an amount of water equivalent to that produced by desalination could be withheld upstream, in Nevada.
That said, I still think they made the right move building the 3rd intake, even at such expense. That intake is below the "dead pool" level, while the other 2 are not .. so even if ppl can't sort things out politically and continue to draw the water down past the point that it won't flow over the dam, NV will still be able to draw their "allotment". And of course, it's very hard to build desalination plants in CA, no matter how much sense it makes.
Typo. That should be $37/MW-hr, not $0.37/MW-hr (article quotes $36.67 / MW-hr)
While one can always suggest more economical uses of water than any particular use/crop, the reality of what’s going on there might be different than your intuitions.
I just thought it would be constructive to surface some of the detail behind what you reported in your original comment. People’s imaginations can run wild when you talk about California!
The inland Central Valley of California was historically a seasonal or episodic lake. The Great Flood of 1862 saw 3m (10 ft) of water dumped on the state over 43 days from December 1861 through January 1862, followed by a warm storm melting much of the snowpack:
The entire Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys were inundated. An area about 300 miles (480 km) long, averaging 20 miles (32 km) in width,[21] and covering 5,000 to 6,000 square miles (13,000 to 16,000 km2) was under water.[15] The water flooding the Central Valley reached depths up to 30 feet (9.1 m), completely submerging telegraph poles that had just been installed between San Francisco and New York. Transportation, mail, and communications across the state were disrupted for a month.[22] Water covered portions of the valley from December 1861, through the spring, and into the summer of 1862.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862
Much of the valley still floods seasonally, with designated flood zones such as the Yolo Bypass, between Sacramento and Davis.
A key problem within the central valley has been groundwater loss resulting in subsidence exceeding 15 m (50 feet) in places. Flooded paddies might help contribute to groundwater recharge.
Much of the paddy water is through-flow, which I'd presume returns to river flows. What the impacts of ag practices (fertiliser, pesticides) are I'm not sure. There will also be evaporative losses, of course.
I'd like to see a net impact / net flows analysis. The picture's likely more complex than a brief glance from the highway would afford, however.
See "Characterizing Drought Behavior in the Colorado River Basin Using Unsupervised Machine Learning"[0]. The journal article states: "The range of possible climate change considered here, regardless of ESM model, does point to a hotter CRB [Colorado River Basin] with large changes in the timing and magnitude of runoff, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture that will present challenges in managing water resources in the future."
[0] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021EA00...
A substantial portion of alfalfa is exported to China [0]. So, at the very least that portion can be eliminated without any impact on domestic US cattle feed.
[0] https://hayandforage.com/article-3388-thank-china-for-record...
Like Central and Southern California today, Israel used to issue similar dire warnings about freshwater supplies running dangerously low. These days, believe it or not, Israel now exports freshwater. Yes. tiny, little, arid Israel exports freshwater to neighboring Jordan.
Freshwater, like agricultural products, seems to be a product we can now cheaply and easily produce in abundance.
Sure, taking some water from farmers is an option too. But is it viable? I don’t know. Obviously voters living in the conurbation from Los Angeles, California to San Diego, California could vote in politicians who promise to do this. But once in office would politicians actually follow through on such a promise? I doubt it.
This seems like a very tough battle to me because many California "farmers" are extremely wealthy. Some California farmers are billionaires with a "b". If extremely successful businessmen with many thousands of millions of dollars want to keep receiving free water, they will probably very cleverly spend vast sums of money to do so.
Here are two apparently feasible options.
First, we are on the cusp of abundant, cheap renewable electricity (from solar and wind) which, of course, will lead to the potential for cheap desalination.
Like the aforementioned Israel, Carlsbad, California (near San Diego, California) already relies on desalination for much of its water needs. I think I read that residents there pay an extra $5/month to $10/month per person for desalinated water compared to what they were paying for imported fresh water.
Second, I assume the discharge water from washing machines could easily be used to water most of the landscaping in Southern California.
I've watched a few videos on YouTube. Apparently one simply needs to change the type of laundry detergent used so it would be safe for the landscaping, install discharge pipes from the washing machine to the landscaped areas, and control the system with computer to ensure the landscape isn't over-watered or under-watered.
The Los Angeles Times has become a terrible newspaper. COVID has receded from the front page, therefore they need some more bad news to sell. "We are running out of water!!!" is what they are selling these days.
In other words, this entire subject is "much ado about nothing." In other words, this is doom and gloom, "the sky is falling" nonsense.
detergents used for washing likely make it a bad idea
> In the near-term (2012 through 2026), water demands are similar across scenarios, and the largest factor affecting the system reliability is water supply. In the mid-term (2027 through 2040), the demand for water is an increasingly important element in the reliability of the system, as are assumptions regarding the operations of Lakes Powell and Mead. In the long-term (2041 through 2060), the futures that consider the Downscaled GCM Projected water supply scenario, which incorporates projections of future climate, show a high inability to meet resource needs, regardless of the demand scenario and the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead. "
It's hard to quantify, but it does seem like regional predictions are less accurate than continental, and predictions about rainfall are less accurate than temperature. However, predictions of rising temperature are essentially guaranteed.
> There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above ...
> Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation).
> Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming
Sources:
[1] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheet... [2] https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_scie...
>Also in 1969, Mikhail Budyko published a theory on the ice–albedo feedback, a foundational element of what is today known as Arctic amplification.
This is generally confirmed by observations, as seen in the graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_amplification
I assume four decades should be enough. I don't know about precipitation modeling, that stuff's really hard and the variance is huge.
Decreasing alfalfa production may well impact the ability to feed cattle. In the short term, that's actually fine. It may just force more beef production, which will be good for costs (again, in the short term).
But this article makes the same mistake so many make: blaming this on climate change. It's not. It's simply usage. See Figure 2 on page 10 [1]. Additionally, water projections were made at a high point of water inflows that simply haven't been realistic since.
In short, we're using too much water and farming is going to have to take the hit.
[1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...