Thanks for another excellent, informative posting. I'm not surprised that the Trump administration has done a poor job handling the crisis on the Colorado River. I completely agree with the idea that the Glen Canyon dam needs to be modified so more water can be released. It makes no sense to have a massive amount of water trapped behind the dam when some of the lower basin states may desperately need it. Furthermore, in the interests of fairness, the upper basin states should be required to make some cuts in their water allocations.
Thanks for this, Jonathan. So the Fed's plan does not involve any extra Upper Basin cuts or releases from reservoirs? Why? And also, to address the elephant in the room, why is there no (public) discussion from the Feds about Glen Canyon Dam modifications? Thanks again for all you do. -Anna
Anna, The fed's plan asks for voluntary cuts in the Upper Basin and it leaves open the possibility of releases from upstream reservoirs, but those releases are not baked into the plan in the same way that the Lower Basin cuts or Glen Canyon releases are. As for the why of the former, it mostly has to do with the feds' authority: The Law of the River made the Interior Secretary the "water master" for the Lower Basin, mainly because the feds built/funded the projects that deliver water to those users. That's not the case with the Upper Basin. Also, the Lower Basin has a handful of big diversions that are easier to control; the Upper Basin is made up of hundreds of much smaller diversions, so parceling out cuts would be difficult. Why the feds aren't more firm on upstream reservoir releases, I don't know. Obviously this is an option: They released a bunch of water from Flaming Gorge this year. But why they don't include it in the plan as a given is a mystery.
As for the dam modifications, it's a bit of a head-scratcher, to be honest. They did not even consider the alternative in their EIS. The only way I can figure it is that they don't want to even entertain the possibility that our current situation is permanent; they continue to believe that the climate will shift, the drought will end, and the dam in its current form will once again be viable. We just have to hold out until then by cutting off water to the Lower Basin and so forth. And who knows, maybe they're right. Maybe this year's Super El Niño will fill up Lake Powell. But I sure as heck wouldn't bank on it ...
I don't think "dam modifications" are in the BuRec & DOI & GOP DNA. I think they have drunk they've been smoking their own stuff when it comes to the importance of the GC Dam's turbines for "spinning reserve" and "system strength," and "peak demand." The latter being barely possible anymore. Hydro is the one "FIRM" renewable. Sort of. Was.
All the support those turbines give to the grid can be replaced in the same time frame as any project to build the river level bypasses.
And of course draining Powell would mean admitting that hippie anarchist river rats were right.
I do relate a bit to what one of the locals said that they were worried that any new projects that would make up for lost water might not actually come to fruition given the red tape obviously involved. There are similar concerns in some "Just Transition" energy communities.
Kind of amazing to hear Gary Wockner congratulating Las Vegas. One unmentioned other water conservation measure there. They have banned new evaporative cooling systems, at least for large AC condensers. It means a bit more steel, aluminum, copper, Refrigerant-XYZ, and electricity, but far less water. Cooling tower water that is 90% "consumed," and can't be "recycled," or flow back to a river or whatever happens to flushes of the toilets of Vegas. Much of the extra electricity is at times when solar is in surplus. It's also much easier to redirect the heat being rejected to air for heating hot water or space heating, not that much of that is needed in Vegas.
In news linked by your "Western Energy News," a Nevada solar project was cited for unpermitted water use, but this was just for dust suppression water during construction. Ongoing water use is typically nada. Turns out the project bought/rented its water from a farmer who fallowed a few dozen acres for the year of construction, but the farmer didn't get permission from the county or water board to transfer the water.
I do worry a bit about further increased urban temps from removing turf and other water-loving plants. They all were contributing evaporative cooling, and in some cases shading, to the urban environment. From days working on "Cool Cities" and "Cool Roofs" I recall a study of LA basin temps that showed the ambient temps decreased there in the first decades of settlement, when settlement involved planting & irrigating orange groves. Once paving paradise took over, temps went up compared to nearby un-altered areas.
Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about the unintended consequences of conservation. And making cities hotter by cutting back on irrigated vegetation is certainly one of them!
I'd say "live and learn", but that really doesnt seem to happen these days, does it? OR possibly spend more time and money on HOW to "fix" our climate. Just typing that brings some really nasty epithets (good word) to mind and frankly, my language these days is very very bad.
