Lake Mead Is Drying Up

// added May 18, 2009 // 33 comments //
Image...
JanforGore

more from Green:

http://water-is-life.blogspot.com/2009/05/lake-mead-is-drying-up.html

The combination of a changing climate and a strong demand for the lake’s remaining water has resulted in 100 foot drop since 2000. While that’s just 10 percent under the lake’s high water mark in 1983, Lake Mead is like a martini glass—wide at the top and narrow at the bottom. That 10 percent dip represents a loss of half Lake Mead’s water supply in nine years, from 96 percent capacity to 43 percent.

Anyone who’s gone on a diet knows this simple equation: if you burn fewer calories than you eat, you’ll gain weight. But like a cheating dieter in Superman’s Bizarro world, the Western United States has been sucking more water out of Lake Mead than the dwindling Colorado River can provide to replace it. When output is greater than input, the reservoir shrinks.

And it continues to shrink. Lake Mead’s water level fell 14 feet last year, and the Bureau of Reclamation has projected the level will drop 14 more feet this summer. That will bring it perilously close to 1,075 feet, the point at which the federal government can step in and declare a drought condition, forcing a reduction of 400,000 acre-feet drawn from Lake Mead per year. A typical Las Vegas home uses a half acre-foot of water per year, so such a reduction would be equal toturning the tap off for 800,000 households.

In 2008, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography issued a paper titled “When will Lake Mead go dry?” which set the odds of Lake Mead drying up by 2021 at 50-50. No more water, no more electricity, no more pumping power.

“Today, we are at or beyond the sustainable limit of the Colorado system,” concluded the paper’s authors. “The alternative to reasoned solutions to this coming water crisis is a major societal and economic disruption in the desert southwest; something that will affect each of us living in the region.”

snip

One of the more radical proposals involves pumping water from the eastern United States (where many regions are suffering the consequences of flooded rivers) over the Rockies to the West. In a Las Vegas Sun interview on May 1, Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said, “We’ve taken water from the West now for a hundred years, maybe it’s time to start taking water from the East, rather than from the West.” Another speculative proposal lies beyond the shores of California, where there’s an ocean of water available for desalinization.

End of excerpt from article:
http://www.good.is/post/lake-mead-is-drying-up/?Gt1=48001
  1. groups:
    Green,   News and Politics,   Earth and Science,   College_Current,   2 more
  2. tags:
    News and Politics,  Green,  Earth and Science,  Environment,  17 more
  3. recommended by:
    ras_menelik

33 comments // Lake Mead Is Drying Up

  • Bren589
  • ras_menelik
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • ras_menelik:

      lol, what?

      That's an awesome link though, I've been daydreaming that this is where the future of energy technology is going . . . except it would also include tethers to flying wind turbines in the upper atmosphere to tap into the power potential o the jet streams.

      Though I never considered generating energy from the differential in water temp . . . I imagine it's a lot like some forms of geothemal. I'm glad to see that people are working on this.

      Very cool link Ras.

      It's also noteworthy that they are utilizing desalination techniques . . . I wonder if Janforgore would have a problem with this as well.

    • 9 months ago
  • ras_menelik
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  

    • If you look at the timeline (and please, scroll up), I made my own argument for why desalination and water reclamation technology will be necessary for future sustainability . . . then "you" were the one that actually engaged "me" (and you're the one that's levying personal attacks in this thread, not me) . . . but regardless.

      -"It is carbon intensive"
      - Desal technologies are ENERGY intensive, "not" necessarily carbon intensive. The argument that desalination is carbon intensive is based SOLELY on the model that energy will be supplied to the desal plants from coal fired plants. If we make the switch to producing our energy from clean and renewable resources, then this no longer becomes a problem.

      -"expensive"
      -Yes, it is expensive . . . that is besides the point though in regards to whether or not this is needed and usable technology (even still though, desalinating water is cheaper than piping water very long distances).

