5 ms·

Lake Powell should have never happened.

readthenotes1 4y ago
Would that mean California would support fewer people, grow fewer crops, both, or neither? From what little I understand, California consumes far more than a sustainable amount of water every day.
- davidw 4y ago
  Most water in the west is consumed by agriculture. Like, a huge percentage of it. Water for people is a small portion of the total.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    I think that accounts for most water use anywhere. ?
  - eightysixfour 4y ago
    I think when people say this it is to absolve themselves of involvement. Agriculture is for people, our choices drive that consumption too.
    - davidw 4y ago
      From my point of view, it's to put things in perspective. When people start ranting about where the water for a new apartment building will come from, when they live in some single family unit with a big lawn... it's kind of ridiculous. It's just NIMBYism. Of course, we should all strive to preserve water as a precious resource. But to do that at a systemic level, you have to understand where it's going. Also, there's agriculture and there's agriculture: growing, say, alfalfa to feed to cows is way less efficient than other crops.
    - colechristensen 4y ago
      Eh, a lot of it is for stupid agriculture. Growing very water hungry things basically in the desert. Plenty of other places in the country / world to grow these things in places where it rains. Dairy doesn’t need to come from California where it requires enormous amounts of irrigation
    - prawn 4y ago
      I think it's a shortcut to saying "Price water appropriately for industry before giving us water restrictions." There's no political/industry will in solving this, so people are largely impotent on this front. Without water being appropriately factored in to pricing, it's not like the industry could be relied upon for pushing out accurate information and adjusting consumption. Best the consumer can get is maybe broader third party info ("x gallons to grow an almond", and not per-producer stats.
    - acdha 4y ago
      It’s for businesses which want to profit from growing desirable water-intensive crops, but hate the prospect of paying market rate for their water. A huge percentage of that water is growing things like animal fodder and, sure, a lot of people like eating cheap beef but at some point we have to question whether the side-effects of all those short sighted decisions are better than some combination of cutting our consumption or paying a little more.
    - chrismcb 4y ago
      True, but you can choose your agriculture. Did California really need to be growing 80% of the world's almonds? Almond need a lot of water.
      - irrational 4y ago
        It rains a lot in the Pacific Northwest, why aren’t they grown up there?
    - downut 4y ago
      Unless it is growing alfalfa for Saudi horses in the Arizona desert.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 4y ago
  For the most part, the dams don't ultimately effect how much water comes down the Colorado--please correct if I'm wrong. It's more a question of controlling flows and generating electricity. Although a lot of people would argue that, in retrospect, the Glen Canyon Dam was not a good tradeoff. (And there were serious studies around building at least one dam in the Grand Canyon itself.)
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Two dams, IIRC. (Source: Edward Abbey, though I forget in what book. Desert Solitaire, maybe?)
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Well, there's both the Glen Canyon above the Grand Canyon and the Hoover Dam below. There was also a proposal--and preliminary work done on--the Marble Canyon (Redwall) Dam in the Grand Canyon, but that never happened. Ahh. And there was apparently also a proposal for the Bridge Canyon Dam, also called Hualapai Dam, further down in the canyon.
    - dendrite9 4y ago
      There was also a proposed dam below Flaming gorge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_Park_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_Park_Dam
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > For the most part, the dams don't ultimately effect how much water comes down the Colorado--please correct if I'm wrong. Large lakes increase evaporation rate of water. I think something like 10% of the allotted flow for the Colorado River is lost due to evaporation in Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      I think you're talking about at the peak. The surface area of Lake Mead is currently tiny, there is only so much that can be lost through evaporation there.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
What is your alternative, along what axis do you think that alternative is better, and why do you think it's better? I'll take one aspect - tourism. If Lake Powell never happened, Glen Canyon would have been there all these years, in all its beauty. That's true. But far fewer people could have enjoyed Glen Canyon than enjoyed Lake Powell, and Lake Powell had its own beauty. So along that axis, saying that Lake Powell should never have happened seems rather elitist.
- ghaff 4y ago
  There are lots of lakes. Take away the other supposed (or even real--hydropower) benefits of the dam and it's pretty hard to justify the Glen Canyon Dam on recreational benefits. (And the same reasoning applies to building roads into lots of places.) IF there are other compelling benefits, I'm open to there being recreational benefits to dams--whether puttering around on lakes or whitewater paddling benefits to controlled releases. But I'm much less open to the idea that we should build ecologically disruptive dams, especially in unique areas, for that purpose.
  - kbutler 4y ago
    There are actually very, very few lakes in this region - and lots of canyons (every one of which is unique!). Water management is the compelling benefit, but that does require realistic management based on actual flows.

