Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 211 posts

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#131

Post by eclipticplane »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #118
throwaway892238 wrote: post #93

> The Colorado River supplies water to nearly 40 million people in cities from Denver to Los Angeles > “We are 150 feet from 25 million Americans losing access to the Colorado River" > roughly 80% of the river’s flow is used for agriculture, and most of that for thirsty crops like alfalfa, which is mainly grown for cattle Somebody needs to wake the people in those cities up. If they don't start screaming at their rep…

> if they don't start screaming at their representatives, they won't be able to use their faucets, because some cattle farmers don't want to import feed The situation will rapidly sort itself out once faucets are turned off. Ordinarily, that would happen after irreparable environmental destruction. Fortunately, we have the Bureau of Reclamation to pull the plug on the Colorado River Compact states before that happens…

Don't forget to factor in this truly wildcard Supreme Court.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#132

Post by refurb »

LanceH wrote: post #78
swatcoder wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The simple solution > The obvious answer This community seems like its at its best when it expresses humble curiosity and its worst when it shuts the door on learning by oversimplifying deeply complex matters as though nobody else had the sense to look straight at them. Water rights carry a legacy of centuries of personal and political history and thousands of competing interests. The levers with which to control p…

We can start by rolling back the modern entrenchments that have only made it worse. I would be absolutely shocked if this were only a 200 year old problem and there wasn't modern legislation basically gifting free water to special interests.

Way to double down on the "not sure why this is so hard to solve, the answer is obvious!".

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#133

Post by selectodude »

coryrc wrote: post #116
Yoofie wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Desalination requires energy and creates waste. This is true for basically every human endeavor.

Dams literally generate energy and provide water consistently.

And lay waste to entire river ecosystems.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#134

Post by bombcar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125
bombcar wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the final say rests with the man with the gun, so if necessary the laws will be changed. Since things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet).

> things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet) This isn't some some weird theoretical aside. Congressional power to modify and break treaties was debated by the founders [1]. Treaties are laws, full stop. Congress breaking them has political consequences. But it's not illegal, and it's no different from amending an act a prior Congress passed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr…

Yep, and if it got really really bad 3/4ths of the states can modify the Constitution and over-ride just about anything.

So if the southwest states piss off the rest of the country ...

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#135

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bombcar wrote: post #134
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> things haven't reached that level, it's likely the issue isn't super serious (yet) This isn't some some weird theoretical aside. Congressional power to modify and break treaties was debated by the founders [1]. Treaties are laws, full stop. Congress breaking them has political consequences. But it's not illegal, and it's no different from amending an act a prior Congress passed. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tr…

Yep, and if it got really really bad 3/4ths of the states can modify the Constitution and over-ride just about anything. So if the southwest states piss off the rest of the country ...

> if it got really really bad 3/4ths of the states can modify the Constitution and over-ride just about anything

You're describing extreme actions relative to a quotidien one. Armed revolution and Constitutional amendments are rare. Congress amending treaties is mundane.

We try to give the other side the courtesy of consultation, but that's (a) far from even common at this point and (b) sometimes impossible. The water rights in question are no different from any other private water rights. The fact that they originated from a treaty a curiosity at best.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#136

Post by cplusplusfellow »

pilom wrote: post #15
no_wizard wrote: post #3

Could we feasibly just run desalination stations from the coasts and pipe the water - like oil - to fill up these reservoirs? Setting cost aside for a second, is there any reason not to do something like this?

Anything is possible for enough money but I don't think you understand how much money what you're proposing would cost. In electricity alone desalination costs around 3kwh/m^3. 3.7mwh/acre foot of water. Last year we got 9.2 million acre feet of water in the Colorado River of the allocated 15 million acre feet. So if we say we want to supplement flows with just 2 million acre feet of desalination water, that's 7 Pwh…

We don’t need to pump the water to lake Powell. We let Powell refill itself and use the water instead on level ground in California.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#137

Post by selectodude »

kolanos wrote: post #124
coryrc wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we grow a lot in the Midwest where water comes from the sky.

Where do you think the Colorado River gets its water from?

Rocky Mountain snowmelt? It’s not coming from rain in Nebraska, that’s for sure.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#139

Post by [deleted] »

creatonez wrote: post #16
jmyeet wrote: post #6

At least this article notes that the vast majority of water usage is agriculture. This isn't something cities could or should solve by switching to (expensive) desalination to effectively subsidize agriculture. Most notably, alfalfa is mentioned here as farmers are going to have to switch to less water-intensive crops. Decreasing alfalfa production may well impact the ability to feed cattle. In the short term, that's…

> 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]. > [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 g…

[deleted]

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#140

Post by eclipticplane »

I'll be curious to see if this reverses the westward migration in the United States that we've seen over the past 100+ years. Large rust belt and east coast saw stagnant, if not declining, populations as new families moved west for better weather, mountains, cheap land, access to the west coast, ... the Great Lakes, Ohio, Upper Mississippi, and New England (and the Upper Colorado) watersheds are least likely to be impacted by severe droughts. Throw the Mid Atlantic in there, too, despite the increasing risk of severe tropical events.
Post reply on HN