Bureau of Reclamation
I'm pretty sure that's a typo in the year. The map is meant to compare two 30-year periods, not one 30 and one 3000-year period.
The Times ran a story this weekend about proposals to be presented by the Bureau of Reclamation for shoring up water infrastructure in the Southwest. You'll recall New York's politicians have been arguing for infrastructure improvements to withstand the new pressures brought on by climate change.
As New York Governor Andrew Cuomo explained at a press conference in the wake of hurricane Sandy,
"Climate change is a controversial subject, right? People will debate whether there is climate change ... that's a whole political debate that I don't want to get into. I want to talk about the frequency of extreme weather situations, which is not political ... There's only so long you can say, 'This is once in a lifetime and it's not going to happen again.'
Similarly, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, charged with managing the water resources of the Western United States, is also trying to plan ahead for the inevitable. Among the most urgent concerns is that climate predictions have the southeast suffering a decrease in the annual precipitation rate - a forecast made all the more alarming by the fact that the Colorado River is already struggling to serve the millions of Americans who rely on it for water.
So reportedly, one of the more extreme proposals being entertained by the Bureau of Reclamation is a water pipeline drawing from the Missouri River and running 600 miles to Colorado. The New York Times item stems from an earlier report by the Denver Post, and both explain that there is a forthcoming federal government study on water supply for the West with the Missouri pipeline being among the more radical of more than 100 proposals. I've been watching for the report but I don't think it's out yet. Let me know if you see it.
Whether the challenge is too much water or not enough of it, at least government officials are not blind to the new conditions of a changing climate.
Leave a Comment:
Both the predicted drying period and the willful obliviousness of the population of the Southwest should be no surprise to anyone who's been paying the slightest bit of attention. National Geographic ran a cover story on it years ago (The Drying of the West was the title, I think), and the information and models were available in non-mainstream publications some time before that. But no, instead of accepting reality (Buffy forbid!) we're going to throw massive labor and resources at building pipelines halfway across the country to let people living in a desert continue to use water like they aren't living in a desert.
calm down. wait until you see the proposal to pipe cold air in from arctic canada. those are going to be some big pipes.
the only good thing about that idea is that even if they leak crossing the ogallala aquifer they won't pollute it, unlike some pipeline proposals you might be able to think of.
oh, and jobs, jobs, jobs, of course.
National Geographic - Drying of the West...
I completely agree! My goodness -- when will we ever confront the reality of finite resources!
Definition of Economics = Science of trying to satisfy infinite demand with finite resources...
That is to say: they are in fact blind to the reality that throwing pipe at the problem is not a viable solution, just as they were blind to the fact that building neighborhoods below sea level and next to levees would result in tragedy.
And I know there are proposals that don't involve massive investment in water transport infrastructure, but I have zero faith that solutions prioritizing sustainabilty will make it past the preliminary rounds. The sole forward-thinking water resources policy made in this country in the past several decades was the protection of the Upper Hudson watershed, and even that is on the verge of being dismantled as official political opposition to fracking in NY is crumbling.
On a similarly pessimistic note, when even the geologists' mathematical models say we're @!$%#ed, we probably well and truly are. So it's quite possible all this kerfluffle about the Southwest running out of water is moot.
Do you know how frightening it is to be on a hike and be more worried about fracking chemicals in the crick water--hell, the spring water--than about giardia? Aquamira and 0.1 micron filters don't do jack for benzene and strontium.
It almost makes me want to stay in IA, even with the current drought and the nitrogen and phosphate pollution, b/c at least if you flip your canoe in a river here, it's reasonable to assume you're aren't going to wind up with a mouthful of methane and toluene. There are places in the Marcellus shale where I wouldn't want to gamble on that assumption anymore.
Would be good info to have re. the amount of water used per barrel of oil harvested thru fracking.
Anyone? Beuller?
Michigan's governor (whose name I will not utter) is promoting a big push for drilling, which in MI means fracking. Not like there's any fresh water resources here of which they'd need to be mindful.
The number that comes to mind is 8 million gallons to frack a well (I did not doublecheck before posting). The water/petroleum ratio would vary based on how productive the well turns out to be.
Apparently this post has become my outlet for water-resources-related pessimism. I'll try to control myself.
Hmmm. The article talks about Colorado, but ground zero for future droughts appears to be Arizona ("Arid-Zone-a", more like). Arizona already gets $1.19 in federal expenditures for every dollar paid in taxes, according to taxfoundation.org. Looks like they'll be hitting us blue staters up for more largesse to upgrade their water infrastructure soon.
