PDA

View Full Version : Lake Mead: Drought Alert



Uplink
04-20-2003, 10:12 PM
This was in todays LA times, I hope things get better: :(
-----------------
Poor Snowpack Bodes Ill for Drought-Stricken Las Vegas Area
From Associated Press
April 20, 2003
LAS VEGAS -- Lake Mead's water level probably will slip to drought alert status by the end of the year and could create an emergency water shortage by 2005, according to a Southern Nevada Water Authority official.
Deputy Chief Kay Brothers told board members that the snowpack on the western slopes of the Rocky Mountains isn't deep enough to end the worst drought in more than a century.
Lake Mead, fed by the Colorado River and the source of southern Nevada's drinking water, has dropped 60 feet in the last two years to its lowest level since 1972.
Much of the March snowstorm that dumped up to 7 feet of snow and paralyzed parts of Colorado missed the western slopes. Scientists expect the resulting runoff this year to be 62% of normal.
"We'll be in emergency in a year or two if we don't get normal or above runoff," Brothers said after the meeting.
A National Weather Service official said Friday that it will take a few years of improved snowpack conditions before the Colorado River system can recover.
"In order for us to get out of the drought, we're going to have to have substantial rains and snows in the western Rockies probably for three or four consecutive years," said Kim Runk, a meteorologist for the National Weather Service.
About 8.2 million acre-feet of water will flow this year into Lake Mead, while 9.5 million acre-feet will be released to meet water demands downstream, Brothers said.
The difference of more than 1 million acre-feet will put the lake's surface elevation at or below the 1,145-foot mark, which would trigger a drought alert.
An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, or enough water to meet the needs of an average family of five for a year.
The lake would have to drop an additional 20 feet, to the 1,125-foot mark, to create a drought emergency.
With Lake Mead's surface currently at 1,151 feet and the reservoir at 64% of its capacity, the Las Vegas area is already under drought-watch conditions.
Under a plan adopted by the Southern Nevada Water Authority, golf courses will soon be restricted from using more than 7 acre-feet of water a year. If Las Vegas moves into a drought alert, it will force courses to cut annual use to 5.7 acre-feet.
The plan also calls for more of existing restrictions on daytime lawn watering from May through August.
LA Times story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-water20apr20,1,4840783.story)
LA Times Print version (http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la%2Dna%2Dwater20apr20&section=/printstory)

LVjetboy
04-21-2003, 01:16 AM
Pat Mulroy, head of Southern Nevada Water Authority, "we have enough water to continue our present growth until 2010." Ya right. 5000 per month moving to Las Vegas. A desert BTW. She also trumpeted the new river pact that allowed California to continue to overdraw...saying it was a good thing for all states. Ya right.
Has anyone seen the stupid water conservation commercials on local LV channels? Little kids saying, "Please save some for us!"
We now have water cops searching neighborhoods for water violators...broken sprinkler heads....ticketing people.
Meanwhile, developers get approval for 50,000 more homes and more golf courses on the west side. Meanwhile, a developer is sueing city commisioners to put higher density housing near Red Rock canyon...
I wonder how much water 50,000 more homes will consume even with no leaky faucets? They should do the math.
Meanwhile, lobbyists for home builders successfully deflect all efforts to charge more to developers for water connection fees.
See a trend?
The real threat to the water supply...out of control growth...is not addressed because the people in power have no backbone and money drives decisions...not common sense.
So instead, city officials spend our tax money on commercials to "educate" us on how to conserve water. When the truth is, our public "servants" need to be educated on how to stand up to developers and big money.
Conservation, at this point, will only fuel the developers argument that our water resources are plenty enough to support this rapid growth on into the future...and continue to line their pockets with profits.
jer

LVjetboy
04-22-2003, 01:49 AM
Spooky how a post can just disappear...

