The Colorado River, The High Plains Aquifer And The Entire Western Half Of The U.S. Are Rapidly Drying Up
What is life going to look like as our precious water resources become increasingly strained and the western half of the United States becomes bone dry? Scientists tell us that the 20th century was the wettest century in the western half of the country in 1000 years, and now things appear to be reverting to their normal historical patterns. But we have built teeming cities in the desert such as Phoenix and Las Vegas that support millions of people. Cities all over the Southwest continue to grow even as the Colorado River, Lake Mead and the High Plains Aquifer system run dry. So what are we going to do when there isn't enough water to irrigate our crops or run through our water systems? Already we are seeing some ominous signs that Dust Bowl conditions are starting to return to the region. In the past couple of years we have seen giant dust storms known as "haboobs" roll through Phoenix, and 6 of the 10 worst years for wildfires ever recorded in the United States have all come since the year 2000. In fact, according to the Los Angeles Times, "the average number of fires larger than 1,000 acres in a year has nearly quadrupled in Arizona and Idaho and has doubled in every other Western state" since the 1970s. But scientists are warning that they expect the western United States to become much drier than it is now. What will the western half of the country look like once that happens?
A recent National Geographic article contained the following chilling statement...
The wet 20th century, the wettest of the past millennium, the century when Americans built an incredible civilization in the desert, is over.
Much of the western half of the country has historically been a desolate wasteland. We were very blessed to enjoy very wet conditions for most of the last century, but now that era appears to be over.
To compensate, we are putting a tremendous burden on our fresh water resources. In particular, the Colorado River is becoming increasingly strained. Without the Colorado River, many of our largest cities simply would not be able to function. The following is from a recent Stratfor article...
The Colorado River provides water for irrigation of roughly 15 percent of the crops in the United States, including vegetables, fruits, cotton, alfalfa and hay. It also provides municipal water supplies for large cities, such as Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, San Diego and Las Vegas, accounting for more than half of the water supply in many of these areas.
In particular, water levels in Lake Mead (which supplies most of the water for Las Vegas) have fallen dramatically over the past decade or so. The following is an excerpt from an article posted on Smithsonian.com...
And boaters still roar across Nevada and Arizona’s Lake Mead, 110 miles long and formed by the Hoover Dam. But at the lake’s edge they can see lines in the rock walls, distinct as bathtub rings, showing the water level far lower than it once was—some 130 feet lower, as it happens, since 2000. Water resource officials say some of the reservoirs fed by the river will never be full again.
Today, Lake Mead supplies approximately 85 percent of the water that Las Vegas uses, and since 1998 the water level in Lake Mead has dropped by about 5.6 trillion gallons.
So what happens if Lake Mead continues to dry up?
Well, the truth is that it would be a major disaster...
Way before people run out of drinking water, something else happens: When Lake Mead falls below 1,050 feet, the Hoover Dam's turbines shut down – less than four years from now, if the current trend holds – and in Vegas the lights start going out.Ominously, these water woes are not confined to Las Vegas. Under contracts signed by President Obama in December 2011, Nevada gets only 23.37% of the electricity generated by the Hoover Dam. The other top recipients: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (28.53%); state of Arizona (18.95%); city of Los Angeles (15.42%); and Southern California Edison (5.54%).You can always build more power plants, but you can't build more rivers, and the mighty Colorado carries the lifeblood of the Southwest. It services the water needs of an area the size of France, in which live 40 million people. In its natural state, the river poured 15.7 million acre-feet of water into the Gulf of California each year. Today, twelve years of drought have reduced the flow to about 12 million acre-feet, and human demand siphons off every bit of it; at its mouth, the riverbed is nothing but dust.Nor is the decline in the water supply important only to the citizens of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Los Angeles. It's critical to the whole country. The Colorado is the sole source of water for southeastern California's Imperial Valley, which has been made into one of the most productive agricultural areas in the US despite receiving an average of three inches of rain per year.