I wonder how their secession petition is coming...
i'll support their water infrastructure improvements when the stop using potable water for their lawns and shrubs. don't these people realize that they live in a desert?
actually, i think i'll wait until they all scrap their lawns and put in native plants that can take the environmental stress without watering. note: i am not advocating digging up all the saguaro cactus to replant by their houses.
You would think, but actually greenery is much needed to keep the air humid. They do waste most of the water on the luxurious landscaping of the rich mogules in Phoenix and Paradise Valley, and the golf courses. I re-use all of my water when watering my plants. The way to attract water is to start knocking down all the buildings that are not in use, except houses and go from there. They have to stop building more houses it's turning the desert into a dry wasteland. I think Colorado is your best bet when it comes diversified weather.Are Conservatives even aware of this. No,. they're too busy taking bribes from ALEC and are destroying the state of Arizona.They still have no idea what it means to be Conservative.
Even in the early 1980s, there were precious few lawns in Tucson. And Albuquerque mandated xeriscaping in the 1990s, in which I happily participated. I believe a "lawn" is as subject to "Darwinian" discipline in Maryland as in New Mexico. So if the rain isn't sufficient, I'll be damned if I'll use my good well water to keep the short weeds alive. Or use fertilizer or weed killer or insecticides. Got to keep those bees hummin'.
Can't speak to Phoenix, though. Used to consider it an eastern suburb of LA, complete with Colorado River water to rinse off the sidewalks.
I think we need to take into consideration that climate change was never debated until this year. By whom,...Republicans. It is used as a talking point for the GOP. They are crazy to think they know more than scientists. We have to try and block out the tactics that they used during the election, I think they somehow have convinced themselves. Brainwashing is tricky, when does it end?
ITYM "Southwest."
Speaking as a native Arizonan, a large part of the problem is simply too many people in an area that never could support us all, growing far too many plants that waste water. I mean, cotton? Seriously? Fricking golf courses?
When we can't afford lifestyles based on cheap individual transportation any more (think peak oil, if nothing else) places like Phoenix are going to mostly dry up and blow away, making much of the water issue moot.
The forests? A different problem, and one that pipelines won't help either.
There is so much wrong with that BLM map that I hardly know where to begin. It was obviously put together by politicians!!
It projects more precipitation in the Northwest and the Great Plains but doesn't tell you that with global warming, that precipitation won't be snow that normally feeds the rivers throughout the spring and summer, but will be rain, most of which can't be captured and used.
The Northwest and the Great Plains areas typically get their moisture in the winter in the form of snow. This precipitation slowly feeds the rivers and aquifers as it melts. Rain doesn't feed the aquifers in the same way because it runs off or is evaporated and most of it just goes down the rivers immediately. This is a serious problem for the US breadbasket - remember the dust bowls of the 30's?
Most serious (obviously NOT BLM) climatologists predict that the Great Plains will actually suffer severe droughts during the growing seasons because of the lack of snowmelt from the Northwest which is a MUCH more important issue than providing water for the Southwest for their golf courses and condos.
Climate change, only controversial in the USA.
Question it in any other developed country and they'll laugh you out of town.
Nice to post something about climate change on the blog and yet TRMS - and nearly all MSNBC programs - still totally ignore any in-depth coverage of the climate catastrophe that is unfolding before our eyes. You really have to wonder why?
One possible answer: Take a look at the staggering amount of fossil fuel industry advertising associated with any American news program.
Nice to have something about climate change posted to a blog where maybe all of a thousand eyeballs will read it. But here's the bigger question. Why is it that TRMS and nearly all other MSNBC programs as well as the mainstream media, totally ignore or run away from any kind of in-depth reporting on the global climate catastrophe that we are watching unfold?
There is one reasonably likely answer.
It's the overwhelming amount of warm, fuzzy, feel good ad dollars being spent by the fossil fuel industries on every American news program. So far it appears Rachel and others like the ad money more than they do the idea of calling out Big Oil.
I wrote Senator Merkley a suggestion for his filibuster proposal and thought you might me interested.
As a family of your constituents, we are wholeheartedly in support of your effort to stem the atrocious misapplication of the Republican use of the filibuster.
Might I make a small suggestion as an addition to your proposal to return the filibuster to a reasonable use:
If the reason for the filibuster is to protect the critical ideology of the minority party, then the rule should state that a quorum of the minority caucus must be present in support while the opposition argument has the floor.
". . . climate predictions have the southeast . . ."
As already pointed out (D.C. Sessions, above), the article should be corrected to:
. . . climate predictions have the Southwest . . .
since it is referring to a distinct region of the United States, it should also be capitalized.
Additionally: "Reclamation for shoring up water infrastructure in the southeast." Should be corrected to: "Reclamation for shoring up water infrastructure in the Southwest."