I concur with Ed's IG post: While the CO River is extremely important, the discussions are boring, repetitive, and predictable. There was zero chance the states were ever going to agree - there is no reason they should - so the feds stepped in.
And there is still zero chance anything will happen until someone's tap is actually turned off. Then the sh*t will hit the fan, they will lawyer up, and Trump will direct the Int Sec to give water to the states that voted for him and punish those who didn't. The latter prediction is not being snide; it's how the federal government is now being operated. My guess is that would already have happened, except the political lines and water lines are not syncronous: he would have punished CO but UT and WY are supporters and the Upper Basin states are intertwined. He would love to punish CA but the Imperial Valley voted for him in 2024.
Next up: US Supreme Court. Because again, there is no reason for the states to ever agree; the logical (political; not engineering!) tactic to take a stand for your state, and if another entity takes away your water rights, it's better to scream bloody murder than be condemned as the one who bargained them away.
And possibly sooner, Mother Nature will make some calls. Us liberals have been squawking for years - I've gotten tired of listening to us myself. If Lake Powell does indeed reach dead pool, water taps and circuit breakers will go off.
So here's a very different perspective: what's wrong with that?
I also thought "he would have punished CO." But I didn't connect us with UT & WY.
I just saw some other "boring, repetitive and predictable" coverage with an ask for $20B to "save the farmers" in CO, with miles of the same old ditch lining and what not that doesn't actually greatly reduce real consumption, that is evaporation and evapotranspiration.
I've read a few newspaper summaries not that have reduced "reservoir evaporation" to "evaporation." Lame, confusing. And somehow there is a news blackout on the organized efforts in CA, and disorganized efforts elsewhere (AZ, CO), to fallow some very large fields and plant solar panels and harvest electrons instead. As far as I can tell in CO & AZ, it's typically been, sell the water from the farm, then 5-10 years later, realize you can also rent from, or sell to a solar power plant.
"[Colorado River Water Conservation] District General Manager Andy Mueller said that agriculture has a role to play in reducing water consumption, but that permanently retiring agricultural land is a misguided approach that will put the country in danger of not being able to feed itself." Give me a break! Along with some quotes from a guy in CA who should actually know better. "California’s representative, JB Hamby, said permanent fallowing doesn’t have a place in reducing the state’s demand either.
'In the case of California, there’s no real discussion or interest whatsoever in the retirement of ag lands,” Hamby said.'"
Maybe in the Imperial Valley, but 150 miles north there is the Westlands Water District Clean Infrastructure Plan with 21 GW of solar + batteries on 136,000 acres of previously irrigated land. (500,000 will still be irrigated.) And as I understand it, PG&G was just given CPUC approval to build the powerlines to connect that, so this isn't just hopium.
I think their water journalist needs some new sources!
Solar and wind have already been reducing powerplant evaporation by displacing 1ish gal/kWh coal thermal plant direct evaporation with about zero gal/kWh electricity. In CO, that's about 100,000 AF/yr. Not stunning, but there is another 55% of electric still generated by fossil thermal.
Stop irrigating, plant solar, harvest electrons. In reality, as far as I can tell, even more land needs to be fallowed (5-10%ish of irrigated land?) due to lack of river water than would be needed for a "super-abundance" of solar power in the basin.
"Stop irrigating, plant solar, harvest electrons." is a dramatic one-liner! Ag is sacred, so this will raise eyebrows at the minimum. But while the ag lobbyists warn our grocery shelves will become empty, we are realizing that 46% of all the CO River water grows alfalfa to feed cows.
I concur with Ed's IG post: While the CO River is extremely important, the discussions are boring, repetitive, and predictable. There was zero chance the states were ever going to agree - there is no reason they should - so the feds stepped in.
And there is still zero chance anything will happen until someone's tap is actually turned off. Then the sh*t will hit the fan, they will lawyer up, and Trump will direct the Int Sec to give water to the states that voted for him and punish those who didn't. The latter prediction is not being snide; it's how the federal government is now being operated. My guess is that would already have happened, except the political lines and water lines are not syncronous: he would have punished CO but UT and WY are supporters and the Upper Basin states are intertwined. He would love to punish CA but the Imperial Valley voted for him in 2024.
Next up: US Supreme Court. Because again, there is no reason for the states to ever agree; the logical (political; not engineering!) tactic to take a stand for your state, and if another entity takes away your water rights, it's better to scream bloody murder than be condemned as the one who bargained them away.
And possibly sooner, Mother Nature will make some calls. Us liberals have been squawking for years - I've gotten tired of listening to us myself. If Lake Powell does indeed reach dead pool, water taps and circuit breakers will go off.
So here's a very different perspective: what's wrong with that?
I also thought "he would have punished CO." But I didn't connect us with UT & WY.
I just saw some other "boring, repetitive and predictable" coverage with an ask for $20B to "save the farmers" in CO, with miles of the same old ditch lining and what not that doesn't actually greatly reduce real consumption, that is evaporation and evapotranspiration.
I've read a few newspaper summaries not that have reduced "reservoir evaporation" to "evaporation." Lame, confusing. And somehow there is a news blackout on the organized efforts in CA, and disorganized efforts elsewhere (AZ, CO), to fallow some very large fields and plant solar panels and harvest electrons instead. As far as I can tell in CO & AZ, it's typically been, sell the water from the farm, then 5-10 years later, realize you can also rent from, or sell to a solar power plant.
But, in https://aspenjournalism.org/colorado-river-experts-say-agriculture-must-make-permanent-cuts-to-water-use/ read the hysterical
"[Colorado River Water Conservation] District General Manager Andy Mueller said that agriculture has a role to play in reducing water consumption, but that permanently retiring agricultural land is a misguided approach that will put the country in danger of not being able to feed itself." Give me a break! Along with some quotes from a guy in CA who should actually know better. "California’s representative, JB Hamby, said permanent fallowing doesn’t have a place in reducing the state’s demand either.
'In the case of California, there’s no real discussion or interest whatsoever in the retirement of ag lands,” Hamby said.'"
Maybe in the Imperial Valley, but 150 miles north there is the Westlands Water District Clean Infrastructure Plan with 21 GW of solar + batteries on 136,000 acres of previously irrigated land. (500,000 will still be irrigated.) And as I understand it, PG&G was just given CPUC approval to build the powerlines to connect that, so this isn't just hopium.
I think their water journalist needs some new sources!
Solar and wind have already been reducing powerplant evaporation by displacing 1ish gal/kWh coal thermal plant direct evaporation with about zero gal/kWh electricity. In CO, that's about 100,000 AF/yr. Not stunning, but there is another 55% of electric still generated by fossil thermal.
Stop irrigating, plant solar, harvest electrons. In reality, as far as I can tell, even more land needs to be fallowed (5-10%ish of irrigated land?) due to lack of river water than would be needed for a "super-abundance" of solar power in the basin.
"Stop irrigating, plant solar, harvest electrons." is a dramatic one-liner! Ag is sacred, so this will raise eyebrows at the minimum. But while the ag lobbyists warn our grocery shelves will become empty, we are realizing that 46% of all the CO River water grows alfalfa to feed cows.
It’s the cows damnit!
Nice job. I've been wondering about the break down by lower basin state of the maximum cuts.
Thanks for the great coverage of this important issue!
JPT … we are coming for your cheeseburgers!