You hardly ever hear about this on the news, but the reality is that this is a slow-motion train wreck happening right in front of our eyes.
Today, the once mighty Colorado River runs dry about 50 miles north of the sea. The following is an excerpt from an excellent article by Jonathan Waterman about what he found when he went to investigate this...
Fifty miles from the sea, 1.5 miles south of the Mexican border, I saw a river evaporate into a scum of phosphates and discarded water bottles. This dirty water sent me home with feet so badly infected that I couldn’t walk for a week. And a delta once renowned for its wildlife and wetlands is now all but part of the surrounding and parched Sonoran Desert. According to Mexican scientists whom I met with, the river has not flowed to the sea since 1998. If the Endangered Species Act had any teeth in Mexico, we might have a chance to save the giant sea bass (totoaba), clams, the Sea of Cortez shrimp fishery that depends upon freshwater returns, and dozens of bird species.So let this stand as an open invitation to the former Secretary of the Interior and all water buffalos who insist upon telling us that there is no scarcity of water here or in the Mexican Delta. Leave the sprinklered green lawns outside the Aspen conferences, come with me, and I’ll show you a Colorado River running dry from its headwaters to the sea. It is polluted and compromised by industry and agriculture. It is overallocated, drought stricken, and soon to suffer greatly from population growth. If other leaders in our administration continue the whitewash, the scarcity of knowledge and lack of conservation measures will cripple a western civilization built upon water.
Further east, the major problem is the drying up of our underground water resources.
In the state of Kansas today, many farmers that used to be able to pump plenty of water to irrigate their crops are discovering that the water underneath their land is now gone. The following is an excerpt from a recent article in the New York Times...
Vast stretches of Texas farmland lying over the aquifer no longer support irrigation. In west-central Kansas, up to a fifth of the irrigated farmland along a 100-mile swath of the aquifer has already gone dry. In many other places, there no longer is enough water to supply farmers’ peak needs during Kansas’ scorching summers.And when the groundwater runs out, it is gone for good. Refilling the aquifer would require hundreds, if not thousands, of years of rains.
So what is going to happen to "the breadbasket of the world" as this underground water continues to dry up?
Most Americans have never even heard of the Ogallala Aquifer, but it is one of our most important natural resources. It is one of the largest sources of fresh water on the entire planet, and farmers use water from the Ogallala Aquifer to irrigate more than 15 million acres of crops each year. It covers more than 100,000 square miles and it sits underneath the states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming and South Dakota.
Unfortunately, today it is being drained dry at a staggering rate. The following are a few statistics about this from one of my previous articles...
1. The Ogallala Aquifer is being drained at a rate of approximately 800 gallons per minute.
2. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, "a volume equivalent to two-thirds of the water in Lake Erie" has been permanently drained from the Ogallala Aquifer since 1940.
3. Decades ago, the Ogallala Aquifer had an average depth of approximately 240 feet, but today the average depth is just 80 feet. In some areas of Texas, the water is gone completely.
So exactly what do we plan to do once the water is gone?
We won't be able to grow as many crops and we will not be able to support such large cities in the Southwest.
If we have a few more summers of severe drought that are anything like last summer, we are going to be staring a major emergency in the face very rapidly.
If you live in the western half of the country, you might want to start making plans for the future, because our politicians sure are not.
This is a fascinating article from the Economic Collapse blog--how does he keep up with it?
ReplyDeleteIt's Bush's fault..............
ReplyDeleteTerri - I thought so too...
ReplyDeleteBrian - (deep breath and then long sigh) you are asking for it ... lol...
On Wednesday, UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, added his voice to concerns about water security: "We live in an increasingly water insecure world where demand often outstrips supply and where water quality often fails to meet minimum standards. Under current trends, future demands for water will not be met," he said.
ReplyDeleteThe scientists, meeting in Bonn this week, called on politicians to include tough new targets on improving water in the sustainable development goals that will be introduced when the current millennium development goals expire in 2015. They want governments to introduce water management systems that will address the problems of pollution, over-use, wastage and climate change.
