An unsolved math problem on the Colorado River(coloradonewsline.com)
coloradonewsline.com
An unsolved math problem on the Colorado River
https://coloradonewsline.com/2022/03/29/unsolved-math-problem-colorado-river/
64 comments
There's no mention of deadpool in the article, but water managers are actively discussing it. Current estimates project that deadpool is ~10 years away for Lake Mead. If (when?) Lake Mead and Lake Powell hit deadpool, the Colorado River literally stops flowing past the dams. See https://sky-lights.org/2021/10/04/deadpool-at-hoover-dam/
I liked this quote from the article you cited:
Good article, thanks for the link.
Is there any way to keep the Lower Colorado River flowing? It may seem like
an engineering oversight not to have a way for that 815 billion gallons of
water trapped in deadpool to get past the dam. But as they say in the software
business, that’s a “feature” and not a “bug”.
Good article, thanks for the link.
The concrete plugging the tunnels can be removed, and has been before.
Here's a project in Oregon where the original diversion tunnel plug was removed, to allow drawing cold water from the bottom of the lake to feed the river:
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2005/tr...
Here's a project in Oregon where the original diversion tunnel plug was removed, to allow drawing cold water from the bottom of the lake to feed the river:
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2005/tr...
But water is still flowing into the lakes, so would it not eventually reach an equilibrium where water flows past the dam at the same rate it enters the lake?
Evaporation is a huge problem for these lakes. By some estimates, each lake loses 800,000 acre feet of water to evaporation annually.
The water level is going down, so the rate leaving is already higher than the rate coming in.
If I understand it correctly, had there been no dam, the river would already be dry.
If I understand it correctly, had there been no dam, the river would already be dry.
Raising solar panels on all the canals could have a big impact on the problem, by cutting evaporation.
It was estimated we could get an easy 12 GW (peak) from the aggregate of California canals, for much less money than, say, a 2GW nuke. Energy storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar, so making that a 2GW baseline is in easy reach.
It was estimated we could get an easy 12 GW (peak) from the aggregate of California canals, for much less money than, say, a 2GW nuke. Energy storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar, so making that a 2GW baseline is in easy reach.
You have to find someone to buy this peak power.
There will be an unlimited market for peak power. But excess power will go first into topping up whatever is the most efficient local overnight storage medium, such as batteries, pumped hydro or compressed air, drawn down last night if both local wind and long-distance transmission availability flagged.
Longer-term storage will be less round-trip-efficient media where the medium is industrially valuable and shippable, such as hydrogen, ammonia, liquified air, or even methane, and tankage is very cheap. Local tankage will be needed for not much longer than until the next shipment arrives from the tropics, as is done now with oil and LNG. Synthesis equipment will run at all times except when the tanks are being drawn down, generating revenue.
Power from long-distance transmission will usually be cheaper than drawing down on tanked storage that would then need to be re-filled, interrupting revenue.
Desalination will find itself in difficult competition, at large scale, with industrial moneymakers and long-distance transmission, but in places it will be an important sink.
But anyway California uses rather more than 12 GW during the peak of local solar generation.
Longer-term storage will be less round-trip-efficient media where the medium is industrially valuable and shippable, such as hydrogen, ammonia, liquified air, or even methane, and tankage is very cheap. Local tankage will be needed for not much longer than until the next shipment arrives from the tropics, as is done now with oil and LNG. Synthesis equipment will run at all times except when the tanks are being drawn down, generating revenue.
Power from long-distance transmission will usually be cheaper than drawing down on tanked storage that would then need to be re-filled, interrupting revenue.
Desalination will find itself in difficult competition, at large scale, with industrial moneymakers and long-distance transmission, but in places it will be an important sink.
But anyway California uses rather more than 12 GW during the peak of local solar generation.
Unpopular but feasible answer: bitcoin miners. They can be located anywhere there is power and internet. With Starlink, there can be internet anywhere.
It is a cheap and meaningless observation.
In another decade, a bitcoin will be as valuable as a Cabbage-Patch doll.
