Your videos are so well done, easy to listen to/watch and well laid out. I share them with my community members in Kanab, UT because I find them easy, trustworthy and the information is very important to us and our surrounding areas. I'd love to see them looping at places like the GC dam and other visitor's centers. Thank you for your hard work.
Population growth in the southwest isn't the issue, per the USGS, municipal water usage(potable) is 12%(and going down), even as the populations increase. Over 80% of the Colorado is used to irrigate crops, crops that the AG industry estimates, contributes to the food supply of roughly 700 million people worldwide, with 40% of that Ag being shipped internationally.
Remember, when the water level went down, they started finding all them barrels full of bodies and that’s some green looking water to be treated for drinking
Seems like we’ve had a pretty good winter and some good rain in the summer months. You would think that the water in these two lakes would have increased, but according to the video they are at the same level as this time last year? Why is that? One comment said authorities are letting too much water out, do you agree with that?
Because there are water allocations and the BOR has legal obligations to release water to the 1st rights holders, which almost exclusively make up agricultural growers. "Authorities" don't make any unilateral decisions on their own, regarding how much water to release, the BOR is the administrator of the compact and follows it's by-laws. The current obligation is the release of 14maf, down from 16maf two years ago, essentially the average statistical flow rate of the Colorado.
Makes it even worse. It would be that Lake Mead lost 182,000af instead of 63,000af in July as pointed out in 6:21. Though still that calculation is independent from the levels presented in 7:00 or 8:24.
Because it was there first? It's also defined by international treaty and consistent with US law governing domestic water rights from, say, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona on the upper portion of the Colorado or water flowing from one county to another within a state. You don't get to just take it all.
We will look back on this time and we'll find that these water authorities have been unnecessarily dumping more water than they should be to create water shortages for both control and money.
Completely wrong. An international treaty exists(Colorado Compact), and the BOR is the administrator of that compact. Nobody makes any unilateral decisions on their own. The BOR simply follows the by-laws of the compact and releases water based on the legal obligations. The information of the releases are there for all the agencies to see, so there's no conspiracy by any individuals.
It'll be impossible, but everyone needs to be convinced to reduce their water allotments to a level where only 90% of the river is allocated and the rest can flow into the ocean, as was originally intended.
Well, that's been/being negotiated for years. It's very political, being it's about jobs & local tax revenue. Who wants to take the hit? Now, 2maf has been reduced this next year starting in Oct, down to 14maf vs the historical 16maf legally obligated to be released by the BOR. Also, the Colorado rarely ever reached the Gulf of Mexico, only in very heavy run-off years, which were about one every 10-15 years.
@@DMAN-o2e You need to learn more history, I think. The first Spanish ships sailing up the gulf of California, during high water periods, couldn't sail into the mouth of the Colorado (or even approach it) because of the force of the outflow, and all the silt and sediment it carried made the water seem almost red in color. There were once actually steam ships running on the Colorado between the AZ and CA borders but it was a dangerous thing to do (and also only minimally profitable) because of the changes in flow rates and constantly changing location of snags and rocks. The construction of the Laguna diversion dam outside Yuma put an end to that. We're in this water fix because an engineer originally took estimates of the flow of the Colorado during a wet period and even then overestimated the rate by a decent margin.
@@bwhog Look, I've been to countless BOR meeting and symposiums on the subject of the Colorado as a broker to Ag industry. I've listen to hydrologists repeatedly talk about how the Colorado most years, fizzled out just before, or just after the US/Mexican border, only reaching the Sea of Cortez in very heavy run-off years before the Dam was built, which I stated, is about every 10-15 years. In fact, the BOR does what's called the "pulse", which is a heavy release once a decade so that the Colorado at least will emulate a heavy run-off year for ecological reasons of trying to maintain the estuary on the Mexican side of the border. Also, I'm aware of boats running the Colorado around the CA/AZ border, but not all the way to, or up from the Sea of Cortez. I've read that some people claim there is some possible evidence of ships sailing up the Colorado from the Sea Of Cortez, and who's to say, it may have happened in a heavier run-off year, there's really no proof either way, but my original statement that the Colorado rarely reached the Sea of Cortez still stands, simply because that's what hydrologists have stated for years.