      -"will not provide what is needed for a lengthy period of time"
      -How would a coastal desal plant ever stop providing fresh water? We're not exactly going to run out of sea water. Desalination actually "does" provide a sustainable source of water for a lengthy period of time (unlike relying on overused and drying water systems).

      -"is detrimental to marinelife"
      - It CAN be detrimental to marine life, "if" we are not engineering the plant to protect from sea creatures from being sucked into the intake and "if" we are not diluting the high salt concentrate return water to make it less salty before it returns to the salty sea to further be diluted. These are simple engineering problems that are not inherent to the technology and can be easily fixed.

      Like the guy in the NPR clip said, we can't afford to keep drawing down our rivers, lakes, and wetlands. Desalination helps us from not having to overdraw water from these ecosystems.

      "Desalination may reduce the need to take additional water from the environment and, in some cases, offers the opportunity to return water to the environment. "
      -Page 16 from the Pacific Institute PDF report in the link you provided.
      www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination

      So tell me, what do you have against a coastal desal plant that is supplied 100% by solar energy, dilutes the returning salt water to an appropriate level, and protects from sea critters from being sucked into the intake pipe?

      Since we're at it, what do you have against desalinating inland from brackish waters that would otherwise be undrinkable? (provided the energy is coming from a clean source)

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • You do nothing but call every article posted biased and skewed. Your only basis for coming in my threads is to badger me. You don't care why desalination may be detrimental to the environment in the longrun and only a bandaid to a wider problem. Your only desire is to continue to try to show some sort of intellectual superiority that does not exist. I wouldn't waste anymore time debating anything with you. If you wanted to present an argument you would without targeting me. Obviously, you can't do that which proves your real intent. Now go tell current89 you wagged your finger at me again so he can recommend that comment too. This isn't a competition, this is a reality, and many experts are stating that desalination is not the the silver bullet to the water crisis for this area any more than clean coal is to the climate crisis. It is carbon intensive, expensive, and will not provide what is needed for a lengthy period of time, and is detrimental to marinelife. The reasons have been laid out and discussed. If you are unwilling to discuss them in general without targeting me because you really can't then fine. Frankly, the Pacific Institute gets my vote in knowing what they are talking about. You don't.

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • JanforGore:

      Actually, I said two out of three were good sources . . . one of them however was not a good source for the reasons I explained.

      Also, as I pointed out below, you engaged me in this conversation on this thread (not the other way around).

      My only concern with you personally Jan, is that you do a lot of arm waving, fear mongering, and foot stomping here on current . . . and you don't like to back your assertions up, but just claim them to be true by posting a few links and a couple lines of rhetoric.

      You seem to have a fear of being wrong, which you should get over. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, it means you can learn something. I love it when someone points out and demonstrates that I missed something . . . it means I learned something new (much like the NPR clip above that showed we can take conservation further than I had expected).

      So, let's evaluate these assertions of yours and get to the truth of the matter.

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  

    • To: Janforgore

      It's a real disappointment that you are unwilling or unable to defend your point of view that desalination is inherently an ecological disaster.

      I sharply disagreed for reasons x,y, and z . . . and yet you disappear. Well, if you ever want to discuss the issue (if you actually care as much as you say you do) then I'll always be willing to partake in a rational exchange of ideas.

      Otherwise, I'd say that your current position is grossly mis-characterizing desalination and water reclamation technologies (especially when you don't differentiate between coastal and inland desal plants) and that these plants have enormous potential as sustainable sources of water that could actually help create a "better" environment.

    • 9 months ago
  • lordsbassman
  • sickinjersey
  • Maeveeo
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image...

    • Pacific Institute : Desalination With A Grain Of Salt

      "Four desalination plants are proposed in Northern California. The purposes of the proposed plants vary, ranging from improved reliability during droughts and emergencies to meeting anticipated growth needs and providing environmental benefits. With the exception of the Marin Municipal Water District, which is operating a pilot plant, agencies in Northern California are still in the early planning stages and no project is likely to be built before 2010.