Claim: Global majority faces water shortages ‘within two generations’
ReplyDeletePosted on May 24, 2013 by Steve Milloy | 3 Comments
Water is the most abundant substance on the planet. If anyone can’t get it, its likely because:
The enviros are constricting supply;
Bad/corrupt government is constricting supply; and/or
Poverty is constructing supply/.
All of these bottlenecks are readily fixed by wealth-generating individual liberty and limited government.
http://junkscience.com/2013/05/24/claim-global-majority-faces-water-shortages-within-two-generations/#more-40394
Daniel Greenfield: Starving Amidst Plenty
ReplyDeletePosted on August 28, 2012 by Editor | 3 Comments
There are two types of societies, production societies and rationing societies. The production society is concerned with taking more territory, exploiting that territory to the best of its ability and then discovering new techniques for producing even more. The rationing society is concerned with consolidating control over all existing resources and rationing them out to the people.
The production society values innovation because it is the only means of sustaining its forward momentum. If the production society ceases to be innovative, it will collapse and default to a rationing society. The rationing society however is threatened by innovation because innovation threatens its control over production.
Socialist or capitalist monopolies lead to rationing societies where production is restrained and innovation is discouraged. The difference between the two is that a capitalist monopoly can be overcome. A socialist monopoly however is insurmountable because it carries with it the full weight of the authorities and the ideology that is inculcated into every man, woman and child in the country.
We have become a rationing society. Our industries and our people are literally starving in the midst of plenty. Farmers are kept from farming, factories are kept from producing and businessmen are kept from creating new companies and jobs. This is done in the name of a variety of moral arguments, ranging from caring for the less fortunate to saving the planet. But rhetoric is only the lubricant of power. The real goal of power is always power. Consolidating production allows for total control through the moral argument of rationing, whether through resource redistribution or cap and trade.
The politicians of a rationing society may blather on endlessly about increasing production, but it’s so much noise, whether it’s a Soviet Five Year Plan or an Obama State of the Union Address. When they talk about innovation and production, what they mean is the planned production and innovation that they have decided should happen on their schedule. And that never works.
You can ration production, but that’s just another word for poverty. You can’t ration innovation, which is why the aggressive attempts to put low mileage cars on the road have failed. As the Soviet Union discovered, you can have rationing or innovation, but you can’t have both at the same time. The total control exerted by a monolithic entity, whether governmental or commercial, does not mix well with innovation.
The rationing society is a poverty generator because not only does it discourage growth, its rationing mechanisms impoverish existing production with massive overhead. The process of rationing existing production requires a bureaucracy for planning, collecting and distributing that production that begins at a ratio of the production and then increases without regard to the limitations of that production.
Paradoxically the rationing infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the falloff of production as lower production requires even greater rationing. This is what we are seeing now in the United States, in a weak economy, there is greater justification for the expansion of rationing mechanisms. And the worse the economy becomes, the bigger government will become to “compensate” for the problems of the economy.
The attitude of so many today is that the world is here for me NOW. To conserve and think and future generations is to live in tyranny today. Real life is a little more complicated then pure capitalism or pure socialism, but it seems quite a few are content to continue believing in unicorns and utopian worlds.
ReplyDeleteAre you a producer or a proponent of rationing Max?
DeleteIn seriousness William, your question simply does not fit my life in the real world. My job is to help people die with dignity and as little pain as possible. You tell me, am I a parasite? I am asking you to state yes or no.
DeleteI am not a proponent of rationing, but how you define rationing is important. I believe that market driven solutions are frequently wasteful. Does anyone truly "need" a car with a V8 that gets shitty millage but goes 0-60 in 3 seconds? I say no, but readily admit that stomping on the gas and feeling that rush is pretty cool. The tradeoff is that to get that rush, we need to consume oil, lots of oil.
