Lake Powell for a long time

Sounds to me like the unnamed "critics" must certainly have another more valid reason to remove the dam! Perhaps they represent patrons in their respective districts down-stream? Looks like another political boondoggle from our current administration does it not?
 
Environmentalists have been wanting to pull up the dams and let the Colorado River run free, for quite some time. I have enjoyed boating on the lake a few times and know it brings a lot of tourism. But I also know that at one time it all ran unencumbered thru there.... IOW, I don't have a political lean on it. I think those living in Arizona and Utah need to figure it out. Colby
 
Both dams are needed to manage the water and the water is what it is really about. As for the evaporation, what evaporates here turns up as rain some where else. As for the sandstone soaking up the water as the lake level lowers that water is returned to the lake. There was agreement made to build the dam and if the drainers don't want to live up to that then we should start the process of building the other 2 dams that they didn't want. If lake Powell wasn't there lake Mead would have been empty once maybe twice already. When you ask the drainers what they plan to drink when all the water is sitting in the ocean all they have for you is a stupid look.
 
jkidd":n4mh7ifk said:
Both dams are needed to manage the water and the water is what it is really about. As for the evaporation, what evaporates here turns up as rain some where else. As for the sandstone soaking up the water as the lake level lowers that water is returned to the lake. There was agreement made to build the dam and if the drainers don't want to live up to that then we should start the process of building the other 2 dams that they didn't want. If lake Powell wasn't there lake Mead would have been empty once maybe twice already. When you ask the drainers what they plan to drink when all the water is sitting in the ocean all they have for you is a stupid look.
Click to expand...

Jody- :thup :thup :thup


Concern for the environment and wilderness are fine and duly appropriate, but some radicals have no clue as to what is realistic and practical.

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
Tear down the dam and the lights go out for a lot of Southern California! Also the winter vegetables of Yuma and the Imperial Valley dry up.

The article says for at least 20 years. I'm 70, I think I'm safe to go to Lake Powell for as long as I can make it. Good luck to the rest of you!
 
Brent said:
"Tear down the dam and the lights go out for a lot of Southern California! Also the winter vegetables of Yuma and the Imperial Valley dry up."
Click to expand...

This one might be too late for us Brent, but here's and investment idea. It's going to be a boom market in the SE after the dams go away.

Powdered Water. Works great, just mix with a quart of spit and you have a quart of water to drink. It's going to rate right up there with learning to live in the dark and eating dried veggies. :wink:

And boating on trailers cause there won't be places to float your boat.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

IMGP6704.thumb.jpg
 
Glen Canyon Dam was proposed when California's population was 17 million. It's population is now 40 million. The population has more than doubled throughout the entire West. So siltifiction of the reservoir and the aging structure aren't the most pressing problem. We don't need more big dams, we need more big rivers! Oh yeah, that's not going to happen.

If you want to see stupid looks on people's faces, ask them what they are going to drink when the population doubles again. The common responses are nonsense (i.e., we can all fly to Mars), but you can always ask about what happens when the population quadruples. It's easier to stop a river flowing than to stop the population growing, but it's just a temporary dam solution.

Mark
 
We lived in the southwest before, during, and since the construction of Glen Canyon Dam. El and I canoed the Glen Canyon of the Colorado river, before the dam. We saw the beauty of a canyon more impressive than the Grand Canyon. Sorry, we have run most all the canyons of the Colorado, and unless you went down Glen Canyon and saw it before the dam, you have no basis for a comparative beauty between the two. We led trips for the public so others could enjoy both the canyons.
Glen Canyon was built primarily to store and divide the water of the Colorado River between the upper basin states (all those bordering the river above the UT/AZ state line), so they could have access to water granted them by an interstate compact. A secondary purpose was to export electricity generated at the dam to California.
Glen Canyon reservoir is a marvelous place to go boating. BUT, the beauty there today is, in my estimation, about equivalent to the beauty one would see in the Sistine Chapel if it was flooded to within a foot of the ceiling. Yes, it is more accessible by boat, but one could float down before the dam in a canoe. So, there are many of us who knew Glen Canyon before the dam, who objected to its construction. As a hydrogeologist, I also objected to the building of a large reservoir in desert conditions, where evaporation from the resulting lake would be (and has been), more than Nevada's total water allocation allowed by law from the river.
So, there were valid opposing views. Bill
 
I enjoyed Mark's comments. I live in Idaho just above the Snake river dams that have become a target for removal. There is no doubt they do hinder fish coming up river and some of the original reasons for the dams have proven invalid, but other benefits have popped up. Now we have wind-mills everywhere and those are not benign. Europe is putting a lot of focus on Solar which the US is not. When our population doubles then what? We still are not dealing with the root of the problem. My training was as a Forester, which is applied ecology. That practical application transfers to a lot of other things that makes me look at the "big picture. We still have not faced the "What next? After WW II the nation thought it could solve it's problems by building large infrastructure like the interstate freeways and the big dams. Today we have moved to other things.

I do see hope however. For me growing up a car represented freedom. I live in rural Idaho and the big cities are "hostile country" to me personally. But my youngest has a software business with 50 employees and is located in downtown Portland, OR. Why, I asked, are you located in downtown Portland? His response: "That's where my employees want to live. They don't want a car, they use public transportation, and live in a high rise". So, perhaps they have a lighter footprint on the earth than I do.
Chuck
 
Mark, maybe we can't get more big rivers, but especially in California, what is the problem with desalination plants. The big resorts in Cabo San Lucas are all watered with desalinated water because it is all the water they have. The technology is there, the ability to capitalize is there. They just need to move on it. Lot's of solar possibility, Take advantage of it. And the wind farms of the PNW are certainly effective, so let's take advantage of the west winds we have on the whole west coast, or for that mater over much of the country.

