Water supply is endless

Use indiscriminately

More people need to live where it rains.

Wait, I thought they were sapping our precious bodily fluids.

Well, they can cut back and conserve, or bleed their natural resources further.

I'm sure the latter will end badly with damage that would be called irreparable if requiring years of hands-off to allow nature to correct, while the former is an inconvenience.

Oligarhs, subby. Get it right.

It's spelled LIMOZEEN Liberals, subby.

This is just California ?

Pffft.... let them drink cake

Liberals are funny.

privatization is still being championed by the right even with this?

Larger wars over resources are coming, and he who has the oil has the water.

Quick, move to Las Vegas!

meat0918: Larger wars over resources are coming, and he who has the oil has the water.

"War...War never changes."

I don't think there's a "c" on oligarchs.

Nemo's Brother: Liberals are funny.

That's actually true, I've yet to find a conservative that actually has a functioning sense of humor. The last one I remember was some guy who used to do cover songs in Bill Clinton's voice back in the mid to late-90's- wish I could remember his name- he did some hilarious songs I still hum from time to time.

Article's slant a) makes it difficult to read b) makes it nearly impossible to digest and c) undermines any sort of argument he's trying to make or "scam" he's trying to expose. Which is too bad, because the issue seems fairly important.

3/10. Give it another shot, old boy.

/But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
//You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow

Next thing you know they'll be sap....

Pants full of macaroni!!: Wait, I thought they were sapping our precious bodily fluids.


/shakes fist in tiny rage

This man has experience dealing with evil water barons. Send him in, the problem will get solved.

/gun's based on the Mateba, a real gun that fires from the bottom of the cylinder
//don't ask what's in the thick part of the barrel

/Oblig

I'm only half way done and this is the best article I've read all month. It shows, from A to Z, exactly how "free market capitalism" is a lie that allows the bourgeoisie to destroy the environment and democracy for their own personal profit. They manipulate us completely without shame or mercy, and the only way to realize it is to pay attention, so they make war upon the very idea of real information.

This is just one example, but it parallels many other privatization-for-profit schemes both in the US and the world- as exemplified in a similar water-theft scheme in Alabama, or for an introduction to IMF and World Bank pillaging, read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (wiki article on book). Chomsky is by far the most thorough, straightforward, and uncompromising writer on the topic, but one might read Market Democracy in a Neoliberal Order: Doctrines and Reality (complete text) or anything else he's ever written, especially regarding the "engineering of consent" for our molestation by the ruling class.

humanshrapnel: /Oblig

Ever see a commie drink a glass of water?

You know who else drank water?

I'm just here for the grain alcohol and rain water.

Harold_of_the_Rocks: humanshrapnel: /Oblig

Ever see a commie drink a glass of water?

Well I can't say that I have, but I do realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face. Evar.

RanDomino: I'm only half way done and this is the best article I've read all month.

It is not bad, although is is off-base in a few areas and tends to ignore some valid technologies avaliable and dimishes some very valid issues associated with water in the west.

The fact that the state should maintain over-arching jurisdiction over all water rights is the biggest issue here and this article does a pretty good job at exposing the problems that you get by giving up this right.

While I feel that you are not correct when you contend that 'free market capitalism' is a lie, it does need to be tempered in many circumstances. This is a good example why.

humanshrapnel: but I do realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face. Evar.

Damn, I should have know that I needed to purchased some tin-foil futures before venturing into this thread!

_{Or maybe some AA batteries for my scarcasm meter?}

California is a glaring example of rampant & unfettered capitalism run amok.

/Maybe "capitalist" like Russia... where you need to be friends with the right people, and then you become an oligarch & a winner is you.

Not a single liberal I know uses a limo. Ever.

And it's spelled "oligarh". Don't you know anything people?

HeadLever: humanshrapnel: but I do realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face. Evar.

Damn, I should have know that I needed to purchased some tin-foil futures before venturing into this thread!

Or maybe some AA batteries for my scarcasm meter?

I think you could just Netflix "Dr. Strangelove" and you'd be ok.

I believe the battle for water in the US is just beginning. If current rate of continental US glacial melt continues, it'll become a major issue for Gen Y. Glacier National Park likely won't have any more glaciers by 2020 (new window)- the rate of melt glaciers in the Cascades (new window) and the Sierra (new window)are steadily increasing. Similar, rapid melt is happening both in the Himalayas (new window) Alps (new window).