In another decade, a bitcoin will be as valuable as a Cabbage-Patch doll.
If only there were a way to benefit from certainty about the future value of a financial asset!
I'll take that bet.
> You have to find someone to buy this peak power.
Use the solar energy to pump water back up from the outgoing damn flow.
Use the solar energy to pump water back up from the outgoing damn flow.
export it to California so they can desalinate more water?
1 the canals in question are already in California.
2 they have more than enough peak power to desalinate as it stands. Even in the case that they wanted more, there are better places to site those solar resources than on those canals. (Which canals they'd be better off not using in the future in any case.)
2 they have more than enough peak power to desalinate as it stands. Even in the case that they wanted more, there are better places to site those solar resources than on those canals. (Which canals they'd be better off not using in the future in any case.)
There are canals in places other than California.
The best choices for where to site solar panel farms have not been established.
Siting them over canals or floating in reservoirs, besides cutting evaporation and biofouling, makes them 3% more efficient; at 12 GW, that is an extra 360 MW you would not have got from them on a roof somewhere.
Siting them over farmland also makes them more efficient (perhaps less so) but improves crop yield by reducing heat stress and (again) water loss.
The best choices for where to site solar panel farms have not been established.
Siting them over canals or floating in reservoirs, besides cutting evaporation and biofouling, makes them 3% more efficient; at 12 GW, that is an extra 360 MW you would not have got from them on a roof somewhere.
Siting them over farmland also makes them more efficient (perhaps less so) but improves crop yield by reducing heat stress and (again) water loss.
You don't get efficiency boosts from dry canals.
Not thinking a little bit ahead is what got all those states into the mess they are in today. California should definitely not assume a future where those canals are in use, and then base their power generation on that assumption.
Not thinking a little bit ahead is what got all those states into the mess they are in today. California should definitely not assume a future where those canals are in use, and then base their power generation on that assumption.
Hint: 3% less power is not the same as no power.
But why not get MORE power via generation resources sited with an eye towards better logistical availability? Rather than trying to force the use of canals that will have no logical role in power generation in a future where said canals will likely be empty.
(Almost) Free EV charging between 10am and 3pm.
We moved from Utah to Wisconsin a year ago. People ask us why - this is why. With a growing population and diminishing water supply, it made no sense to keep living out there. I am sure there is some level of population that is sustainable in a desert climate, but they seem to be well above that level today.
Residential water use in the west is typically around 7% of the water available in a state. Residential and municipal water use in most large cities of the desert west has been falling over the last 2-3 decades despite rising population.
Agriculture - the ridiculous dream of the US Bureau of Reclamation from the 1930s - is what uses 70-80% of all the water.
Agriculture - the ridiculous dream of the US Bureau of Reclamation from the 1930s - is what uses 70-80% of all the water.
Right, and that’s what feeds the nation as a whole. Most of the USs winter time vegetables come from the southwest. If you’ve eaten a salad in winter, the lettuce came from Yuma, AZ, which grew it with Colorado river water. Moving to another part of the US will not make the food you eat more sustainable or less prone to drought.
One way moving to a region with more water will help is if there is a collapse of society, where you need to grow your own food.
One way moving to a region with more water will help is if there is a collapse of society, where you need to grow your own food.
Yep, that is part of it for sure. We have always grown at least some of our own food, raised chickens and livestock, and been at least closer to self-sustainable than not. It makes far more sense to do that in a place where an ample water supply falls from the sky on a regular basis, with our own wells and a few dozen acres of lands to work with.
The other part is just the experience. Living in brown, dry, dusty lands with dried out lake beds, or algae blooms if there is water... it just got old. Growing population meant more traffic, more ticky-tacky housing developments. It just wasn't a fun place to live anymore, even if you can prove with statistics that it is survivable. Your life experience needs to be enjoyable.
The other part is just the experience. Living in brown, dry, dusty lands with dried out lake beds, or algae blooms if there is water... it just got old. Growing population meant more traffic, more ticky-tacky housing developments. It just wasn't a fun place to live anymore, even if you can prove with statistics that it is survivable. Your life experience needs to be enjoyable.
