Good analysis. And while Lyman lives in the 19th century, I don't think you acknowledged one basic truth: If UT doesn't use the water CA will; so who's it going to be? Since I'm from the Upper Basin states, I'd rather have CO & UT ranchers waste water growing alfalfa than CA ranchers waste water growing alfalfa. It's a zero sum game, negotiations cannot succeed, and the fight has not even begun.
Buzz: I confess to being a bit of an Upper-Basin Supremacist myself. After all, the water comes from OUR mountains! We're at the headwaters so we should have first dibs. One problem with that, however (aside from the law), is that if we use up all the water, it leaves nothing in the river for the river itself, most notably through the Grand Canyon. If we leave more water in the river for California, then it stays in the river at least until they pull it out (and waste it on alfalfa).
Thanks Jonathan. I'm inclined to believe that Lyman completely understands the situation you've described, but has simply decided that dissembling is his road to political advancement. The deep back story is that Utah in general, and Southern Utah in particular, never really wanted to be part of the federal union. Their pioneer forefathers were immigrants, escaping real persecution in mid 19th century America. Lyman dreams of the independent State of Deseret, the Mormon theocracy that Brigham Young hoped to establish in the West, before Utah was incorporated into the federal union, against its will, after the Mexican War.
People like Lyman are the worse. Why? Because HE KNOWS BETTER. He knows what he is spouting here is BS. But instead of being honest and working together to find real solutions, he knowingly throws around bovine feces to score political points. That is one of the biggest problems in America these day. Republicans, for example, KNOW that climate change is real and that its going to be bad. But instead of participating in finding a solution, they exploit idiot voters simply to score political points. Disgusting.
Yikes. I didn't know the fruit damage was that bad. I see somewhere that some of the vineyards were better off because grapes don't bud as early. I also talked to our state viticulturist about their new little (1/4 acre) PV array above some grapes on Orchard Mesa in GJ and he said the panels did eliminate damage from this frost, while the buds in the open were half nipped. Which is not a total loss. Another 1 acre array just went up at Talbott's in Palisade. But these cost $3.50/W (about $1M/acre) vs. $1.20/W for std ground mount solar farms, so the protection (also from sunburn and hail) needs to be worth a lot. Same problem, but a bit less, as solar over parking lots, canals, etc., burly structures, more installation labor...
At this point of zero sum water availability, it bogles my mind that the Colo leg is even discussing nuclear power for a second. Like coal, nuke plants evaporate 0.5-0.6 gal/kWh (3 or 4 gallons for every dollars worth of retail electricity). They should be talking about making sure we keep expanding the huge water savings already realized by replacing coal with solar and wind, by my quick calcs, about enough to irrigate 40 sq. mi. every year.
Two Colorado solar grazing experts involved. Why isn't this happening here? There are likely water savings in addition to the dual use of land. While the leg is hammered with requests for more subsidies of nuke and geo, the CSU folks at the Agrivoltaics conference were openly begging for funding.
Wow JT, this is all getting a little tense. I know all the issues and I think what BRec has done so far is OK, they are playing up the middle right now, they have no choice. But the decisions to be made later this summer are going to be very difficult. Everyone angry, and the lawyers take over.
And just one further comment on the dams removed in California: all were insignificant sources of water supply. None were connected to California’s massive distribution system. Yes, a few locals are pissed but the long term benefit vs costs on these particular dam removal projects is excellent. Any projects such as these are a case by case decision.
Good analysis. And while Lyman lives in the 19th century, I don't think you acknowledged one basic truth: If UT doesn't use the water CA will; so who's it going to be? Since I'm from the Upper Basin states, I'd rather have CO & UT ranchers waste water growing alfalfa than CA ranchers waste water growing alfalfa. It's a zero sum game, negotiations cannot succeed, and the fight has not even begun.
"Whisky is for drinking; water is for fighting."
Buzz: I confess to being a bit of an Upper-Basin Supremacist myself. After all, the water comes from OUR mountains! We're at the headwaters so we should have first dibs. One problem with that, however (aside from the law), is that if we use up all the water, it leaves nothing in the river for the river itself, most notably through the Grand Canyon. If we leave more water in the river for California, then it stays in the river at least until they pull it out (and waste it on alfalfa).
Thanks Jonathan. I'm inclined to believe that Lyman completely understands the situation you've described, but has simply decided that dissembling is his road to political advancement. The deep back story is that Utah in general, and Southern Utah in particular, never really wanted to be part of the federal union. Their pioneer forefathers were immigrants, escaping real persecution in mid 19th century America. Lyman dreams of the independent State of Deseret, the Mormon theocracy that Brigham Young hoped to establish in the West, before Utah was incorporated into the federal union, against its will, after the Mexican War.
Good point! Too bad Phil loses this sense of independence when there's an actual authoritarian in the White House ...
People like Lyman are the worse. Why? Because HE KNOWS BETTER. He knows what he is spouting here is BS. But instead of being honest and working together to find real solutions, he knowingly throws around bovine feces to score political points. That is one of the biggest problems in America these day. Republicans, for example, KNOW that climate change is real and that its going to be bad. But instead of participating in finding a solution, they exploit idiot voters simply to score political points. Disgusting.
Yikes. I didn't know the fruit damage was that bad. I see somewhere that some of the vineyards were better off because grapes don't bud as early. I also talked to our state viticulturist about their new little (1/4 acre) PV array above some grapes on Orchard Mesa in GJ and he said the panels did eliminate damage from this frost, while the buds in the open were half nipped. Which is not a total loss. Another 1 acre array just went up at Talbott's in Palisade. But these cost $3.50/W (about $1M/acre) vs. $1.20/W for std ground mount solar farms, so the protection (also from sunburn and hail) needs to be worth a lot. Same problem, but a bit less, as solar over parking lots, canals, etc., burly structures, more installation labor...
At this point of zero sum water availability, it bogles my mind that the Colo leg is even discussing nuclear power for a second. Like coal, nuke plants evaporate 0.5-0.6 gal/kWh (3 or 4 gallons for every dollars worth of retail electricity). They should be talking about making sure we keep expanding the huge water savings already realized by replacing coal with solar and wind, by my quick calcs, about enough to irrigate 40 sq. mi. every year.
Whether or not one is fan of cattle, this is a nicely done recent story of one place the solar biz is continuing its march of innovation: https://apnews.com/article/solar-cattle-grazing-silicon-ranch-tennessee-67e0ab41c0c3f55230401dfd228a924f
Two Colorado solar grazing experts involved. Why isn't this happening here? There are likely water savings in addition to the dual use of land. While the leg is hammered with requests for more subsidies of nuke and geo, the CSU folks at the Agrivoltaics conference were openly begging for funding.
Wow JT, this is all getting a little tense. I know all the issues and I think what BRec has done so far is OK, they are playing up the middle right now, they have no choice. But the decisions to be made later this summer are going to be very difficult. Everyone angry, and the lawyers take over.
And just one further comment on the dams removed in California: all were insignificant sources of water supply. None were connected to California’s massive distribution system. Yes, a few locals are pissed but the long term benefit vs costs on these particular dam removal projects is excellent. Any projects such as these are a case by case decision.