Where you see me as this freaking radical communist, I instead see myself as an observer of cause and effect. I like my comforts as much as the next person. But, every gadget and toy that I buy that is beyond my need impacts someone else. I want an ipad, an iphone and a desktop mac. All of those things are made with near slave labor that has destroyed our economy. This is just one example. So, no, I am not in favor of the government deciding every last item I will consume. On the other hand, I still have contempt for the American attitude that we should just endlessly consume and not give a damn about anything but our short sighted demands to be comfortable and entertained. I would like for people to regulate themselves a bit, but that is not human nature and that is why pure free markets create as many problems as they allegedly fix.
I want an ipad, an iphone and a desktop mac. All of those things are made with near slave labor that has destroyed our economy.
DeleteNot to be negative but there are few phones, pads or computers made in the US today. All the batteries for all the devices are made overseas.
A sad commentary for the place where all theses toys were invented.
It is also a sad commentary on bad trade laws. Setting aside emotion for a minute, there is no denying what has occurred since we have deregulated and opened our borders wide to "free trade". What conservatives and liberals fight to the death over is a largely irrelevant emotional battle. Business can calculate it's costs very clearly. IE if they automate some assembly line and eliminate 20K workers and all their benefits, they can make a pretty solid prediction of what that will add to their bottom line. We really don't have a similar calculus for society.
DeleteProfit is not evil and profit is essential to keep business going. But what about society? Business thrives in many ways because they have the protection of the rule of law and in most developed nations, they have protection of their factories and money because there police, military, courts, etc. It is the little people, however, who work in those areas who really defend those rights. IMO, we have created a large "shift" around the world. Whereas business previously had to share in the cost of what workers need to survive, we've largely shifted that cost to the government. Now that we see how much that costs, we are hearing that we MUST go on austerity programs and raise the taxes on the poor.
Like I said to William below, we have simply redistributed a share of profit away from workers to corporate bottom lines. Liberals and conservatives, of course, do not agree on the cause of the explosion of profit, but the fact that workers have made less and received fewer benefits while business has done stunningly well is not a fantasy. Much as I dislike the way Apple does things, I can't say I'm really a fan of how Microsoft operates either. At best, I try to limit some of what I consume.
Ann Rand to the letter. Ann Rand’s Objectivist approach to environmentalism is just as flawed as the environmentalist’s exclusive use of ‘intrinsic’ value to justify the halt of mans progress. She deplored any use of the work of environmentalist as a direct attack on human progress and never once does her own objectivist outlook consider that when an environmentalist attacks man for killing the gazelle and not the lion, that the lion actually leaves the majority of the gazelles alive and well for the future. Wolfs use to bring down buffalo for food and native Indians hunted them for food for centuries. Europeans brought buffalos to the brink of extinction in less than 100 years from when they first saw them. She points to the people who talk about saving the rainforests with equal contempt while one group is actually asking “should we be cutting this down, for poor farm land, when we don’t even know the potential benefits to man of what we are irreversibly destroying or even the quantity of that available resource”
ReplyDeleteThe statement, ” Paradoxically the rationing infrastructure increases in direct proportion to the falloff of production as lower production requires even greater rationing.” , never takes into account overall scarcity as the route cause for the rationing. Without knowing or at least highly suspected alternatives, not saving resource for the future is in direct contradiction to an objectivists approach of the need for a productive worker to save and invest in future production. Also one has to ask: What is production in the real sense. In a quote from Rand: “The worker who has a modest savings account, and the millionaire who invests a fortune (and all the men in between), is those who finance the future. The man who consumes without producing is a parasite, whether he is a welfare recipient or a rich playboy.” So if we consume resource for the production of, say an Ipod... is that the equivalent of a playboy with respect to resource available?
While I respect her objectivist philosophy, in my mind it is as flawed as the environmentalism she deplores. To quote:
“Any ideology has certain fundamental premises--and it is those premises that propel a movement in a certain direction. As long as those premises are not repudiated, the fact that many adherents do not fully see the road ahead will not stop the logical consequences from occurring. Irrational ideas will have irrational consequences--it is only a matter of time.”
