The bathtub rings around Lake Powell at Glen Canyon National Recreation Area are getting wider and wider, and that's a problem for boaters. NRA officials on Thursday shut down the west half of the Antelope Point launch ramp due to low water levels.
Barricades and cones were placed on the ramp indicating the closed area, the NRA announced. Boaters can continue to launch vessels on the east side of the ramp, but they should still be aware that while the east side of the ramp is open, launching at these water levels is not safe for all sizes of boats.
"Launching is at your own risk," said Cynthia Sequannam, the NRA's information officer. "Should the lake level drop five more feet to an approximate lake elevation of 3,588 feet above sea level, Antelope Point Launch Ramp will close to all launching with boat trailers."
According to the Glen Canyon Institute, as of Wednesday both Lake Powell and Lake Mead down river at Lake Mead National Recreation Area were under half-full, at 46 percent and 42 percent of capacity, respectively. Upper Colorado Basin snow pack, meanwhile, was at 79 percent of the February 18 average.
Comments
Better than filled with envy.
Price the water appropriately and the market will make the distribution work.
Dogmatic beliefs are also fueling the growth and fueling the greed. It's hard to stop fundamentalism with logic and that's also a major part of the problem in certain parts of the interior west. Many of the towns are politically controlled by these dogmatists. I saw it myself, and saw where it was going.
Better yet, price the water appropriately in terms of long-term needs, and serious conservation will be encouraged. Of course, for some developers, "appropriate" means price water as cheaply as possible, which is counterproductive to conservation measures.
Just for fun, I'll suggest those who are enthused about the prospect of "100,000 new homes" in SW Utah should adopt a strategy used by some in Congress when it comes to funding new projects: Any new water use, residential or commercial, in the western U. S. will have to be "offset" by cuts in existing use before the new users are allowed to start drawing any water.
Can you imagine the stir that would cause :-)
If we are running a deficit in the available water (whcih would appear to be the case) I would whole heartedly agree with that plan.
The developers aren't being greedy, they are doing what they are supposed to do. As I have said in the past this is one area where I believe government has a role to keep development from outstripping long term water sources and it is an area government has generally failed.
Predicting long term needs is tough especially when you are weighing the odds against mother nature. It's one thing if the process was linear, and you could expect X amoung of gallons coming down the rivershed every year. It's another thing when you have diminishing supplies because the region is in a long term drought, that could turn longer, or could turn the opposite direction. But if you look at the history of the anaszi, hopi, and pueblos, they had population booms and busts. There are quite a few national parks that are in the system that document this. The interior west population boom could have hit it's peak many years ago if current trends continue. No one sane is going to buy a house in a subdivision that has no water, and needs to have a truck haul it in every few weeks.
A good discussion, and finally detailing the REAL problem. Too many people wanting to live in the desert. As for that billion-dollar pipeline, what everyone forgets is that the water is allocated. If Utah wants more, what about Los Angeles? And who has the power then? Simply, I wouldn't worry too much about what people "want" in the desert anymore. The desert has a mind of its own.
As for climate change, ask the Anasazi. It most certainly "changed" for them. Years ago, the distinguished climatologist and geographer Gilbert White explained carefully just how much, warning "This will happen again." The "this" was 50- and 100-year drought cycles--not global warming--that forced the natives out. White measured it by studying tree rings on the Colorado Plateau, but of course, human nature is to ignore "predictions" unless they agree with the bottom line.
Now that Dr. White has been proven right, expect the "predictions" to discount his research. It's not that we exceeded nature's limits. What are those? Rain will follow the plow! Just build more wind farms and all will be well! By stirring the winds above the turbines we will coax more rain from reluctant clouds. The Dust Bowl? Never heard of it. Environmental history? Oh, give me a break.
We are scientists. We can do anything. And when science fails, we have engineers. Another pipeline. Yeah, that's the ticket. This time, we just need to tap the rivers in Alaska. God did only fair job plumbing the continent. Now we can make it right.
All of this--every last shred of it--was part of Environmental Studies 40 years ago. This is what we taught and debated at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Can we ever beat nature at her own game, and what happens if we lose? We built the dams, but we forgot the water. And we most certainly forgot the growth.
Is there a technological "fix" to what nature gave us? Our jury may still be out, but nature's vote is in. No. Now go and live within your means. If only we knew what that meant.
Good points, Dr. Runte. Colorado water allocations were set many years ago and Utah's beef is that they have never been able to use the state's entire allocation. Bummer! All that left over water is "just being wasted."
Complaining is great, but it really doesn't solve anything.
Here are some real world potential solutions:
- banning lawns from the west/southwest. They look pretty but really don't belong in our climate and suck up a ton of water
- rework California water rights. System was devised 100 years ago when there were maybe 2-3 million people living in CA. Let's sell the water to the highest bidders and it'll be used more rationally.