Would that mean California would support fewer people, grow fewer crops, both, or neither? From what little I understand, California consumes far more than a sustainable amount of water every day.

davidw 4y ago
Most water in the west is consumed by agriculture. Like, a huge percentage of it. Water for people is a small portion of the total.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  I think that accounts for most water use anywhere. ?
- eightysixfour 4y ago
  I think when people say this it is to absolve themselves of involvement. Agriculture is for people, our choices drive that consumption too.
  - davidw 4y ago
    From my point of view, it's to put things in perspective. When people start ranting about where the water for a new apartment building will come from, when they live in some single family unit with a big lawn... it's kind of ridiculous. It's just NIMBYism. Of course, we should all strive to preserve water as a precious resource. But to do that at a systemic level, you have to understand where it's going. Also, there's agriculture and there's agriculture: growing, say, alfalfa to feed to cows is way less efficient than other crops.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    Eh, a lot of it is for stupid agriculture. Growing very water hungry things basically in the desert. Plenty of other places in the country / world to grow these things in places where it rains. Dairy doesn’t need to come from California where it requires enormous amounts of irrigation
  - prawn 4y ago
    I think it's a shortcut to saying "Price water appropriately for industry before giving us water restrictions." There's no political/industry will in solving this, so people are largely impotent on this front. Without water being appropriately factored in to pricing, it's not like the industry could be relied upon for pushing out accurate information and adjusting consumption. Best the consumer can get is maybe broader third party info ("x gallons to grow an almond", and not per-producer stats.
  - acdha 4y ago
    It’s for businesses which want to profit from growing desirable water-intensive crops, but hate the prospect of paying market rate for their water. A huge percentage of that water is growing things like animal fodder and, sure, a lot of people like eating cheap beef but at some point we have to question whether the side-effects of all those short sighted decisions are better than some combination of cutting our consumption or paying a little more.
  - chrismcb 4y ago
    True, but you can choose your agriculture. Did California really need to be growing 80% of the world's almonds? Almond need a lot of water.
    - irrational 4y ago
      It rains a lot in the Pacific Northwest, why aren’t they grown up there?
  - downut 4y ago
    Unless it is growing alfalfa for Saudi horses in the Arizona desert.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 4y ago
For the most part, the dams don't ultimately effect how much water comes down the Colorado--please correct if I'm wrong. It's more a question of controlling flows and generating electricity. Although a lot of people would argue that, in retrospect, the Glen Canyon Dam was not a good tradeoff. (And there were serious studies around building at least one dam in the Grand Canyon itself.)
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  Two dams, IIRC. (Source: Edward Abbey, though I forget in what book. Desert Solitaire, maybe?)
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Well, there's both the Glen Canyon above the Grand Canyon and the Hoover Dam below. There was also a proposal--and preliminary work done on--the Marble Canyon (Redwall) Dam in the Grand Canyon, but that never happened. Ahh. And there was apparently also a proposal for the Bridge Canyon Dam, also called Hualapai Dam, further down in the canyon.
  - dendrite9 4y ago
    There was also a proposed dam below Flaming gorge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_Park_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_Park_Dam
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > For the most part, the dams don't ultimately effect how much water comes down the Colorado--please correct if I'm wrong. Large lakes increase evaporation rate of water. I think something like 10% of the allotted flow for the Colorado River is lost due to evaporation in Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    I think you're talking about at the peak. The surface area of Lake Mead is currently tiny, there is only so much that can be lost through evaporation there.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

What is your alternative, along what axis do you think that alternative is better, and why do you think it's better? I'll take one aspect - tourism. If Lake Powell never happened, Glen Canyon would have been there all these years, in all its beauty. That's true. But far fewer people could have enjoyed Glen Canyon than enjoyed Lake Powell, and Lake Powell had its own beauty. So along that axis, saying that Lake Powell should never have happened seems rather elitist.

ghaff 4y ago
There are lots of lakes. Take away the other supposed (or even real--hydropower) benefits of the dam and it's pretty hard to justify the Glen Canyon Dam on recreational benefits. (And the same reasoning applies to building roads into lots of places.) IF there are other compelling benefits, I'm open to there being recreational benefits to dams--whether puttering around on lakes or whitewater paddling benefits to controlled releases. But I'm much less open to the idea that we should build ecologically disruptive dams, especially in unique areas, for that purpose.
- kbutler 4y ago
  There are actually very, very few lakes in this region - and lots of canyons (every one of which is unique!). Water management is the compelling benefit, but that does require realistic management based on actual flows.