      “Our communities cannot be rushed into desalination projects – the economic, environmental, and social costs of desalination are too high,” said Heather Cooley, lead author of the report. “Local, state, and national laws do not sufficiently protect our communities from costly mistakes.”

      “While desalination can produce high-quality, reliable water, it can also have significant impacts on marine ecosystems,” said Gleick. Marine organisms can be crushed against intake-pipe screens or sucked in and killed by the desalination process. Further, the discharge of the highly salty waste brine – which is sometimes laced with processing chemicals and toxic metals – can harm local fish populations and accumulate in the food chain.

      The Institute also finds that desalination can have impacts on community development. New water sources along the coast can lead to unanticipated and unplanned new growth along the coast.

      “Desalination, With a Grain of Salt” report is available electronically (free and online at www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination)"

      end of excerpt.

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • JanforGore:

      “Desalination will be part of California’s water future, but the future’s not here yet,” said Dr. Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute. “Most California communities can find additional water, quicker and for less money, by improving efficiency and management.”

      I've said just as much as I've said in another thread (and demonstrated the math) that supplying every household in California with a 1.5 GPM shower head would conserve 550 million gallons a day, as much as what 11 desal plants operating at 50 million gallons a day could provide . . . and be far cheaper.

      However, once we surpass the limits of conservation (and we will in the future), we will need desalination and water reclamation plants.

      As for all the environmental fear mongering, like i've pointed out before . . . these are engineering problems that CAN be solved with proper engineering.

      Over-draining natural rivers and lakes is an ecological disaster that CAN be averted with these desalination/water reclamation technologies.

      I would have thought you would have preferred spending the extra money to preserve our waterways.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • JanforGore:

      This is a terribly biased and skewed article.

      That's obvious from the end of the first "point" by insinuating desalination is "specualtive". There's about 1,200 desal plants in the US alone (number courtesy of your NPR clip) . . . this technology is well beyond the point of "speculation"

      Also, under the environmental criticisms . . . their best argument is that the outdated "once-through" plants are harmful. Well, that's easy enough . . . Just don't use these outdated designs . . . that's a big duh.

      Finally, like I've said, the salty brine can be diluted before it is returned to the sea from which it originally came (so otherwise high concentrations need not harm the ecosystem).

      If we power these desal plants with clean and renewable energy, then coastal desalination will be very useful in finding sustainable sources for our water.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Water Policy Around The World

      Desalination should be a last resort. As we see with Nevada as was also mentioned by a couple of members here who know, it is about equitable distribution of water and a limit on wasteful practices. Consumers need to realize that conservation is much cheaper than what desalination will bring to their water bills to continue the same wasteful behavior.

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • JanforGore:

      "Desalination is a technology that helps bridge the gap and allows us achieve our objectives of environmental stewardship and sustainability"
      -(about 23 mins into the clip)

      "We already have about 1,200 desal plants functioning in the United States and the majority of them are inland where there is some brackish water not as salty as seawater . . . and it's these kinds of local solutions where we're finding a water supply that is impaired and an energy source that's available that would be wasted that will create water in the future, and if we don't do that then we are going to keep drawing down our rivers, our aquifers, and our wetlands, and we can't afford to do that."
      -(about 30 mins into the clip)

      Thanks, that was a very informative. NPR is usually a very good source of info.

      The argument against desal is that it's an energy intensive process (and the lady uses the model that it will continue to largely be supplied by coal). If the desal plants are supplied by clean energy, then this is a just fine ecologically speaking (something I've been saying all along).

      The brine for "coastal" desal plants is a high salt concentration of water that can be diluted before being sent back to the salty oceans for further dilution . . . back where it came from.

      Thank you for actually providing an argument so it can be analyzed and showed where it is wrong.

      I will give you credit though that we may be able to take conservation farther than I had initially suspected since I hadn't considered drip irrigation as means to make agriculture more efficient with it's water use (I wonder though how much this is already being done in California).