@@bwhog You're correct in stating the estimates for the Colorado were over-inflated. Various hydrologists took reading of the Colorado from 1906-1921. That data showed an average statistical flow rate of 16maf, which is what was allocated in 1922 when the compact was ratified. The obvious problem with that by today's standards is, 15 years was just too short of a window to collect data. In the early 90's, it was realized that the 16maf allocation was going to come to full fruition early this century. At the same time, the average statistical flow rate of the Colorado from 1923-1993(70 years) was roughly 14maf. That triggered what's known as the "300 year study". In fact, it was 2 studies, commissioned to the U of Col & N. AZ U. in the mid 90's. One study came back that the flow rate over the last 300 years was 14maf, the other 14.5maf. They also explained(as you stated), the period of 1906-1921 was an "wet" period and too short of a window to collect good data. So the system was over allocated by mistake from the beginning, but it was never an issue until technology allowed for the massive increase in Ag production, really starting in the 70's, skyrocketing in the 80's, and on steroids in the 90's as we went into a global economy. Once full fruition came early this century, the system was seeing a yearly average deficit of roughly 2maf. This is why NOAA designated the region as being in agricultural & hydrological drought, not meteorological as almost everyone thinks. The Colorado has actually run slightly above 14.5maf this century. Simply stated, agricultural drought means a "lack of water resource to meet demand". Hydrological drought, while more complex, includes "the use of reserves to meet demand", hence why the elevation(s) at the reservoir(s) have declined this century, as the system has been operating at a deficit for years. The recent agreements between Ag & the BOR reduces usage by 2maf for the next two years to try an stabilize the system, but those agreements are not permanent. Will be interesting to see what happens going foreword.
@@bwhog I realize I'm talking you to death, but the water issues are really about the over allocation mistake 100 years ago, and the fact that Ag production has exploded the last 40-50 years. People talk about the massive increase in population in these desert cities, but that population increase really isn't the issue. Municipalities use a fraction of the water, and the fact is, over 80% of the water is used for Ag irrigation. The Ag industry states that the "soft" Ag produced in the growing districts of the Colorado, contributes to the food supply of about 700 million people worldwide. The Colorado may be iconic, but it's actually a low flow river, and just too many humans are dependent on it's food supply. One water resource just isn't able to produce so much of the food needed for modern civilization. Also, over 40% of the Ag is shipped internationally.
Love your stuff man thanks for all the work to provide these important updates
Your videos are so well done, easy to listen to/watch and well laid out. I share them with my community members in Kanab, UT because I find them easy, trustworthy and the information is very important to us and our surrounding areas. I'd love to see them looping at places like the GC dam and other visitor's centers. Thank you for your hard work.
A great review
It would be nice to see full pool on all of the charts for perspective.
But the growth conitnues, when, not if when, will it fail to provide the ever increasing demand?
Population growth in the southwest isn't the issue, per the USGS, municipal water usage(potable) is 12%(and going down), even as the populations increase. Over 80% of the Colorado is used to irrigate crops, crops that the AG industry estimates, contributes to the food supply of roughly 700 million people worldwide, with 40% of that Ag being shipped internationally.
5:52 You added all the numbers as positive figures.
The correct figure: 598,000 + 24,000 - 49,000 = 573,000.
GreAt stuff love your channel ❤🖖🖖🖖👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼🇺🇸❣️🍷👍🏼✝️✡️🔯🕎♾️💞
Remember, when the water level went down, they started finding all them barrels full of bodies and that’s some green looking water to be treated for drinking
Was that Polish math at the 5:50 mark? 😂
I had to stop it and go back, I was like wait what? hahaha
Stupid Pollocks
Actually it's California math.you know, new old math
Trash video
@@markr6356 they blocked my comment man!
Seems like we’ve had a pretty good winter and some good rain in the summer months. You would think that the water in these two lakes would have increased, but according to the video they are at the same level as this time last year? Why is that?
One comment said authorities are letting too much water out, do you agree with that?
Because there are water allocations and the BOR has legal obligations to release water to the 1st rights holders, which almost exclusively make up agricultural growers. "Authorities" don't make any unilateral decisions on their own, regarding how much water to release, the BOR is the administrator of the compact and follows it's by-laws. The current obligation is the release of 14maf, down from 16maf two years ago, essentially the average statistical flow rate of the Colorado.
Check your math at 5:49
Makes it even worse. It would be that Lake Mead lost 182,000af instead of 63,000af in July as pointed out in 6:21.
Though still that calculation is independent from the levels presented in 7:00 or 8:24.
Colorado river water
I thought the United States paid for and built the dam. How is it Mexico gets an allocation?
Because it was there first? It's also defined by international treaty and consistent with US law governing domestic water rights from, say, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona on the upper portion of the Colorado or water flowing from one county to another within a state. You don't get to just take it all.
It needs the water for all the new manufacturing plants and jobs that use to be for Americans but they are too stupid to care. So it goes to priority.
@@BussinJohnson Also for flushing and then return the polluted water to the US at the Southern Border.
International water laws are not based on where it falls, but where it flows. A small % of the Colorado flows into Mexico.
Just hoping to get my dumb comment featured in the next video.
We will look back on this time and we'll find that these water authorities have been unnecessarily dumping more water than they should be to create water shortages for both control and money.
If you go there at night you can see all the water that is released.
