Scientists at Arizona State University examined more than two decades of satellite measurements and found that since 2003 the quantity of groundwater depleted in the Colorado River Basin is comparable to the total capacity of Lake Mead, the nation’s largest reservoir.
The researchers estimated that pumping from wells has drained about 34 cubic kilometers, or 28 million acre-feet, of groundwater in the watershed since 2003 — more than twice the amount of water that has been depleted from the river’s reservoirs during that time.
...
The scientists found especially rapid groundwater losses in parts of northwestern and southeastern Arizona where large farms irrigate thirsty crops such as alfalfa, which is used to feed cattle locally and is also exported to countries such as China and Saudi Arabia.
These areas rely heavily on groundwater and largely have no access to water diverted from the Colorado River.
Christ. All ameliorative measures have faced opposition and died in the legislature. It seems like we just can't ever think even 2 steps ahead. If the folks who own and work the land don't want to...
Christ. All ameliorative measures have faced opposition and died in the legislature.
It seems like we just can't ever think even 2 steps ahead. If the folks who own and work the land don't want to fix the problem, then I'm not really sure what more can be done.
Thinking two steps ahead means doing with less right now. The people extracting every bit of value right now at a cost to the future are doing so knowingly.
Thinking two steps ahead means doing with less right now. The people extracting every bit of value right now at a cost to the future are doing so knowingly.
I just watched a documentary on Nebula about the Colorado River and this very issue. The farmers come off very entitled in it, "well this is our easy of life and my great great Grandpappy got...
I just watched a documentary on Nebula about the Colorado River and this very issue. The farmers come off very entitled in it, "well this is our easy of life and my great great Grandpappy got screwed over in a deal to take less water 100 years ago." I'm being flippant, but the farmers all came off as mistrusting of any deal and unwilling to negotiate on any thing at all.
I grant that it's their livelihood, but things change and the original estimates for how much the Colorado River flowed were inaccurate and need to be relitigated, but I guess they'd rather everything dry up in a few decades time than have to change how they do things now.
Who does want to fix the problem? Or to rephrase, whose problem is this? Who does a lack of water actually hurt? (Non-rhetorical question) While LA needs water, they need maybe 10% of the water,...
don't want to fix the problem
Who does want to fix the problem? Or to rephrase, whose problem is this? Who does a lack of water actually hurt? (Non-rhetorical question)
While LA needs water, they need maybe 10% of the water, and at the end of the day, they have desal plants.
If the farmers lose water, their business collapses and the problem there sort of solves itself.
If the environment loses water, the whole place could desertify and that would be a tragedy, but it'd be a tragedy either equally for everyone, or particularly a tragedy for the rural farms that are now desert farms.
Groundwater depletion can cause land subsidence and thus damage property and biodiversity; desertification would obviously hurt farmers but also any communities downstream who rely on it too. It...
Who does a lack of water actually hurt?
Groundwater depletion can cause land subsidence and thus damage property and biodiversity; desertification would obviously hurt farmers but also any communities downstream who rely on it too. It also increases the risk of flooding, as parched ground is not good at absorbing water, so it runs off (causing further damage as soil erosion).
Not mentioned in the article from what I saw, but natural groundwater replenishment is incredibly slow. As in, multiple thousands of years. So continuing ignoring the problem will leave the area scarred for tens, if not hundreds, of generations.
There are some successful man-made aquifer replenishment projects in other parts of the world, but you still need to ensure the replenishment is greater than the extraction.
It seems wild to me to farm low-value fodder crops in a climate where even alfalfa needs irrigation. I live in a hot Mediterranean climate in Australia where we commonly go months without rain,...
It seems wild to me to farm low-value fodder crops in a climate where even alfalfa needs irrigation. I live in a hot Mediterranean climate in Australia where we commonly go months without rain, and our alfalfa (locally known as lucerne) has to make do with whatever nature gives it. I've never seen a farmer here irrigate a hay crop of any type; if hay needs more than the barest minimum of care, it's not worth growing.
From the article:
...
Christ. All ameliorative measures have faced opposition and died in the legislature.
It seems like we just can't ever think even 2 steps ahead. If the folks who own and work the land don't want to fix the problem, then I'm not really sure what more can be done.
Thinking two steps ahead means doing with less right now. The people extracting every bit of value right now at a cost to the future are doing so knowingly.
Yep, that sounds about right. Drill a baby drill!
I just watched a documentary on Nebula about the Colorado River and this very issue. The farmers come off very entitled in it, "well this is our easy of life and my great great Grandpappy got screwed over in a deal to take less water 100 years ago." I'm being flippant, but the farmers all came off as mistrusting of any deal and unwilling to negotiate on any thing at all.
I grant that it's their livelihood, but things change and the original estimates for how much the Colorado River flowed were inaccurate and need to be relitigated, but I guess they'd rather everything dry up in a few decades time than have to change how they do things now.
Edit: Link to the documentary
Who does want to fix the problem? Or to rephrase, whose problem is this? Who does a lack of water actually hurt? (Non-rhetorical question)
While LA needs water, they need maybe 10% of the water, and at the end of the day, they have desal plants.
If the farmers lose water, their business collapses and the problem there sort of solves itself.
If the environment loses water, the whole place could desertify and that would be a tragedy, but it'd be a tragedy either equally for everyone, or particularly a tragedy for the rural farms that are now desert farms.
Groundwater depletion can cause land subsidence and thus damage property and biodiversity; desertification would obviously hurt farmers but also any communities downstream who rely on it too. It also increases the risk of flooding, as parched ground is not good at absorbing water, so it runs off (causing further damage as soil erosion).
Not mentioned in the article from what I saw, but natural groundwater replenishment is incredibly slow. As in, multiple thousands of years. So continuing ignoring the problem will leave the area scarred for tens, if not hundreds, of generations.
There are some successful man-made aquifer replenishment projects in other parts of the world, but you still need to ensure the replenishment is greater than the extraction.
It seems wild to me to farm low-value fodder crops in a climate where even alfalfa needs irrigation. I live in a hot Mediterranean climate in Australia where we commonly go months without rain, and our alfalfa (locally known as lucerne) has to make do with whatever nature gives it. I've never seen a farmer here irrigate a hay crop of any type; if hay needs more than the barest minimum of care, it's not worth growing.
Mirror: https://archive.is/dZxZR