      But the break down is 70% Ag use, 20% Industrial use, and 10% city/town usage. As citizens, we can definitely make an impact in that 10% portion of the pie and possibly reduce it on average by half (I'm being optimistic). However, that is still a small portion of the pie for water usage.

      The major problem is that agriculture consumes so much water (1,000 tons of water per 1 ton of wheat), if you have any data on what percentage of California farms are already utilizing drip irrigation . . . that would be highly important information as that would be the conservation improvements that would be really needed if not already accomplished.

      But yes, there may be further we can go with conservation, but ultimately there is a limit . . . especially with an expanding population and a shrinking water supply. To move beyond that limit, we need new sources of water . . . and that's where desal and water reclamation comes in as means to acquire sustainable water sources.

      sidenote: you would do well to differentiate between coastal and inland desalination when levying your criticisms.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • You mean you don't know how destructive it can be? Don't you know everything? And as usual your sidekick with the personal grudge recommends your finger wagging session more than likely without knowing why, only that it was directed at me. How quaint. If you don't know what it does to marinelife and the chemical balance of the water, then you don't know as much as you portend to here. And Conservation is the one way we will save ourselves from ecological disaster. You can only pump so much from the CO2 saturated oceans as well.

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  
    • JanforGore:

      "And as usual your sidekick with the personal grudge recommends your finger wagging session more than likely without knowing why, only that it was directed at me. How quaint."

      What a stupid thing to say, and a bit egotistical. If current89 is recommending a comment of mine, then all that means is that we think along the same lines and share similar ideas on a particular subject.

      I would never demean the people who follow your threads in constant agreement (like Ras) as being a mindless drone just because he's constantly in agreement with you (I rather think that he comes to his own conclusions that are similar to yours, and equally wrong).

      So there is really no reason to demean current89, and it really just makes you look horrible.

      But no, I don't know everything. That's why I ask questions, don't hastily jump to conclusions, and have zero problem in admitting that I missed something.

      However, thank you for finally moving beyond fear mongering by finally supplementing your claims with some sources. All I wanted was a logical discussion where you actually articulate your ideas so I can look at their validity, or lack thereof.

      I took the time to read through them (I especially liked the NPR feed) and took a look at your arguments. Like I said, conservation and water efficiency are definitely in order . . . so on that I agree with you.

      However, there is nothing here that shows that water conservation does not have a limit and there is nothing here that explains what we should do when we move beyond that limit.

      Also, the "environmental disaster" idea can be considered ignorant at best and fear mongering at worst.

      If coastal desalination plants are engineered correctly, are properly diluting the returning water of it's high salt concentration, and gets their energy from clean renewable energy . . . then coastal desal plants will not only not have a negative impact, but will actually be GOOD ecologically speaking as we can then replenish our overly depleted water ways.

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  

    • Sticking your head in the sand and wishing the water problem away isn't going to work Jan. The supply of water is dropping and population/demand is still rising.

      We need new sources of water, even with everyone becoming more efficient in their water usage.

      I ran the numbers, and if everyone in the state of California cut their water usage in the shower by 40% by converting to a 1.5GPM shower head (I have one), that would account for 550 million gallons per day conserved (the equivalent output of 11 desal plants) . . . which would definitely be great and it would help . . . but it would barely be a dent in the 40 billion gallons a day that the state uses.

      Conservation will only take us so far. Beyond that I see 2 options: recycling waste water (a little on the 'icky' side for me personally, but I guess I could get used to it), or desalination plants. Both of which are industrial sized solutions.

      And if you are going to start saying that desalination "destroys our oceans" . . . I think we REALLY want to hear you elaborate on "how" desalination is so destructive to the oceans.

      I really don't see anything being more ecologically destructive than draining the natural rivers to the point we already have in order to sustain our farms . . .

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Yes, industrial sized plants destroying our sea shores run by industry. How convenient the peoples' lack of moral and political will are for their profit margins. People better WAKE UP. The DOWs of this world are already applauding your wasteful practices as they lick their chops in anticipation of getting richer from it!