While I agree with what she says, she places her own objectivists outlook in a bubble and what she wrote about environmentalism, is just as relevant to the ardent tunnel vision of a laissez faire capitalist.
The problem here is that her philosophy does not take into account 1) the finite nature of the resources on this planet and therefore the irrational use of them in the name of production is no more valid than a welfare recipient consuming resources they did not produce and 2) much of the corruption and harm done by big business is not as easy to extinguish as she pretends because we have never had an environment of pure free market business devoid of government interference.
Pretty simplistic thinking I would say. The idea of continual forward progress, that is, economic growth, on every front assumes the ability to decouple a finite world with infinite growth.... this mathematically will not happen. Until abject capitalists can explain the solution to this problem with more than the faith of their conviction that 1) resources are far greater than we know or our use is actually less than natures ability to regenerate or 2) man has infinite creativity and will overcome any problem they encounter, people like myself will question their motives as being more self-serving than any pretext about caring from man’s development, just as I will question governments right to take away my freedoms and control my thoughts in the name of protection or the socialist who things that giving someone a live is 1)society’s responsibility 2)helps raise that person to a status of productivity.
TS, that was a very nice read and thank you for taking the time to write it up. I agree with most of what you are saying, but even if I didn't, I appreciate that you gave perspective.
DeleteYour last para there is the big question. In principle, I 100% agree with the statements about capitalists and welfare statists. What you didn't wrap up with though is what is YOUR solution? In general, I believe a theme has arisen in this country that government is so screwed up that in any case whatsoever, it is better to do nothing at all then attempt to fix a situation that society has deemed is a problem. On paper, there is quite a bit of Rand's philosophy that I agree with, and I have consumed more then enough of her books to consider myself educated on what she believes. The problem with her philosophy is the problem with most philosophy, namely that it can't explain why human beings continue to engage in irrational behavior even when it is pretty clear it is going to bite the later.
To me, rules create freedom. Without rules, the entirety of life becomes a matter of survival of the fittest and buyer beware. I have enormous freedom because of rules, some of which, I consider stupid. I don't believe the government can fix everything wrong in society, but it can blunt, at times, the worst of human nature. That is why I am inclined to at least make an attempt rather then just do nothing.
Interesting.
DeleteDue to the fact that we have over 17T of national debt and tens of trillions in unfunded future benefits should our government promote more production of or set up a rationing system for spending?
Again William, you ask a nebulous question that ignores what I am saying. The number of the debt has become a scarecrow for the mega rich in this country who have benefited massively from creating debt but do not want to pay it back. But, you reject the reality that it was Republican irresponsibility that put us on the path that brought us to where we are today. Lets move on there.
DeleteShould the government promote production or set up a rationing system for spending? Well, we kinda had one. I do not view Clinton as an economic genius. However, he raised taxes, we started paying down debt, we had a balanced budget (sorta) and we had paygo. Paygo, to me, was a rationing system for spending. In 2000, we threw all of that away, racked up another massive debt and Republicans are again screaming that we need to find ways to make the poor pay for this debt. You of course won't agree that this is reality.
This, I think, is a good example of what I am talking about, and it has your idol in it. http://www.americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1134 No person on the right accepts that we have deregulated anything. In reality, we have. In a pure capitalist world, there is no restriction on anything. We are not there. Still, we have removed many, many safeguards that protected American workers. The result, the jobs all left the country and our economy is shit. At some point, this will stop. What will make it stop is when the standard of living of American workers has fallen to meet the rising standard of Chinese workers.
The belief that is preached by capitalists of today is that if we don't make everyone fight for every last crumb they consume, we will create lazy slobs. The reality, however, is that business wants a monopoly, they want welfare and they don't want to pay taxes or make any contribution to society whatsoever. They don't want to pay for the roads their goods are shipped on, they don't want to pay the military cost to keep shipping lanes open, they don't want to pay workers a living wage and they sure as shit don't want to pay for workers health care. The result? The rest of society is getting stuck with that 17 trillion tab that folks like yourself are absolutely obsessed with.