Sleek-Jet
04-22-2003, 04:58 AM
Much of the March snowstorm that dumped up to 7 feet of snow and paralyzed parts of Colorado missed the western slopes. Scientists expect the resulting runoff this year to be 62% of normal.
[/QB]I don't know which expert they are talking to, but here in Southwestern Colorado the snowpack is at about 86%. Not alot compared to years past, but at this time last year we were at 10% snowpack.
Oh wait, now I'm an expert. Talk to me, I'll giva ya quote!!

THOR
04-22-2003, 05:52 AM
Is the snow pack on the eastern side of the Rockies?
Does this make a difference?

Sleek-Jet
04-22-2003, 05:59 AM
THOR:
Is the snow pack on the eastern side of the Rockies?
Does this make a difference? Yep, all the snow on the Eastern slope flows twords the mid-west. That big storm last month dumped most of it's snow on the Eastern slope. Not all the snow falls on the Eastern slope though. It just depend on which side of the continental divide it falls on as to where it goes.
However, the Western slope has recieved a pretty good amount of moisture this winter. Like I said before, not as much as we need, but alot more then we had last year.
BTW, it rained here almost all last night. :cool:
[ April 22, 2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: Sleek-Jet ]

LVjetboy
04-22-2003, 11:26 PM
But I'm thinking, drought over by luck of the draw or not, the real point is...are we looking to the future? Or are we just gonna let those in authority continue to rubber stamp expansion projects stretching resources to the breaking point? All because they cater to developers and big money interests?
That's f*ked up.
jer

Sleek-Jet
04-23-2003, 06:06 AM
LVjetboy:
But I'm thinking, drought over by luck of the draw or not, the real point is...are we looking to the future? Or are we just gonna let those in authority continue to rubber stamp expansion projects stretching resources to the breaking point? All because they cater to developers and big money interests?
That's f*ked up.
jer Make no mistake, the drought is not over, sorry if I gave that impression. I think I've heard that it will take 3 to 5 more years of average moisture to get things back to normal. As of now we have had 1 average winter, almost.
Any city planner or comissioner who believes that it (the drought) is over and starts OKing projects because of it is a dumb-ass.

LVjetboy
04-26-2003, 12:50 AM
No problem Sleek-Jet,
I think the weight of the issue is above the heads of the city planners, although they also contribute to the problem at their level. There's tough decisions that need to be made now at all levels of government including the state level, but aren't addressed. Aren't addressed because the state legislature caves to developers just like local governments do. No backbone to do the right thing.
And since more than one western state consumes river water, this issue spans state lines. The solution more complex. It's a huge problem, one that won't go away, but one that people at all levels of authority and in several different states are truly avoiding. That because of politics and money. All the while claiming they're addressing this issue by promoting water conservation "education" A nice term for indoctrinating the public with misinformation.
Again on TV today I heard more infomercials about how we should conserve for our children's sake, "Mommy, I'm thirsty" The 6pm news claimed the water district was cracking down on water wasters, with more ticketing and by offering incentives for people to dig up their lawns.
My question is simple, "If I conserve water and dig up my lawn, will city planners limit developement to conserve water?" NO. Why should they? If we all do a really good job of saving water, then developers pushing those 50,000 more homes will have the water usage numbers they need to convince city officials there's plenty water for more development. Development at 5,000 more homes a month until the year 2010 no doubt. Until even a mild draught will tax resources to the breaking point. If we all do a really good job of saving water, home builder political action committees in Carson City will have the water usage numbers they need to once again convince the legislature that high water connection fees are not needed. Or good for the business. After all, they'll argue, you don't want to limit growth and tax revenue do you? Big money wins again over common sense.
So money and political pressure drives water decisions, to the eventual loss of all. They will not limit development until it's too late. In the light of how government decisions are made, conservation now only makes a serious water shortage become critical in the years to come.
Unfortunately, the best thing for all may be a continuation of the drought, and a "wake up" call for those in positions of authority to make a true difference.
jer
[ April 26, 2003, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: LVjetboy ]