    • 9 months ago
  • lucidstone
    • 0
      lucidstone  

    • We can conserve less water, but we can only become so efficient. It's going to get to the point where we are going to have start creating fresh water from seawater to meet demand, or we are going to have to really start to recycle our waste water like the astronauts do . . . though the idea of drinking water that used to be my neighbor's piss really does kinda skeeve me out.

      Either way, water is going to cost a lot more in the future as both of those options require industrial size plants that require a lot of energy.

    • 9 months ago
  • simplecj
    • 0
      simplecj  

    • Well... as someone who is in the area, I think we are in for some deep shit. Development in this region of Southern Utah was, up until a year or so ago, practically out of control.

      You know what their answer to the water problem was? A fucking $1 billion pipeline project that proposes to pipe massive amounts of water out of Lake Powell (the other main water reservoir) and run it nearly 80 some miles over to St. George to feed them and also northward up to Cedar City.

      There's no government funding available for the project, so we the people get to pay for alot of it through increased water taxes and fees.

      But it gets better.... even with everyone in the region currently, there's not enough people to pay for it all. SO, they recommended PUSHING in way more development, including massive suburban sprawls. Apparently they thought that this is a field of dreams... pipe dreams!

      But before we get ahead of ourselves... at current demand and estimated supplies, we are going to be running out of water possibly within the next 5 years if we don't get some significantly wet years in before then.

      The pipeline itself would not even begin construction, assuming no major set-backs, until roughly 2016 and would take several years to complete.

      Meantime they have spat in the face of nature by gambling all our money on water from a reservoir that's already running dry just like Lake Mead.

      Powell:
      1983, the lake reached an all time high of 3708 feet (altitude)

      2009 - Low point was 3610 feet, almost 100 feet below the high mark. More than half the main access points, including Bullfrog, have been forced to close down.

      The water wars have already begun! Lets hope they aren't stupid enough to let this pipeline project move forward... sorry St. George, you're going to have to take drastic measures... maybe shut down one of your golf courses!

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Current Vanguard did a great piece on this called World Without Water which covered water scarcity in China, Florida, and Nevada. The piece on Lake Mead begins at about 21.10 into the video.

    • 9 months ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  

    • Now MicroHydro in every house that gets its water supply from Higher Levels is a 'NObrainer' as they say but not one politician has said it SAD.

    • 9 months ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  

    • PS my distaste for HYDROELECTRIC is because I my family is part Off it,my father worships the hoover dam and is responsible for all the dams in Ethiopia built before 1991......................

      we don't see eye to eye on how the world should be but we do know education is the way for ALL!

      Lake Mead's elevation is 15 feet lower than last year at this time!
      Lake Mead is 118 feet below maximum elevation!
      Lake Mead has fallen to 46% of capacity!

      http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/Lake-Mead-2007.html

    • 9 months ago
  • ras_menelik
    • 0
      ras_menelik  

    • Lake Mead — Water Volume: 35.2 km3 (28,500,000 acre·ft)

      Lake Mead, Key Water Source For Southwestern US, Could Be Dry By 2021

      ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2008) — There is a 50 percent chance Lake Mead, a key source of water for millions of people in the southwestern United States, will be dry by 2021 if climate changes as expected and future water usage is not curtailed, according to a pair of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego.

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212141424.htm

    • 9 months ago
  • ras_menelik
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Wow, talk about grand theft. So in essence, they think gambling is more important than agriculture. Did the Nevada taxpayers have any say in this pipeline being built to feed Las Vegas? Amazing how they can utilize taxpayer dollars without their consent.