> Growing population meant more traffic, more ticky-tacky housing developments. It just wasn't a fun place to live anymore, even if you can prove with statistics that it is survivable.
My wife grew up in Wisconsin. That pretty much matches the way she would describe it at this point :)
My wife grew up in Wisconsin. That pretty much matches the way she would describe it at this point :)
Depends on where. Milwaukee is vastly different than the north woods, both of which are different than Madison. There are definitely parts of Wisconsin I would not move to, despite finding a lovely home for ourselves away from the cities.
I live in Wisconsin.
Your wife is 100% right. I don't think I'd necessarily recommend it to people who are not from here.
Your wife is 100% right. I don't think I'd necessarily recommend it to people who are not from here.
Agriculture...
In a society governed by law, the straightforward way to confiscate a regular benefit received by a particular group is to pay that group to forego their statutory right to that benefit. Until we pony up the cash to pay farmers to use less of the water they own, one concludes that the problem of low flows on the Colorado doesn't really concern TPTB.
In a society governed by law, the straightforward way to confiscate a regular benefit received by a particular group is to pay that group to forego their statutory right to that benefit. Until we pony up the cash to pay farmers to use less of the water they own, one concludes that the problem of low flows on the Colorado doesn't really concern TPTB.
Statutory right? Owning water? Anyone east of the Mississippi wouldn't have any idea what these terms mean. They exist in the west due to accidents of history, combined with the US love for "private property". For example, before NM became a US state, water was managed here at the community level (acqueias), and there was absolutely no notion that anyone owned the water. NM only became a state in 1912, so you're talking about a system that has only existed for a little more than 100 years.
The process started during the territorial government.
For those reading along, see https://online.nmartmuseum.org/nmhistory/people-places-and-p... for sense of the cultural differences PaulDavisThe1st is talking about:
> American water law, which had been based largely on modified English Common Law practices, was developed east of the Mississippi River, where large amounts of rainfall virtually guaranteed an abundant water supply. East of the ninety-eighth meridian, agriculture could usually rely on adequate rainfall to insure sufficient crops. However, the area that the United States annexed as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was largely arid, with few perennial rivers and very little rainfall. Any agriculture developed in this region would have to rely on irrigation, a system unfamiliar to many Americans.
> American political and social traditions further complicated the process. The American ideal of land distribution was deeply rooted in the belief of the sanctity of private property. This ideal celebrated the individual, independent farm and his family who cultivated the land on which they held legal ownership. At its basis, it reflected the assumption that abundant rainfall would support such independence. The belief in representative democracy as the supreme form of political organization was intimately related to this ideal. According to this perspective, independent farmers, owning their own land and free from economic servitude, voted for those leaders who they felt best represented their interests. The two credos of the United States, private property and republican democracy, deeply colored the view of those Americans who came to dominate the arid Southwest. ...
> ... Fearing a loss of democratic independence, many American leaders would have agreed with the army engineer William H. Emory that any system of irrigation “involves a degree of subordination, and absolute obedience to a chief, repugnant to the habits of our people.” ...
> ... the spirit of reluctant compromise did not completely erase the racial bigotries inherent in American culture. If white Americans in New Mexico found it necessary to incorporate aspects of the acequia system into their approach to water, they would change it to suit their worldview. One aspect of the acequia system that many white American leaders found offensive concerned the mayordomo. The mayordomo served as both local administrator and as a sort of water sheriff, whose duties included distributing water and commanding the mandatory labor of community inhabitants. To people raised on the rhetoric of independence and individualism, the mayordomo represented the worst aspects of a social system in which a few rich land owners lorded over an ignorant, dark-skinned peasantry. In 1895, the New Mexico territorial legislature dealt the traditional role of the mayordomo a deathblow by transferring his powers to ditch commissioners – a nod in the direction of science and efficiency. By the turn of the century, the entire acequia system would come under attack.