Once the glaciers are gone, much of the US (and the World) is royally farked. Say goodbye to 10% of the nation's electrical generation, a large percentage of the US's fruit and crop production, let alone drinking water for tens of millions. And I'm sure we'll see politicians blaming each other for it and people crying to reporters "help us, help us."

I agree with the basic premise of the article, but I find when an author uses this style of hyperbolic, amateurish, and obviously opinionated writing it mostly undermines the point. I know it's their thing for this website, but I still find it annoying. I'd like to see how the New Yorker would handle a complicated story like this (yes, liberal rag blah blah...)

MrSteve007: Once the glaciers are gone, much of the US (and the World) is royally farked. Say goodbye to 10% of the nation's electrical generation, a large percentage of the US's fruit and crop production, let alone drinking water for tens of millions. And I'm sure we'll see politicians blaming each other for it and people crying to reporters "help us, help us."

Are you seriously stating that Glaciers provide 10% of the water in the continental US? I am going to have to thow a flag on that statement.

Glaciers in the lower 48 consiste of about 2 cubic miles of water.

Take the state of Colorado for example. It averages about 15 inches of precipitation per year (and this number is likely low). The area of the state is 104,100 square miles. That means that the total precipitation for the state is [15/(12*5280)]*104100 = 24.6 cubic miles of water per year. This calculation shows that just the state of Colorado gets more than 12 times more precipitation per year than is found in all of the glaciers located in the lower 48.

Nemo's Brother: Liberals are funny.

We are.

Conservatives are not.

Remember that the next time you attempt humor.

PC LOAD LETTER: Not a single liberal I know uses a limo. Ever.

Sometimes I take a "limo" (really a Lincoln Town Car, but whatever) to the airport. It's worth the hassle. But I fly maybe once a year.

Saborlas: This man has experience dealing with evil water barons. Send him in, the problem will get solved.

/gun's based on the Mateba, a real gun that fires from the bottom of the cylinder
//don't ask what's in the thick part of the barrel

I thought the Mateba was in Ghost in the Shell, not Trigun. Either way, I can't find one for sale since they stopped making them a few years ago.

dFunk: I agree with the basic premise of the article, but I find when an author uses this style of hyperbolic, amateurish, and obviously opinionated writing it mostly undermines the point. I know it's their thing for this website, but I still find it annoying. I'd like to see how the New Yorker would handle a complicated story like this (yes, liberal rag blah blah...)

I agree, she could've toned it down and still gotten the story across, which in itself is very interesting and maddening.

I sent this article to my mom and uncle, who are avid Hannity watchers, and were ragging on this issue from that POV. I'm sure my mom will stop reading when she sees "second-rate FOX news anchor Sean Hannity". That will be the end of that for her, since the article is obviously written by a treehugger.

Otherwise it would've been a great article. Instead it's only so-so.

Lando Lincoln: PC LOAD LETTER: Not a single liberal I know uses a limo. Ever.

Sometimes I take a "limo" (really a Lincoln Town Car, but whatever) to the airport. It's worth the hassle. But I fly maybe once a year.

They even call airport vans "limos" these days, pathetically enough.

HeadLever: "Are you seriously stating that Glaciers provide 10% of the water in the continental US? I am going to have to thow a flag on that statement. Glaciers in the lower 48 consiste of about 2 cubic miles of water. Take the state of Colorado for example. It averages about 15 inches of precipitation per year (and this number is likely low). The area of the state is 104,100 square miles. That means that the total precipitation for the state is [15/(12*5280)]*104100 = 24.6 cubic miles of water per year. This calculation shows that just the state of Colorado gets more than 12 times more precipitation per year than is found in all of the glaciers located in the lower 48."

You low-balled it. Average precip is about 15"/year along the Front Range, but it is slightly higher the further east you go across the plains. In the mountains, precipitation is much higher, ranging from 24"/year at about 8,000' and higher as you get into higher terrain. In the desert basins in the western part of the state, percipitation is quite a bit lower than the Front Range. You need to bump your numbers up quite a bit.