Completely wrong. An international treaty exists(Colorado Compact), and the BOR is the administrator of that compact. Nobody makes any unilateral decisions on their own. The BOR simply follows the by-laws of the compact and releases water based on the legal obligations. The information of the releases are there for all the agencies to see, so there's no conspiracy by any individuals.
It'll be impossible, but everyone needs to be convinced to reduce their water allotments to a level where only 90% of the river is allocated and the rest can flow into the ocean, as was originally intended.
Well, that's been/being negotiated for years. It's very political, being it's about jobs & local tax revenue. Who wants to take the hit? Now, 2maf has been reduced this next year starting in Oct, down to 14maf vs the historical 16maf legally obligated to be released by the BOR. Also, the Colorado rarely ever reached the Gulf of Mexico, only in very heavy run-off years, which were about one every 10-15 years.
@@DMAN-o2e You need to learn more history, I think. The first Spanish ships sailing up the gulf of California, during high water periods, couldn't sail into the mouth of the Colorado (or even approach it) because of the force of the outflow, and all the silt and sediment it carried made the water seem almost red in color. There were once actually steam ships running on the Colorado between the AZ and CA borders but it was a dangerous thing to do (and also only minimally profitable) because of the changes in flow rates and constantly changing location of snags and rocks. The construction of the Laguna diversion dam outside Yuma put an end to that. We're in this water fix because an engineer originally took estimates of the flow of the Colorado during a wet period and even then overestimated the rate by a decent margin.
@@bwhog Look, I've been to countless BOR meeting and symposiums on the subject of the Colorado as a broker to Ag industry. I've listen to hydrologists repeatedly talk about how the Colorado most years, fizzled out just before, or just after the US/Mexican border, only reaching the Sea of Cortez in very heavy run-off years before the Dam was built, which I stated, is about every 10-15 years. In fact, the BOR does what's called the "pulse", which is a heavy release once a decade so that the Colorado at least will emulate a heavy run-off year for ecological reasons of trying to maintain the estuary on the Mexican side of the border.
Also, I'm aware of boats running the Colorado around the CA/AZ border, but not all the way to, or up from the Sea of Cortez. I've read that some people claim there is some possible evidence of ships sailing up the Colorado from the Sea Of Cortez, and who's to say, it may have happened in a heavier run-off year, there's really no proof either way, but my original statement that the Colorado rarely reached the Sea of Cortez still stands, simply because that's what hydrologists have stated for years.
@@bwhog You're correct in stating the estimates for the Colorado were over-inflated. Various hydrologists took reading of the Colorado from 1906-1921. That data showed an average statistical flow rate of 16maf, which is what was allocated in 1922 when the compact was ratified. The obvious problem with that by today's standards is, 15 years was just too short of a window to collect data. In the early 90's, it was realized that the 16maf allocation was going to come to full fruition early this century. At the same time, the average statistical flow rate of the Colorado from 1923-1993(70 years) was roughly 14maf. That triggered what's known as the "300 year study". In fact, it was 2 studies, commissioned to the U of Col & N. AZ U. in the mid 90's. One study came back that the flow rate over the last 300 years was 14maf, the other 14.5maf. They also explained(as you stated), the period of 1906-1921 was an "wet" period and too short of a window to collect good data. So the system was over allocated by mistake from the beginning, but it was never an issue until technology allowed for the massive increase in Ag production, really starting in the 70's, skyrocketing in the 80's, and on steroids in the 90's as we went into a global economy. Once full fruition came early this century, the system was seeing a yearly average deficit of roughly 2maf. This is why NOAA designated the region as being in agricultural & hydrological drought, not meteorological as almost everyone thinks. The Colorado has actually run slightly above 14.5maf this century.
Simply stated, agricultural drought means a "lack of water resource to meet demand". Hydrological drought, while more complex, includes "the use of reserves to meet demand", hence why the elevation(s) at the reservoir(s) have declined this century, as the system has been operating at a deficit for years. The recent agreements between Ag & the BOR reduces usage by 2maf for the next two years to try an stabilize the system, but those agreements are not permanent. Will be interesting to see what happens going foreword.
@@bwhog I realize I'm talking you to death, but the water issues are really about the over allocation mistake 100 years ago, and the fact that Ag production has exploded the last 40-50 years. People talk about the massive increase in population in these desert cities, but that population increase really isn't the issue. Municipalities use a fraction of the water, and the fact is, over 80% of the water is used for Ag irrigation. The Ag industry states that the "soft" Ag produced in the growing districts of the Colorado, contributes to the food supply of about 700 million people worldwide. The Colorado may be iconic, but it's actually a low flow river, and just too many humans are dependent on it's food supply. One water resource just isn't able to produce so much of the food needed for modern civilization. Also, over 40% of the Ag is shipped internationally.
Rob powell to pay mead hahahaha. I will drink to that
To everyone that has ever commented to me that he is an AI voice… piss right off at 4:20