EDIT: also read "The Milagro Beanfield War" for a fictional account of New Mexico water rights issues.
For those reading along, see https://online.nmartmuseum.org/nmhistory/people-places-and-p... for sense of the cultural differences PaulDavisThe1st is talking about:
> American water law, which had been based largely on modified English Common Law practices, was developed east of the Mississippi River, where large amounts of rainfall virtually guaranteed an abundant water supply. East of the ninety-eighth meridian, agriculture could usually rely on adequate rainfall to insure sufficient crops. However, the area that the United States annexed as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was largely arid, with few perennial rivers and very little rainfall. Any agriculture developed in this region would have to rely on irrigation, a system unfamiliar to many Americans.
> American political and social traditions further complicated the process. The American ideal of land distribution was deeply rooted in the belief of the sanctity of private property. This ideal celebrated the individual, independent farm and his family who cultivated the land on which they held legal ownership. At its basis, it reflected the assumption that abundant rainfall would support such independence. The belief in representative democracy as the supreme form of political organization was intimately related to this ideal. According to this perspective, independent farmers, owning their own land and free from economic servitude, voted for those leaders who they felt best represented their interests. The two credos of the United States, private property and republican democracy, deeply colored the view of those Americans who came to dominate the arid Southwest. ...
> ... Fearing a loss of democratic independence, many American leaders would have agreed with the army engineer William H. Emory that any system of irrigation “involves a degree of subordination, and absolute obedience to a chief, repugnant to the habits of our people.” ...
> ... the spirit of reluctant compromise did not completely erase the racial bigotries inherent in American culture. If white Americans in New Mexico found it necessary to incorporate aspects of the acequia system into their approach to water, they would change it to suit their worldview. One aspect of the acequia system that many white American leaders found offensive concerned the mayordomo. The mayordomo served as both local administrator and as a sort of water sheriff, whose duties included distributing water and commanding the mandatory labor of community inhabitants. To people raised on the rhetoric of independence and individualism, the mayordomo represented the worst aspects of a social system in which a few rich land owners lorded over an ignorant, dark-skinned peasantry. In 1895, the New Mexico territorial legislature dealt the traditional role of the mayordomo a deathblow by transferring his powers to ditch commissioners – a nod in the direction of science and efficiency. By the turn of the century, the entire acequia system would come under attack.
EDIT: also read "The Milagro Beanfield War" for a fictional account of New Mexico water rights issues.
Philosophically, you might be right, although even philosophers are aware of the tragedy of the commons. Practically, however, these are not serious questions. As long as time and effort is wasted on demonizing farmers rather than cooperating in pursuit of our mutual goals, water levels will continue to drop.
Actually, there is and never has been a tragedy of the commons. Historically, commons have been managed by highly evolved communal practice. The so-called tragedies occured after powerful interests first dismantled those practices, and then sought to exploit the commons. Even Hardin (originator of the ToC concept) has acknowledged this. The idea that human societies had commons that were just open to anyone to do anything, and thus they got screwed up is completely ahistorical. It's also a widely used tool in the rhetorical arguments deployed against a return to true (historical) commons.
I am not aware of anyone demonizing farmers. It's not demonizing farmers to note the evaporative loss caused by flood and spray irrigation - that's simply a fact. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the whole idea of turning the highly insolated SW into a garden for the nation was originated at a specific time and place, by a specific group of people who refused to be curious about water. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the practice of growing crops for export is effectively the same as exporting water.
But yes, cooperation in pursuit of mutal goals is a great idea. One approach that I think has a lot of promise is a system that affects the purchase of water rights for municipal use, from farmers. The purchasing city pays some amount for the water rights, but then throws in a substantial additional payment to cover the capital cost of the farmer converting to drip irrigation. Everybody wins!
I am not aware of anyone demonizing farmers. It's not demonizing farmers to note the evaporative loss caused by flood and spray irrigation - that's simply a fact. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the whole idea of turning the highly insolated SW into a garden for the nation was originated at a specific time and place, by a specific group of people who refused to be curious about water. It's not demonizing farmers to note that the practice of growing crops for export is effectively the same as exporting water.
