Okay, good people. Let's get back to basics. Whether or not the current drought is being exaccerbated by climate change, a prolonged drought in the Colorado Basin is not unusual. Now 41 years ago, the PBS film "Where Did the Colorado Go?" (NOVA) was predicting the crisis we have today. It's even on You Tube, I believe.
Yes Michael, as the report says, precipitation comes throughout the year.The last 15 years is just the real-life confirmation of what hydrologists have been projecting for years.Can you show me the study where the body of hydrologists 20 or more years ago predicted the current western drought?
EC,You wrote that the water is primarily from winter snows. The report clearly states that the water contributrion is equivalent through the four seasons. That is important as the non-winter precipitation isn't held for any considerable period, it just flows. Without resevoirs it flows on by.
EC,I do not see how your citation from Hereford, et al 2002 refutes what I wrote.I do stand corrected for carelessly citing the statement in the WRA report. The quote, as you accurately cited it, is bad enough that it does not need any embellishment.
beachdumb,All of those projections have so far been completely incorrect. Poor water management practices, environmental policies and low rainfall are the problem.Really? You left off the rest of my sentence: "due to the impacts of climate change, reduced Colorado River flow, and rising demand for water."
Scott, it's the old professor in me, and I apologize. These days, I wouldn't last a day in a university. Simply, when you called my lecture a rant, well, I reverted to type. All of my lectures come to a conclusion that makes sense. You simply have to put down the smart phone and listen! I love The Traveler because people listen, and yes, for the most part intelligently respond.
By all credible projections, there will never again be enough water to fill both Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoirs, due to the impacts of climate changeAll of those projections have so far been completely incorrect. Poor water management practices, environmental policies and low rainfall are the problem.
Right - pay $80 or die. What a red herring. Going to Mariners games at Safeco presented a green challenge. They did not allow hard sided refillable bottles [dangerous projectiles when thrown at an umpire, I guess] and the only water solution allowed was to bring in an empty 'disposable' bottle, fill it on the inside.
How about asking you to present some solid proof of the assertions you've made hereThe Highway Loss Data Institute info isn't "proof"? The fact that no insurance company has lowered rates after seatbelt laws were instituted isn't "proof'? but it could ....... that might
There are many factors playing into insurance rates. Primary ones are increased costs of health care and fancier cars that require more expensive repairs. However, the fact remains that states without mandatory safety belt or motorcycle helmet laws do have higher rates. It's certainly not attacking anything to point out that "facts" presented by dubious sources may not be valid. How about a
Lee, I know it is a favorite tactic of yours to attack the source when the facts turn against you but the reality is that insurance rates didn't go down with mandatory seatbelts and you can't provide any evience that banning the sale of water bottles in the National Parks will have any meaningful impact on the worlds consumption of plastic or would be any more effective in reducing waste in the
People who are capable of actual thought don't post links to propaganda from special interest groups.Now it's time to let the jury of fellow readers make their own decisions on whose points here are most valid.
I'd be remiss if I didn't take this opportunity to remind folks that we still have a few Traveler water bottles on hand! Order your's today!/2014/07/rehydrate-your-hike-national-parks-traveler-water-bottle25460
But people who are capable of actual thought realize that sometimes bans are needed to ensure the common welfare and safety of all of us.But many of them aren't needed either because they have no material effect (the NPS bottle ban), the desired results can be accomplished in other ways (bottle deposits) or the cost of the ban far exceeds the benefits.
But people who are capable of actual thought realize that sometimes bans are needed to ensure the common welfare and safety of all of us. As far as I am concerned banning bottled water sales and trying to at least regulate some other environmentally detrimental products such as plastic grocery bags falls into the same category of regulations and laws as banning the dumping of sewage into our
it's somehow an entirely different story.The difference isn't business versus "common people" the difference is expanding choice (freedom) versus restricting choice (freedom). The businesses aren't forcing you to live your life in a certain way. The "banners" are.
Funny. When businesses lobby the government for things they think will benefit them, it's okay with some folks.But when common people successfully lobby for changes such as banning bottled water sales, it's somehow an entirely different story.Hypocrisy, anyone?
You chose to recycle but then call it meaningless theater.No Rick, I didn't call recycling meaningless theater. I called banning bottled water in the National Parks meaningless theater. Sorry that was over your head.
Well, which is it Wall Street? You chose to recycle but then call it meaningless theater. You want credit for being a good guy but then deny that same to the people you don't like. Neat little world you live in, and only consistent internally to yourself.
I must agree Megaera, I support this decision by the the NPS. One more small step in educating us citizens to think about conserving resources, reducing waste, etc. I can remember that before bottled water, we all had canteens, both in the backcountry and on fires, it was and is an important piece of equipment. We still use reusable canteens (they are plastic now), in our fire packs.
There is no government ban on buying bottled water. Buy it anywhere you want. Just not in a national park. Or in any of the numerous stores that have decided not to sell it any more.Funny that people who yowl about "choice" want to prevent others of us who have urged our parks to stand firm on this decision from seeking to have our choices honored.
The news about national parks and their economic benefits is getting big press here in Utah. At least two TV channels have featured it on their nightly news and both big newspapers have run two articles each.But the best was the second one run by Deseret News. It's headline said,
If the majority of comments supported a fee, I would do a personal audit of those comments. The NPS has a way of spinning negative comments to make them positive if they are pushing an unpopular agenda.