On 5/24/2015 12:49 PM, sf wrote:
> On 24 May 2015 17:33:04 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-05-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2015 12:37 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no talk of a water pipeline yet. Oil gets lots of pipelines,
>>>> water gets none.
>>
>>> Where would the pipeline come from? Is there enough water in a
>>> reasonable distance? If so, it would be a smart idea.
>>
>> Ed, I can understand your not knowing CA history, but sf has zero excuse.
>> In fact, sf gets her water from Hetch-Hetchy, which is 170 miles away.
>> How does she think that pristine Sierra snow water gets all the way to
>> San Fransico? By taxi!?
>>
> So glad your basic knowledge of water in California tells you that
> what's true for San Francisco is true for the entire state of
> California. Perhaps you can explain why there's a water crisis if
> everything is so peach keen.
>
>> SoCal (Southern California) has been robbing the rest of the state
>> blind for water for decades. Pipelines are entirely too small.
>> Check out the California Aquaduct:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/lkuv8kc
>>
>> These canals are typically 100 ft wide (at surface) and 30 ft deep.
>> These water wars, which make up the biggest point of contention in
>> NorCal and SoCal politics, have been going on for decades. Even as
>> far back as the 19th century.
>>
> Which doesn't mitigate the current water crisis in the slightest.
> Perhaps you can also note that they've sucked the California end of
> the Colorado river dry and are working on the aquifers.
>
> In the mean time, there you are sitting on your mountain top in
> Colorado, next to a raging river, constantly complaining about
> California.


Ever read the Colorado River Compact?

Colorado is obligated to deliver as are the other western states
signatory to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact

The compact divides the river basin into two areas, the Upper Division
(comprising Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and the Lower
Division (Nevada, Arizona and California). The compact requires the
Upper Basin states not to deplete the flow of the river below 7,500,000
acre feet (9.3 km3) during any period of ten consecutive years. Based on
rainfall patterns observed in the years before the treaty's signing in
1922, the amount specified in the compact was assumed to allow a roughly
equal division of water between the two regions. The states within each
basin were required to divide their 7,500,000-acre (30,000 km2) foot per
year (289 m³/s) share allotment among themselves. The compact enabled
the widespread irrigation of the Southwest, as well as the subsequent
development of state and federal water works projects under the United
States Bureau of Reclamation. Such projects included the Hoover Dam and
Lake Powell.

The current specific annual allotments in the Lower Basin were
established in 1928 as part of the Boulder Canyon Project, while the
current specific annual allotments in the Upper Basin were established
by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948.[2] They a
Upper Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) total
Colorado 51.75%* 3.86 million acre·ft/year (150.7 m³/s)
Utah 23.00%* 1.71 million acre·ft/year (67.0 m³/s)
Wyoming 14.00%* 1.04 million acre·ft/year (40.8 m³/s)
New Mexico 11.25%* 0.84 million acre·ft/year (32.8 m³/s)
Arizona 0.70% 0.05 million acre·ft/year (2.0 m³/s)
*Percentages with a star are a percentage of the total after Arizona's
0.05 million are deducted. Arizona's percentage is of the total.
Lower Basin, 7.5 million acre·ft/year (293 m³/s) total
California 58.70% 4.40 million acre·ft/year (172 m³/s)
Arizona 37.30% 2.80 million acre·ft/year (109 m³/s)
Nevada 4.00% 0.30 million acre·ft/year (12 m³/s)


Kind of unfortunate it was crafted during record wet years, no?

If the upper states have drought at some point they could end up being
compelled to send ALL their water downstream to meet the quotas set in
those wet years.

On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:25:22 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> wrote:
>
>
> Ever read the Colorado River Compact?

No. But I'm not claiming it's a good thing either.
>
> Colorado is obligated to deliver as are the other western states
> signatory to it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
>
People shouldn't be living in the desert and expecting to live as if
they were still in the NE/NW sections of the country.

--

sf

On 5/24/2015 3:12 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 2015 13:25:22 -0600, Cabrito del Bosque
> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ever read the Colorado River Compact?
>
> No. But I'm not claiming it's a good thing either.

The premise was reasonable, they just needed to have an annual
precipitation adjustment factor.

Oh well, climatology back then was perhaps less a science than now.

>>
>> Colorado is obligated to deliver as are the other western states
>> signatory to it.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact
>>
> People shouldn't be living in the desert and expecting to live as if
> they were still in the NE/NW sections of the country.

100% agree!

No lawns, recycle gray water, etc.