You're right, we are not going to grow anymore big rivers. AND IF WE COULD, there is no chance we could dam them up to make more electricity. We need to produce more, because, the population is still growing and not likely to drop significantly. We need to use less. (How many here have switched their house lighting over to LED?) And we need to be responsible and respectful of those who are working on progress.

OK, I'm off the high horse now, and going to go turn on the TV and watch the news, since I don't run the TV and the computer at the same time.

Harvey
SleepyC:moon

IMG_2044_sized_1.thumb.jpg
 
hardee":1bnm7i4m said:
The big resorts in Cabo San Lucas are all watered with desalinated water because it is all the water they have. The technology is there, the ability to capitalize is there. They just need to move on it.
Click to expand...

I haven't been to Cabo San Lucas for a few years. It had been ruined. What a mess.

We used to camp on a beach just north of San Carlos on the mainland side that now is a Club Med (the old film site for the movie Catch 22). It supported one fisherman's shack. That is about the extent of the sustainable living in the area. Sure, you can get power from the Guaymas power station (approx. 500,000,000 kg of carbon emissions per year) to run desalination plants for drinking water (and a shriveled up golf course!!). And they have sun, if they had the political will to put in $olar, they might continue for a few more years.

hardee":1bnm7i4m said:
We need to produce more, because, the population is still growing and not likely to drop significantly. We need to use less. (How many here have switched their house lighting over to LED?) And we need to be responsible and respectful of those who are working on progress.
Click to expand...

My thought is that we can't produce, conserve or recycle our way out of issues resulting from a population that is growing at the present rate (or even 1/2 the present rate). Produce, conserve and ignore could be our new slogan.

We are paddling up a waterfall and more paddles won't help. For progress to be made, we have to rethink our course.

Mark
 
Hi Brats, This is a great topic on a serious issue-I hope it keeps on going as there are a lot of Brats smarter than me. Many of us use this forum for some education as well as fun and friendship. Personally, I tend to see rivers from a canoeists perspective and living in Idaho and seeing the Snake River every day, I am not keen on dams in general, and like Chuck, we have two kids in Portland. They make three times what they would make$ anywhere in Idaho and love the city. I prefer to have the coyotes howl me to sleep rather than police sirens but what do I know . Roger
 
As the baby boomers die off the population in the US will drop drastically. They will have to import people or those who are left will be taxed to death. Boomers are almost half the population. That might just solve the water problem.
 
Looks like a job for Mother Nature. Carl Hiaasen once wrote that to solve it's population problem, "South Florida needs a killer hurricane."
 
An interesting thread, but getting close to political. Let me clarify one item--it has been stated that Glen Canyon dam supplies power to S. Calif. This is not true.

From the bureau of reclamation web site on Glen Canyon Dam:

Glen Canyon Powerplant produces around five billion kilowatt-hours of hydroelectric power annually which is distributed by the Western Area Power Administration to Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Nebraska. In addition, revenues from production of hydropower help fund many important environmental programs associated with Glen and Grand canyons.
Click to expand...

I wonder about Nebraska--but that is what it says.

Hoover Dam supplies S. Calif Az and NV

There always have been water challenges in the west from the early settlement.
I certainly agree that Cabo has been ruined by tourism....but one might say the same of S. Calif.

However you cannot always go back in time. If Glen Canon dam were removed, there is many cubic acres of silt and sand, which has built up--I wonder what the effect of this will be on Grand Canyon when the first major flood event occurs and eventually Lake Mead?

Desalination plants also have an environment impact: These include intake issues on marine biology, as well as the discharge of large volumes of concentration brine into the salt water environment.. (back to "dilution is the solution"...or is it?

Each time we drive across the US South West (2x a year) we notice more wind mill farms, and solar projects. Both of these are also not free of environmental impacts.

No judgements here, but just consider all of the factors...

Killer hurricanes--solutions? Obviously not lived in the area where there are those "Killer hurricanes"--create more problems than solved... For example it was over 12 years since our street recovered from a class III storm. Now people who build homes on the water have no knowledge of the effects and consequences of Ivan. Check out Waveland, MS, or nearby cities in the path of Katrina--or Homestead, FL (Andrew 1992)--rebuilt and almost forgotten, but still scars. So solutions there...
 
Amen to what Mark and Andy just expressed!!! Glad to know I'm not the only one with those thoughts. We can't just continue to grow. More people everywhere and we all want an ever expanding lifestyle. Can't go on forever. Making (ie. producing & consuming) more, more ,more is not going to work with the worlds current population, let alone a ever expanding one.
 
Yeah!! By dying, the baby boomers are going to save us all! The "can do" generation. Yippee!

During the baby boom decade between 1954 and 1964, we had 4 million babies born every year in the US. For the last decade, we've also had about 4 million babies every year. Why not call it a "boom" now? Because booming is the new normal. Cute little new taxpayers, assuming that fiscal plan works. 82 million increase worldwide just this year. What can go wrong if you have that many more people helping out every year?

Mark
 
Back
Top