I saw some very recent pics of lake Powell on a news page somewhere and was able to compare it with my holiday snaps from last year and it was significantly lower!
Lakes Mead and Powell are both at or below 50%. There is plenty of info online if you are willing to wade through it and if you are tired but not sleepy you could read them. As to which lake gets priority for containment, there has always been a contest between those that advocate for Powell and those for Mead.
I will refrain from entering the rabbit hole conversation of unrestrained growth and blinkered politicians that are husbanded by developers. That discussion always deteriorates into a political one.
which can be summarised as: 'Why should I save water, I have a right to water my garden and grass, let someone else economise.
Believe it or not, there are towns in California where there is no water bill! Water is provided by the community and people just use it! I am assuming it's paid out of taxes. They have had so many years of abundant, or should I say free, water no one understands conservation. There are also communities that have grandfather agreements and they aren't about to release them. Can't blame them for that, I guess, but it illustrates the irresponsible attitudes people have had there for decades.
Anyway, there have been droughts before and they all went away before the water got short.
That is true in the long term. The question is how long before the rain returns. It can be shown to be true, based on current data. Tree ring and ice core data, however, show that there have been major (decades and centuries long) droughts in this area. These pre-date most industrial impacts. There is some discussion, I've seen, that the scientific community is cautiously asking whether we might be entering another one of these megadrought cycles. Population out here west of the Rockies,
excluding California, is closing in on 50 million.
Type in "prehistoric megadrought" to Google and you will get a downpour of info.
If the CA economy takes a big dive we will all dive with it I reckon.
Anyway, seriously, the CA economy should be protected at almost all costs.
It is true that California is a large economy, but if it tanked, someone would be there with resources to pick up great bargains at fire-sale prices. It's the nature of a market economy. Lots of short term pain though.
I am uncomfortable with designating anything human designed as "too important to fail". Politicians love to throw this one about. It protects their bottom line just as much as it does a company and/or a state or municipal government. It also negates the process of competition that generates improvements in the market.
It's basically giving someone 'Carte blance'. With no consequences to keep them in check, it's also an irresponsible game to play.
Let's hope the new San Diego desalination plant will be fit insurance.
Desalinization is probably the future. It will force people to realize how expensive clean water is becoming. The technology is available and has been for years. Cities just aren't willing because of how much it costs. Drawing from aquifers has reached a tipping point, from a line between Texas to North Dakota west they are being depleted faster than they are being replenished.
Precipitation and snow-pack is down for many years running. As you can see, any discussion about water here in the west requires that you talk about the Golden Elephant. We may not have a choice in the matter.
It is, contrary to what some advocate groups will tell you, not only about global warming. There are multiple processes and events at play. Water politics out here have been cut-throat for years and aren't about to change soon.
Duane