Thanks for another excellent, informative posting. I'm not surprised that the Trump administration has done a poor job handling the crisis on the Colorado River. I completely agree with the idea that the Glen Canyon dam needs to be modified so more water can be released. It makes no sense to have a massive amount of water trapped behind the dam when some of the lower basin states may desperately need it. Furthermore, in the interests of fairness, the upper basin states should be required to make some cuts in their water allocations.
Thanks for this, Jonathan. So the Fed's plan does not involve any extra Upper Basin cuts or releases from reservoirs? Why? And also, to address the elephant in the room, why is there no (public) discussion from the Feds about Glen Canyon Dam modifications? Thanks again for all you do. -Anna
Anna, The fed's plan asks for voluntary cuts in the Upper Basin and it leaves open the possibility of releases from upstream reservoirs, but those releases are not baked into the plan in the same way that the Lower Basin cuts or Glen Canyon releases are. As for the why of the former, it mostly has to do with the feds' authority: The Law of the River made the Interior Secretary the "water master" for the Lower Basin, mainly because the feds built/funded the projects that deliver water to those users. That's not the case with the Upper Basin. Also, the Lower Basin has a handful of big diversions that are easier to control; the Upper Basin is made up of hundreds of much smaller diversions, so parceling out cuts would be difficult. Why the feds aren't more firm on upstream reservoir releases, I don't know. Obviously this is an option: They released a bunch of water from Flaming Gorge this year. But why they don't include it in the plan as a given is a mystery.
As for the dam modifications, it's a bit of a head-scratcher, to be honest. They did not even consider the alternative in their EIS. The only way I can figure it is that they don't want to even entertain the possibility that our current situation is permanent; they continue to believe that the climate will shift, the drought will end, and the dam in its current form will once again be viable. We just have to hold out until then by cutting off water to the Lower Basin and so forth. And who knows, maybe they're right. Maybe this year's Super El Niño will fill up Lake Powell. But I sure as heck wouldn't bank on it ...
I don't think "dam modifications" are in the BuRec & DOI & GOP DNA. I think they have drunk they've been smoking their own stuff when it comes to the importance of the GC Dam's turbines for "spinning reserve" and "system strength," and "peak demand." The latter being barely possible anymore. Hydro is the one "FIRM" renewable. Sort of. Was.
All the support those turbines give to the grid can be replaced in the same time frame as any project to build the river level bypasses.
And of course draining Powell would mean admitting that hippie anarchist river rats were right.
So I guess the BuRec has done some useful dam removals and planned a few more. What I'd recently read involved a Trump USDA official jumping in to oppose a small dam removal in Sonoma that was pretty much already decided. https://grist.org/politics/brooke-rollins-potter-valley-project-california-dams/
I do relate a bit to what one of the locals said that they were worried that any new projects that would make up for lost water might not actually come to fruition given the red tape obviously involved. There are similar concerns in some "Just Transition" energy communities.
Kind of amazing to hear Gary Wockner congratulating Las Vegas. One unmentioned other water conservation measure there. They have banned new evaporative cooling systems, at least for large AC condensers. It means a bit more steel, aluminum, copper, Refrigerant-XYZ, and electricity, but far less water. Cooling tower water that is 90% "consumed," and can't be "recycled," or flow back to a river or whatever happens to flushes of the toilets of Vegas. Much of the extra electricity is at times when solar is in surplus. It's also much easier to redirect the heat being rejected to air for heating hot water or space heating, not that much of that is needed in Vegas.
In news linked by your "Western Energy News," a Nevada solar project was cited for unpermitted water use, but this was just for dust suppression water during construction. Ongoing water use is typically nada. Turns out the project bought/rented its water from a farmer who fallowed a few dozen acres for the year of construction, but the farmer didn't get permission from the county or water board to transfer the water.
I do worry a bit about further increased urban temps from removing turf and other water-loving plants. They all were contributing evaporative cooling, and in some cases shading, to the urban environment. From days working on "Cool Cities" and "Cool Roofs" I recall a study of LA basin temps that showed the ambient temps decreased there in the first decades of settlement, when settlement involved planting & irrigating orange groves. Once paving paradise took over, temps went up compared to nearby un-altered areas.
Yeah, I've been thinking a lot about the unintended consequences of conservation. And making cities hotter by cutting back on irrigated vegetation is certainly one of them!
I'd say "live and learn", but that really doesnt seem to happen these days, does it? OR possibly spend more time and money on HOW to "fix" our climate. Just typing that brings some really nasty epithets (good word) to mind and frankly, my language these days is very very bad.