    • 9 months ago
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  
    • JanforGore:

      Taxpayers had no say, as far as I know. There were "hearings" that people were invited to, but all as they know is that northern Nevada has water and they need it down here.
      As to the other counties, SNWA did buy up a lot of water rights which they plan to use for Las Vegas, though the state engineer has final say on how much they can take per year.
      They were met with a lot of protests from up north, but they just ran over the top of everybody.
      Those northeast counties are sparsly populated, so you can imagine how effective protests are against SNWA.
      Once SNWA gets their hands on that water, they pump till it all runs dry.
      And yes...gambling runs the state.

    • 9 months ago
  • Ihatethemall
    • 0
      Ihatethemall  
    • JanforGore:

      Having lived in both Las Vegas for 6 years and Well's NV for 3 years{ 60 miles or so south of the Idaho state line} I can tell you this, The people in the Northern NV are not taking this lightly. They are fighting to keep the water in the north instead of sending it to the casinos and populations of the south. I doubt they will succeed but they are trying.

    • 9 months ago
  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  

    • Nevada has no plans to try and get water from the east, yet. The suggestion has been raised in southern California and southern Nevada but it's too expensive.

      Instead....SNWA (Southern Nevada Water Authority) is stealing water from aquifers in northeast Nevada. They are planning on building a pipeline that will cost Nevada taxpayers and SNWA about 3.5 bilion dollars.
      The state water engineer is going to allow SNWA to take the water for Las Vegas area.
      However...once the water table in those aquifers drop, SNWA has to turn off their pumps.
      I don't see SNWA turning off their pumps for any reason. Once they get their pieline built, they'll suck those aquifers dry, just to feed Las Vegas.

      Protests from the farmers and ranchers who depend on that water have went unheeded.
      As far as I know, the economic meltdown has not stopped this theft from going forward.

    • 9 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Here you have it. Look long and hard, because this is our future if our moral will is superceded by status quo business as usual behavior. In order to not only save our water but ourselves a paradigm shift is now in order. It will require a new behavior brought about by a totally new mindset in line with a moral will to do what is right for the future instead of only thinking of the present and wanting what you want when you want it. It will involve the human species finally coming to maturity. The question is, is that possible now? Because if not the three alternatives listed in this article which are the reality of it are only bandaids on a moral wound that will then never heal.

      What is happening to Lake Mead is a direct result of human greed and apathy. We have no one to blame but ourselves. The first step in mitigating this crisis is to admit that, and from there we can work on solving the problem. Unfortunately, human pride dictates that we always find another source for the blame to absolve ourselves from our selfish wasteful behavior. In doing so it gives us license to continue said behavior safe in the knowledge that we can still have what we want when we want it... until the well runs dry. But of course, then we will just find another source to ravage to get what we want, and then another, and another... not thinking that sooner or later that too will run dry.

      In writing about the global water crisis over these years I have seen that this is about more than even political will, bills, and budgets. This goes to the very core of what we are as humans. This is political, yes, but it is also moral, spiritual, and ethical, and unless we reconcile to that the political will not follow. How can we continue to degrade the very resources that give us life with such abandon? How will we ever look our children in the eye and say to them that we knew that our wasteful behavior would bring us here but we just didn't care because we thought someone else would fix it?

      Well, as we see here we are finding that the only ones who can fix this are those who have made it. Therefore, how is this fixed? Moving water from the Great Lakes to be wasted? Absurd and expensive and sure to start a regional conflict. Desalination? Carbon intensive, expensive, not guaranteed for long periods of time, threat to marinelife, and another excuse to keep wasting.... especially with a report just released showing the great damage to the ocean off the West Coast by humans already. Mass migration from the West Coast? I can't even begin to process that. Conservation? What's that you say? Actually CONSERVING the water left? Wow, what a concept. Not building golf courses and communities in the desert? Not wasting water in irrigation? Water restrictions that are adhered to? Truly ADEQUATE GHG emission targets instead of ones that appease industry? Actually planning for the future? But gee, we can't do that. It's just so much easier to keep doing what we are doing denying the results and thinking all will be well.

      Only thing though, it isn't. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, and even that river is running dry.

    • 9 months ago

Add your comment

most popular
videos on current tv

current videos