[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by Gerania

It'll be about 60 degrees and raining when you get there. Woo-hoo!

We just missed the remnants of Ian. From quite a ways off we could see unusual clouds in a spiral formation. Asking new neighbors about it they told us about 3 inches of rain.

[Tek_Freek]

Originally Posted by timothyaw

Good luck and I'm happy for you.

Thank you. It's a big change.

[BBMW]

Just saw this. It seems appropriate.

[waltcolorado]

Moderator Note: This posting is copied from the MegaDrought thread in the Colorado forum as it also pertains to this thread.


We recently attended a talk on the Colorado river by Andy Mueller, Colorado River District General Manager.

One interesting thing I heard at the talk. I have lived in Colorado for almost 40 years now and its never clear if snowfall is increasing or decreasing. There are La Nina's, El Nino's, Pacific Decadal oscillations etc all affecting snow fall in the area. Its been all over the map the whole time I have been here.

However, average temperatures in the watershed region are clearly showing a measured increase and our region especially SW Colorado has experienced more warming than many areas of the US (likely due to the lower humidity of higher elevations so more impact from atmospheric green house gases).

The higher temperature creates dryer soil so more of melting snow is absorbed instead of ending up in a river. Higher temps (and more wind) cause more direct sublimation of snow. And higher temperatures cause more evaporation. To some extent, our snow pack is part of the water storage system and that storage becomes more leaky as temperatures increase.

Scientists have quantified how much of the watershed is lost as temperature increases https://blogs.edf.org/growingreturns...gical%20Survey.

Colorado River flows are highly sensitive to warming, and aridification caused by climate change is already reducing the water flowing in the river. With each additional 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming, the Colorado River’s average flow drops by 9.3%, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

This web page shows local warming in the US. Scroll down a ways for specific counties. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graph...hange-america/

The county I live in now (Ouray county) has actually seen a 2.3 C increase in average temperature between 1895 and 2018.

So even with normal ups and downs of snowfall, the river output is going to drop as temperature increases. The talk had so much info (mostly gloomy).. but I was at least happy this guy is involved in trying to make things somehow work out.

One thing that I guess will make some sort of dent in the problem is more water storage at higher elevations. Im guessing because of less evaporation.

[bayview6]

The Southwest is seeing a historic mega-drought and the Colorado River's flows have declined by 20% over the last century. Looking ahead, scientists predict that the river's flows could shrink by as much as 31% by 2050. We are feeling the effects of climate change today, in our own backyards.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by bayview6

The Southwest is seeing a historic mega-drought and the Colorado River's flows have declined by 20% over the last century. Looking ahead, scientists predict that the river's flows could shrink by as much as 31% by 2050. We are feeling the effects of climate change today, in our own backyards.

This does not mean what you think it means. 'As much as' means 'no more than'. The statement made by unknown scientists is consistent with a 31% decline or a 31% increase.

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

This does not mean what you think it means. 'As much as' means 'no more than'. The statement made by unknown scientists is consistent with a 31% decline or a 31% increase.

You are correct that we don’t know the range of estimates as to further reduction in river flow nor the median estimates. That is important information to have.

But as a basis for discussion, let’s assume that there will be an additional 15% reduction in Colorado River flow. What does that mean for California and Arizona?

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by bayview6

You are correct that we don’t know the range of estimates as to further reduction in river flow nor the median estimates. That is important information to have.

But as a basis for discussion, let’s assume that there will be an additional 15% reduction in Colorado River flow. What does that mean for California and Arizona?

Because of the way water rights are allocated, it will end up in Federal Court. Water rights are not allocated via any "fairness" doctrine or via an "best economic use" doctrine. They are allocated based on the seniority of those rights. They are allocated, in effect, by someone saying "I call Dibs on XXX acre-feet of water" and they called "Dibs" over a century ago. Water rights granted back in the 1800s are considered "senior to" water rights allocated merely a century ago. Those with senior water rights assert they are not required to take any form of a water "haircut" because there is enough water in the river to give them their allocation; if some entity has lower-seniority rights and doesn't get much water, so be it.

That's one reason California has been rather stubborn; for example, the Imperial Valley farmers only exist because of water from the Colorado River, and they have senior rights, and they are not going to give one inch, so they say.

The above is a simplification, of course. States Rights are a big deal. Treaties with Native American tribes and reservations are an issue. Treaty between the USA and Mexico is an issue. Entire Law School classes are dedicated to Water Rights in the West.

Earlier this year, when the US Bureau of Land Management made all sorts of threats to the States and the Tribes if they could not come to a voluntary agreement to cut 4 million acre-feet, it was a toothless threat. Those who hold senior rights because they called "Dibs" over a hundred years ago are in some ways playing chicken with the threat of Federal Intervention, and they know such intervention is a US Constitutional issue that ultimately would come before the US Supreme Court.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

Because of the way water rights are allocated, it will end up in Federal Court. Water rights are not allocated via any "fairness" doctrine or via an "best economic use" doctrine. They are allocated based on the seniority of those rights. They are allocated, in effect, by someone saying "I call Dibs on XXX acre-feet of water" and they called "Dibs" over a century ago. Water rights granted back in the 1800s are considered "senior to" water rights allocated merely a century ago. Those with senior water rights assert they are not required to take any form of a water "haircut" because there is enough water in the river to give them their allocation; if some entity has lower-seniority rights and doesn't get much water, so be it.

That's one reason California has been rather stubborn; for example, the Imperial Valley farmers only exist because of water from the Colorado River, and they have senior rights, and they are not going to give one inch, so they say.

The above is a simplification, of course. States Rights are a big deal. Treaties with Native American tribes and reservations are an issue. Treaty between the USA and Mexico is an issue. Entire Law School classes are dedicated to Water Rights in the West.

Earlier this year, when the US Bureau of Land Management made all sorts of threats to the States and the Tribes if they could not come to a voluntary agreement to cut 4 million acre-feet, it was a toothless threat. Those who hold senior rights because they called "Dibs" over a hundred years ago are in some ways playing chicken with the threat of Federal Intervention, and they know such intervention is a US Constitutional issue that ultimately would come before the US Supreme Court.

All of that is a good introduction to why water rights need to be completely redone, so we can do away with "my predecessors got here first, so too bad for you". Or, perhaps legislation that prevents water hungry crops from being irrigated with Colorado River water.

[bayview6]

Originally Posted by WRM20

All of that is a good introduction to why water rights need to be completely redone, so we can do away with "my predecessors got here first, so too bad for you". Or, perhaps legislation that prevents water hungry crops from being irrigated with Colorado River water.

This is a good summary of the “Law of the River.”
Seems to me the Colorado River water is totally under federal jurisdiction.

https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr.html