But yes, cooperation in pursuit of mutal goals is a great idea. One approach that I think has a lot of promise is a system that affects the purchase of water rights for municipal use, from farmers. The purchasing city pays some amount for the water rights, but then throws in a substantial additional payment to cover the capital cost of the farmer converting to drip irrigation. Everybody wins!
That seems like a lot of words for "yes I agree farmers should be paid to use less water."
I'm just trying to be practical here, but perhaps there are interests served by avoiding obvious practical solutions.
I'm just trying to be practical here, but perhaps there are interests served by avoiding obvious practical solutions.
Water Rights are not an invention of the Western US. Scarcity of water is as old as society itself, and societies have developed countless different ways of allocating and enforcing that right. The ancient Romans had regulations on who could tap the aqueducts and what diameter of pipes they could use. The water court in Valencia still convenes every Thursday at midday to litigate water disputes, as it has for 1000 years.
I think you've missed the point being made.
Places with adequate levels of rainfall to grow crops without irrigation (even if irrigation may improve yield) generally do not have any concept of water rights. Water is considered to be a common good, like sun, wind, though more administered by conventional government means (whatever they might be in a particular part of the world).
This is true of places with less water also, though the level of regulation and control was generally higher because of the increased value of water. This was true in Nuevo Mexico too, which inherited the acequia system from the Spanish (who had in turn received/been pushed into it by the Moors).
The Valencia water court is one of the oldest still existing acequia systems in the world, and similar institutions used to exist across Spanish-controlled areas of north America.
But the arrival of the US ditched any notion of communal control over who would receive water and when and how much. NM in particular adopted a "first in time, first in right" approach, in which water rights were established simply by pre-existing water use. Such water rights cannot be modified to accomodate for droughts or other higher priority needs as they would be in an acequia system, or east of the Mississippi, where some governmental-ish agency would decide on regulations and allocation. Instead, water rights in the US west are treated as essentially god-given, based on acknowledged ownership of land. The fact that your use of water may be in opposition to the broader aims of society has no impact on your water rights.
This is likely to change over the next century (IMO), because it's just not viable in an era of reduced water availability. But for now, the system looks absolutely nothing like Roman regulation or the Valencia court syste (0).
(0) There is a dispute resoluton mechanism to address "excess water taking" in the western US, but it is never based on need or priority, merely established water rights.
Places with adequate levels of rainfall to grow crops without irrigation (even if irrigation may improve yield) generally do not have any concept of water rights. Water is considered to be a common good, like sun, wind, though more administered by conventional government means (whatever they might be in a particular part of the world).
This is true of places with less water also, though the level of regulation and control was generally higher because of the increased value of water. This was true in Nuevo Mexico too, which inherited the acequia system from the Spanish (who had in turn received/been pushed into it by the Moors).
The Valencia water court is one of the oldest still existing acequia systems in the world, and similar institutions used to exist across Spanish-controlled areas of north America.
But the arrival of the US ditched any notion of communal control over who would receive water and when and how much. NM in particular adopted a "first in time, first in right" approach, in which water rights were established simply by pre-existing water use. Such water rights cannot be modified to accomodate for droughts or other higher priority needs as they would be in an acequia system, or east of the Mississippi, where some governmental-ish agency would decide on regulations and allocation. Instead, water rights in the US west are treated as essentially god-given, based on acknowledged ownership of land. The fact that your use of water may be in opposition to the broader aims of society has no impact on your water rights.
This is likely to change over the next century (IMO), because it's just not viable in an era of reduced water availability. But for now, the system looks absolutely nothing like Roman regulation or the Valencia court syste (0).
(0) There is a dispute resoluton mechanism to address "excess water taking" in the western US, but it is never based on need or priority, merely established water rights.
