The California Thread

We have massive snowpack around Salt Lake and South, but most of that water doesn’t go to the Green & Colorado. Those areas are still about 125%+ of normal, but not the near-200% that a bunch of the rest of Utah is at.

 

At least the Great Salt Lake should be looking less dire?

 

Tetons!

 

Not really. The problem is that almost all the head waters get diverted. Reservoirs will get filled and agriculture will feel no pressure to just spill it all over the desert. It may delay the inevitable for a year? But the climate is much warmer, so evaporation is worse.

The problem is all the diversion. If that doesn’t get cut in half (mainly, Northern Utah), then we’re screwed. The farming community up there, using 75% of the water, accepts no blame, and throws it right back at all the city and suburban dwellers, saying the 15% of the water we use is what needs to get cut. Apparently, The whole world will collapse if they don’t dry up the Great Salt Lake to grow alfalfa (50% used local, 50% sold abroad) in a desert. Oh, and God told them to that’s what he wants.

 

The Grand Tetons are next to the Gros Ventre Valley. My French-speaking Belgian grandfather really got a good laugh driving through that part of the world with us.

 

The trappers who named them must’ve been into bullet bras.

 

It's an opportunity for you to get creative.

 

I like how every rain storm is timed to take place on my days off.

 

Our equivalent to snow days in recent years has been “smoke days,” had quite a few of those several years back.

As far as the rain and wind went we got off relatively easy up in Sonoma County, which has been the case for much of this season. The storms have mostly hammered the Santa Cruz Mountains and points south.

 

I fear for the deliver person, much like the census taker.

 

Got a bit more snow here, but at least it had started to melt and I was able to remove most of POOpocalypse 2023 from my back yard.

Hey @Knave! Can you hear us?

 

This is also the same problem with the Colorado River basin.

Again, 80% of all the water is used for agriculture and the farm lobby is saying that the sacrifice must involve cuts to water usage in the population centers and not to them. Not only that, but the Colorado River basin has inter-state rivalry issues. The amount of water assigned to the states is based on record high water flows, so even if that area hadn't been suffering through a drought, just a normal year would result in shortages. Not only that, but water rights in the compact are set by first come, first serve.

The Federal government has also told the states they have until sometime this year to agree to a 25% cut, or they will impose cuts. However, because California was the first state to start diverting water from the Colorado River, they have a veto over any agreement and they have little to no interest in making any cuts. The other 6 states that are part of the compact have agreed upon cuts to at least get the top waterflow down to "average" flows and that 25% cut would be shared across all of the states. California, however, is sticking by its first in line position and has rejected the agreement and said the other states must bear the 25% cut, while California bears little to no cuts.

 

Let's be clear though. The 6-State agreement is a half measure. The Fed. govt. estimate is 2-4million acrefeet, and the 6-state solution barely reaches 2million (if even that?) and both Mexico and California weren't a party to the negotiations.

And it isn't like "California" are being dicks. It is particular water-rights-holders who are being dicks and saying no to any and every compromise. Therefore, California can't even put together a delegation that can negotiate, because there a$$hole holdouts whom they can't control. The Fed is going to have to implement the cuts, and the 6-state solution is just trying to get out ahead of the mess and offer constructive feedback.

We'll see how it goes.

 

Mexico isn't involved in the discussion because the Colorado is dry by the time it gets into Mexico. Whether that is a good thing or not is, of course, an international negotiation that is, technically, above the head of the states.

As for California not being a member of the 6-state negotiation.. That is because California is not interested in negotiating a change to the existing compact. As I mentioned in my previous post, existing water rights laws are a first come, first serve basis. Since California farmers were the first to start redirecting the river, per existing water rights laws, they are the last ones to be impacted by cuts.

I disagree that it isn't California. The people involved in the negotiations on behalf of California are the impacted water rights districts, which is a government position. A government position elected/appointed by the residents of those water districts, but still a government position. The decision is also coming from California's Natural Resources secretary.. So, yes. It absolutely is California.

Seriously, if it were just the recalcitrant water rights holders, would California's Natural Resources secretary be standing in front of the press justifying their position?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/31/us/california-water-proposal-colorado-river-climate/index.html

That's not a quote of someone that disagrees with the water rights holders.

 

I’m trying to draw a distinction between those governing and interested concerns vs. all the Californians who are under emergency conservation orders to restrict long showers, dish & clothes washing, and irrigating home gardens.

I would say that most Californians are on board with reducing water consumption, but they aren’t the ones holding the levers of power. I’d bet that if Newsom and his natural resources secretary played ball, that they would face near-certain ousting from political office.

 

Which is due to the water rights laws. The cities were the last ones to get in line, as a result, they are the first to get cut.

I dunno. Pretty sure that if the people if LA county found out that Newsom and the NR Secretary want to cut their water, they might be inclined to remove Newsom from office.. I mean.. People like water.

 

The big question is will golf courses get priority to the water?

 

Of the water that California uses from the Colorado River Basin (much like everywhere else), 80% of it is used in agriculture. People in LA county have already been under emergency water use orders for years. The discussion is largely to cut water use in agriculture, not municipal, although there will likely be some municipal changes as well.


So even though high-population areas use the Colorado water too, it's mainly used for agriculture, much out in the desert by the Salton Sea.