The water from Colorado (via the Colorado River) also supplies Utah, Arizona, Southern California, Nevada, and Mexico with water. All of those areas need more water; even if Colorado stays at its current demand level, you could imagine one or more of those areas funding a well in Wyoming to divert water to Colorado to either send directly down the river or to take the place of water that would otherwise be removed from the river, so that their allocation could be correspondingly increased. (Pretty much every drop of the Colorado River is owned by someone. [1])
Water is life. :)
Pretty much every drop of the Colorado River
is owned by someone.
When the Colorado River Compact was drafted in
the 1920s, it was based on barely 30 years of
streamflow records that suggested an average
annual flow of 17.5 million acre feet past Lee's
Ferry. Modern studies of tree rings revealed
that those three decades were probably the
wettest in the past 500 to 1,200 years – and
that the natural long-term annual flow past
Lee's Ferry is probably closer to 13.5 million
acre feet, as compared to the natural flow at
the mouth of 16.3 million acre feet. This has
resulted in more water being allocated to river
users than actually flows through the Colorado.As a result we've been in violation with a treaty with Mexico over the lack of promised water volume over most of that time as well. Again, too busy to find the link.
Or also to Southern California? So what if there's a few mountain ranges in the way?
I think pretty much any other solution will work better than digging a well in rural Wyoming and building a pipeline somewhere. For example, getting water from all the other places around Colorado. Why is this one particular spot in Wyoming so important?
Ignoring the "rural" aspect of what you're saying, the same can be said of Vegas. And most of Arizona. Not to mention, ahem, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. You suggesting that the 20M+ people in SoCal should pick up and leave because there isn't enough water? Because there isn't, except if you count the water imported from COLORADO.
Colorado actually has PLENTY of water; it's just that legally we're bound to give it to others.
Aside from which point, infrastructure costs money. "Pick up and move elsewhere" isn't reasonable if "elsewhere" doesn't have the infrastructure for millions of people.
Did you actually read the comment thread before replying?
You need to think further into the future. What happens in 50-100-200 years when all the surface and near-surface water is spoken for, and there is literally not enough water for the population to even drink?
(If you think I've being doomsdayish, this actually happens in Australia - a buddy of mine with a newborn in a city of 30,000 people had to rely on bottled flown-in water just to be able to drink)
Those words sound like the tell-tale signs of the short-sightedness that drives some of these decisions. I believe the next sentence, which may not be uttered until years later, is "Doh!", while face-palming.
And half a million dollars is really nothing, meaning the eventual face palm is even more likely. Not to mention it could become even less costly to access it in the future.
Not really. The West has been colonized for centuries. We have a pretty good idea of what is valuable out there and what isn't, and for the most part, extractive is what is valuable out there.
> Not to mention it could become even less costly to access it in the future.
Talk about one-sided reasoning - and there could be even less reason to ever want to access it in the future too. Rural areas in the plains have been depopulating for decades.
So far. In relative terms.
>extractive is what is valuable out there.
In some places, water is an extractive.
>Talk about one-sided reasoning - and there could be even less reason to ever want to access it in the future too.
Possibly, but then, I wasn't the one making definitive statements like "what would ever justify...". See the difference? I'm showing you another side, not declaring it inevitable. That's why I used the word could instead of will.
In general, you made a one-sided statement that also ignored the fact that your assumptions could change. I pointed that out, along with possible alternatives. Then, you reply that I am being one-sided? You're talking in circles.
Contortions aside, your posture makes no sense to me. You're saying there is no need now and may never be, so let's destroy it. I'm saying there may be a need, so let's think about that. If we don't know, then why burn the bridge? One approach gives us a way back, whereas the other doesn't.
And, that's the entire point of the article. The Mexicans are now having to dig deeper than they thought would be necessary or viable. At some point, they were saying "what would ever justify...".
What other terms could there be?
> In general, you made a one-sided statement that also ignored the fact that your assumptions could change. I pointed that out, along with possible alternatives. Then, you reply that I am being one-sided? You're talking in circles.
My point is that we have lots of information on what is valuable out there and what is not, and the people wringing hands over it seem to be trying to put all the burden of proof on everyone else, and speculating vaguely about how one might one day want that deep acquifer (without any consideration of future technological advances and economic and demographic shifts away from the areas, opportunity costs like foregone economic growth) etc. That's very one-sided.
> The Mexicans are now having to dig deeper than they thought would be necessary or viable. At some point, they were saying "what would ever justify...".
Greater Mexico City has been growing for how many centuries now? If they were saying that, they weren't doing a very good job of forecasting. There's a big difference between wondering whether one of the largest urbanizations in the world will one day want to tap in local water, and wondering whether some random plains acquifer located nowhere important will one day be worth the expense of tapping into and whether this can justify expensive restrictions now.
Absolute.
>we have lots of information on what is valuable out there and what is not
Again, that's now. Strange that you agree that we're talking in relative terms, but keep repeating this. Please understand that it's a meaningless statement in the context of this discussion. The very question is whether the water could someday be valuable.
>the people wringing hands...put all the burden of proof on everyone else
Of course, you realize I could say that as well; as in, "you guys are putting the burden of proof on the hand-wringers to show exactly when, where, and why we'll need it, else it's OK to destroy it".
>without any consideration of future technological advances of future technological advances
Why is it reasonable for you to consider future technological advances, but when others suggest the same, they're being "one-sided"?
>economic and demographic shifts away from the areas
Or toward the area, right? Also, who says the aquifer must serve the immediate area? We ship water from France and Fiji now as a "luxury". So, given that many are predicting a more global water-crisis, why is there reason to believe that our sources would be geographically bound when there is actual need?
In short, you're throwing out a bunch of hypotheticals, then declaring that's what the other side is doing. OK, let's call it a draw: no-one knows what will happen. So, what makes the most sense to do in that case? Preserve or destroy?
There is a certain arrogance that mankind has with regard to stewardship of our natural resources. Deciding that it's OK to destroy this thing or that one for some short-term economic benefit is short-sighted hubris at best.
>Greater Mexico City has been growing for how many centuries now? If they were saying that, they weren't doing a very good job of forecasting
I wasn't being literal. Mexico City didn't even know the water existed.
>wondering whether some random plains aquifer located nowhere important will one day be worth the expense of tapping into
According to the article there are 1,500 such "random" aquifers that are permitted for pollution in the U.S. [1]. Many of these are in drought-stricken states.
So, it's not just the one aquifer. It's 1,500. Again, it's the overall attitude around these resources that's short-sighted and troubling.
Are you willing to state that all 1,500 (and possibly growing) will never be needed? If not, which ones will be?
[1] http://www.propublica.org/article/poisoning-the-well-how-the...