We have done much in the name of promoting production, and have gotten nothing for it. We've lowered taxes. We've lowered rules. At every juncture, we've seen a predictable increase in corporate profits without any real "growth". AT best, we are just reconfiguring how we distribute profit and we are creating massive pools of money on the sidelines that is simply leaving the circulation of the economy. Your first response, of course, will be to skip everything I am saying and state that I am envious of wealth. Ignoring debate, however, is what you do.
When you ration something you get less of it.
DeleteI say ration the h_ll out of government spending!
1773-2009
"When you ration something you get less of it. I say ration the h_ll out of government spending!"
DeleteThat was a predictable comment
Max, I don’t know that I was attempting to point to a solution as much as I was trying to define what I felt wrong with the some points in William’s post. In my estimation 95% of the problems we are experiencing today are as a result of government action. Of course, the government is one that we elect so much of what they do is either encouraged by or condoned by the electorate. We have been trained to fall into the either/or camp of benevolence or business that will save us and that government is the necessary middleman to make it happen. Capitalist say they believe in business so they vote for people who are ‘pro business’... sending people to Washington that pass laws giving certain business a pass on responsibility, others a subsidy and others protection from competition.. That is capitalism? And of course those with benevolence for all have no conception of what it takes to actually pay for those things or what the long term effects of those programs will be but both groups of people have been fed this commercial just as many times as they have been told that they ‘need’ an ipod to be happy.
DeleteThen there is the ‘anti perception’. Capitalist want less regulation and their liberal opponents see nothing but a total lack of regulation when in fact the reverse is true. I will however admit that business will press for absolutely no restraint if it can get away with it. We need basic rules of conduct,no more. We need rules that prevent business from collusion and conspiracy and predatory monopoly. We need rules that prevent obvious conflict of interest; doctors profiting from the sale of prescriptions (although we do seem to have some ‘kickbacks’ in this area) and for banks to 100% segregate deposit money from roulette risky investment. We had that with Glass Stiegel and we see what happens when such rules are removed from the game. We need broad guidance as to the use of the available frequency spectrum... but not government auctions. We need protection from products not easily controlled but no regulation into the kinds of research...
The regulation that I am talking about is the bureaucratic nightmare that a person must go through from inception to product delivery. America is one of the 5 easiest places in the world to start a business but one with the heaviest burdens of regulation in the world.
Business no longer has the ability to create its own business model... very much like teacher curriculum; the federal government knows what is best for America and Americans.
Want a fancy restaurant with only male waiters...no can do.
Want a business model that uses only slender people because it is perhaps an athletic product... no can do.
The fed requires alcohol be distributed through a costly middleman from maker to retailer; laws enacted just after prohibition
The concocted SCOUS ‘rational tax test’ for healthcare.
Trucking companies forced into one by the pound tariff for any cargo that is not deemed hazardous... regardless if it is milk, tv sets or lumber...
.
The federal government interferes with businesses in every state because of a very liberal stretch of the Commerce Clause that was designed to insure that states didn’t interfere with the transport and free trade of any other state is now used to enforce tariff rates, wages, discrimination, health, safety, environment and on and on and on. Many regulations overlap between different agencies creating even more work and expense and the cost of an efficiently run business.
We complain about low wages but the cost to a company in compliance with federal regulations costs on average some $14,000 per year per family. 23 percent of the average household income of $63,685.. Just imagine the impact on a low income jobs. Federal regulation costs 1.8trillion per year... I guess that is one way to pad the GDP numbers...
I could go on but you get the picture. Business has mountains of regulation; a far cry from anything approaching free trade.
I am short on space so to talk about the social side of federal bureaucracy would be another subject...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you buy some to?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Delete------------------
Reminds me a lot from our MW days...................
That thought crossed my mind too Gotta.... I recall reading the comments and not having a strong opinion about them although I didn't necessarily agree but don't think I found them censurable....
Delete