elkduds
Well-known member
Author Craig Childs is almost always worth the read.Completely non-scientific yet worthwhile.
Glen Canyon
- Thread starter Hayduke
- Start date
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Randomly met him on the green river a few years back.
sapperJ24
Well-known member
Thanks for sharing, this line got a chuckle out of me, "Johnson studies the deposit of mud, silt and sand that she and many other geologists informally call the “Dominy Formation” after Floyd Dominy."Completely non-scientific yet worthwhile.
That’s a great article.Completely non-scientific yet worthwhile.
It’s interesting that Barry Goldwater said towards the end of his life that one of his biggest regrets was the Glen Canyon dam. There was countless Indian ruins and archaeological sites lost when the reservoir was filled.
I’d like to see the dam breached. From the sounds of it the sediment could be washed away if the river was free flowing again. The geological features that would be re exposed would be amazing. I’ve heard from the old timers that the canyons were more unique than any of the other parks (Bryce, Arches, Canyon, etc. )
It’d be something to behold if that were the case….
sapperJ24
Well-known member
This essay from HCN provides an interesting update and nicely relates back to the original post from 2007 (16 years ago!) on Katie Lee, Dave Wegner.
Some quotes from the 2007 original that stick out to me:
"Even the Bureau of Reclamation stated last summer that it was highly unlikely that Lake Powell would ever refill."
"...there isn't any surplus water"
The Glen Canyon Institute has been saying there's a problem for 27 years now, and what has been done? Just kicking' the can on down the road. End of the road might be in sight.
Some quotes from the 2007 original that stick out to me:
"Even the Bureau of Reclamation stated last summer that it was highly unlikely that Lake Powell would ever refill."
"...there isn't any surplus water"
The Glen Canyon Institute has been saying there's a problem for 27 years now, and what has been done? Just kicking' the can on down the road. End of the road might be in sight.
Hayduke
New member
SAJ-99
Well-known member
While the water runs dry, they argue about who is sacrificing more and how that is unfair. Perfect recipe to eventually hitting the wall of reality, which I believe was placed at the bottom of Lake Mead to keep it out of public view.
I find that the upper basin is undoubtedly holding the upper hand in looming legal scuffle should we get there. Hard to argue with having never even breached half your Compact apportionment while the lower basin has consistently breached theirs by as much as 3+ million acre-feet. Throw in shitty hydrology and it's basic mass balance mathematics that tell you why the lakes are nearing deadpool.
If the betting markets tracked such a thing (maybe they do?), I suspect we will see forced cuts by the feds and I suspect they will hurt the lower basin the most.
If the betting markets tracked such a thing (maybe they do?), I suspect we will see forced cuts by the feds and I suspect they will hurt the lower basin the most.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
The author undermines her own opinion. The pact, splits the water. Doesn't matter how many feel-good measures the lower basin implements, they're still taking more than 1/2, which she admits, but then says the upper basin has to ration, because, damnit, the lower basin actively flaunted the pact for 100 years. If I was in the Upper basin, I wouldn't give an inch, until the uses match.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I don't want to argue any of those points- mostly because they are correct, lol- but I need to tell you that politicians will decide this and the lower basin has a LOT more voters than the upper basin, including a lot of purplish areas.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
That simply doesn't matter. And in the end, won't matter in a court, which is were this will be decided, not the ballot box
Big Sky Guy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
- Messages
- 991
Courts are indirectly political now, no? Maybe that's what @SAJ-99 was getting at?
My grandma was convinced the next major war would be fought over water. I didn't understand it at the time, and still don't completely, but I always pictured an external conflict, but this seems very internal. She also thought the Hoover Dam would be the next target for terrorism. Hopefully she is continually proven wrong about both.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
We're a long way from that outcome. Now it's still quite solvable just a bit more expensive
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It seems they want to avoid court, but it's probably going there. The court won't care about who followed, or didn't follow, the last agreement. That won't be the issue at hand. It will be about who needs what. There will be an agreement/decision and then that will be broken and it will end up in court again. Rinse and repeat. The lower basin has far more users than the upper basin and the water is important for the economy of the nation, so they will get more than 50%. We can collect the tears of the upper basin users in a jar and help fill Lake Mead.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I don't think so. Why would the upper basin sign anything new?
elkduds
Well-known member
That would be just and appropriate. However, there are many million more people and vastly more agriculture in the the lower basin, which drives political decisionmaking.
elkduds
Well-known member
Upper Basin water is mostly used for agriculture, nearly all of which is irrigating hay for cattle feed.
I mean, you and SAJ are alluding to the same thing.
However, the Compact is a congressionally ratified interstate treaty; it's not just some "agreement" and I would expect SCOTUS to treat it as such. The faulty hydrology used in the Compact and whether or not the expected production of the Colorado River was a wise estimate isn't the question that will be before SCOTUS.
Certainly, an agreement on cuts could be reached to prevent a legal battle on the merits of the Compact, but we're more or less past that point now. We'll see.
As far as water use being predominantly Ag in the upper basin? That's basically true anywhere you pull up water use statistics. And, we can all spend a minute or two googling the Imperial Valley if we want...
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Because the pact expires at the end of the year? TOGIE points out the legal/legislative structure of the whole thing, if stuff like laws still matters in 12 months. Your question is a tough one in all water disputes. Why should the upstream person with water agree to let it flow downstream? Generally in the US we have had a belief that we need to work together. Maybe not anymore. As Big Sky Guy pointed out, or maybe his mom should get the credit, wars will be fought over war. We can determine if it is done in the congress and the courtroom or with guns.
The pact doesn’t expire, just the 2007 interim guidelines and subsequent agreements. Which would just push management back to 1970s rules which still favors the upper basin, IMO. The BOR wouldn’t allow management under those 70s rules, which is what’s going to drive it to court. Somebody like Togie might know more and correct me.
Similar threads