You could probably also do it without directly interacting with the farmers at all, by putting a water tax, similar to a carbon tax, on products that are produced in areas with non-abundant water resources. So, rice from Arkansas would remain the same price, but almonds from California might get a little more expensive. This could lead farmers to start making more rational choices with their water supplies out of their own self-interest, or investing in water-preserving technologies.
Utah got rid of the "use it or lose it" water rights policy. This is huge. https://westernresourceadvocates.org/blog/watch-these-three-...
Modern solutions have solved this - albeit in a rather unsustainable way. Although it can go pretty far before being an issue worth migrating for.
Look at the Mexico city for an extreme example
https://youtu.be/wFpN_-mTKaA
Look at the Mexico city for an extreme example
https://youtu.be/wFpN_-mTKaA
There is a technology component not yet discussed. Agriculture mainly still use flood (a.k.a. furrow) irrigation. Colorado is semi-arid, so the evaporation loss is much worse than in the Midwest. And even worse evaporation happens with spray irrigation, but less runoff loss.
The solutions thus far try to avoid runoff (surge irrigation) or recapture runoff. Nevertheless agriculture consumes a huge amount of water and in Colorado right now in effect the practice exports water.
There is a huge cost looming, whether change happens or not.
The solutions thus far try to avoid runoff (surge irrigation) or recapture runoff. Nevertheless agriculture consumes a huge amount of water and in Colorado right now in effect the practice exports water.
There is a huge cost looming, whether change happens or not.
Related 2018 HN discussion on "How the West Was Lost: In America’s first climate war, John Wesley Powell tried to prevent the overdevelopment that led to environmental devastation."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18098899
If you haven't read it, "Beyond the 100th Meridian" was a fantastic read about the same issues.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/322374/beyond-the-h...
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/322374/beyond-the-h...
Cadillac Desert...
There are charts of Colorado river lake water level trends over time - here are the ones for Lake Powell (Glen Canyon dam) and Lake Mead (Hoover dam). It is astonishing how fast they are dropping.
http://powell.uslakes.info/Level/
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp
http://powell.uslakes.info/Level/
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp
It's obviously an active problem in Colorado. There's some efforts to reduce things like grass lawns but that's obviously working within the 10% margin that isn't agriculture use.
My parents in the mountains aren't allowed to have potted plants unless they water them from water bottles. I'm not sure what the solution is, but by the numbers I'm convinced it's not "take shorter showers".
My parents in the mountains aren't allowed to have potted plants unless they water them from water bottles. I'm not sure what the solution is, but by the numbers I'm convinced it's not "take shorter showers".
As a Coloradoan I think the answer is simple: Break the Colorado River Compact. We might as well tear the bandaid off now because it isn't going to get any easier. No more winter salads.
If that sounds flippant keep in mind that breaking this compact will be a footnote compared to the actual water wars that are going to be happening by 2050.
If that sounds flippant keep in mind that breaking this compact will be a footnote compared to the actual water wars that are going to be happening by 2050.
Slightly surprised that an article in the US would use both imperial and metric units (acre feet and celsius). Is that particular to the field?
I think it's just a function of climate science being done in Celsius. I've never once seen average global temperature rise communicated in F. All of thw water rights and units are in imperial because those are strictly US-based.
Also, it's not like "Temperatures have risen 3 degrees Celsius altogether since 1970" is meaningful outside of climate science.
Also, it's not like "Temperatures have risen 3 degrees Celsius altogether since 1970" is meaningful outside of climate science.
About time California builds a desalination plant rather than take water from these states the Colorado actually passes through.
The problem as I understand with desalinization is what to do with the salty brine that remains?
Why not just put it back into the ocean? Obviously, some distance away from your inlet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Outflow . In short, it needs treatment due to contaminants, and diffusion or dilution because high salt concentrations damage the ecosystem.
These can be managed, but it's not "just" a matter of pumping the outflow directly back into the sea.
These can be managed, but it's not "just" a matter of pumping the outflow directly back into the sea.
Because that kills anything near the output, and changes the surrounding ecosystem.
Even better: extract lithium and deuterium and then pump it back.