To give you an idea of how much precip falls in Colorado (mostly as snow in the higher terrain), 85% of the flow of the Colorado River originates in Colorado and Wyoming. Average flow is about 13.5 maf, meaning CO & WY contribute about 11.5 million acre feet/year (average). And that's just the Colorado. That's not counting the South Platte, Rio Grande, and Arkansas drainages (Atlantic slope).

And no, the loss of the few small glaciers in Colorado would not dramatically affect overall precip and runoff.

There's this thing called "the ocean" that's full of water, and these processes called "evaporation" and "condensation" that can be used to convert salty seawater into potable fresh water.

Came for General Ripper reference, leaving satisfied.

Approves

canyoneer: You low-balled it.

Yeah, I was afraid of that, but I thought that I would go conservative, rather than be accused of fudging the numbers.

Also, if you want an excellent link to snowpack info, see this link:
NOAA's NOHRSC (new window, thought that you may be interested)

Also approves.

HeadLever: "Yeah, I was afraid of that, but I thought that I would go conservative, rather than be accused of fudging the numbers. Also, if you want an excellent link to snowpack info, see this link:
NOAA's NOHRSC (new window, thought that you may be interested)"

Cool. Thanks. The last three years have brought Big Snow to Colorado. 2007-2008 was epic.

And BTW, Colorado's glacier's and snowfields are stable. (new window)

FYI guys before you even think about it.




But if you want to move to Michigan you can have all the water you want, and it's farking dirt cheep.



(Please move to Michigan, bring jobs).

detfrost1: FYI guys before you even think about it.

But if you want to move to Michigan you can have all the water you want, and it's farking dirt cheep.



(Please move to Michigan, bring jobs).

Moving to Michigan vs. Dying of thirst......man, tough call.

detfrost1: FYI guys before you even think about it...But if you want to move to Michigan you can have all the water you want, and it's farking dirt cheep."

Don't worry about it.

We calculated that the energy required to lift one-acre foot of water (325,851 gallons) one foot is 2,719,226 ft-lbs. What is the energy in kilowatt-hour? Calculated as follows: 1) Kilowatt-hour = 2,719,226 ft-lbs/2,655,220 ft-lbs per kWh = 1.02 kWh. Note that this energy requirement assumes 100% efficiency in the pumping plant. (new window)

A heater, rated at 1000 watts (1 kilowatt), operating for one hour uses one kilowatt hour (equivalent to 3600 kilojoules) of energy. (new window)

Moving any significant quantity of water west from the Great Lakes and over the Continental Divide (west ~ 1,000 miles and up ~ 10,000') would require dozens of dedicated powerplants. It will never happen. It would make more sense to desalinate.

The article lays out how deregulation and privatization of public resources equals people being screwed over.

Happened here in Maryland with our energy, and I cannot wait *sarcasm* for the crap to hit the fan when our ancient water pipes finally give up the ghost; and the resultant water shortages due to repairs cause serious issues locally during a heatwave.

Realistically multiple mains would have to fail within days of each other. But it could happen considering how little money they have spent on upgrading infrastructure here and elsewhere.

canyoneer: detfrost1: FYI guys before you even think about it...But if you want to move to Michigan you can have all the water you want, and it's farking dirt cheep."

Don't worry about it.

We calculated that the energy required to lift one-acre foot of water (325,851 gallons) one foot is 2,719,226 ft-lbs. What is the energy in kilowatt-hour? Calculated as follows: 1) Kilowatt-hour = 2,719,226 ft-lbs/2,655,220 ft-lbs per kWh = 1.02 kWh. Note that this energy requirement assumes 100% efficiency in the pumping plant. (new window)

A heater, rated at 1000 watts (1 kilowatt), operating for one hour uses one kilowatt hour (equivalent to 3600 kilojoules) of energy. (new window)

Moving any significant quantity of water west from the Great Lakes and over the Continental Divide (west ~ 1,000 miles and up ~ 10,000') would require dozens of dedicated powerplants. It will never happen. It would make more sense to desalinate.

I said the same thing to classmates at the high school I attended in the Thumb when they brought the subject up in class. The response was "Nerd".

I've heard everything from they are draining Lake Michigan down the Mississippi River via a canal through Chicago, to the pipe from Phoenix to Lake Superior.

The closest thing they have is bottling plants shipping the water they bottle outside the Great Lakes watershed. A drop in the bucket really.

It reaches a peak around every 20 years for the area I grew up in around Saginaw Bay. The lake seems to cycle from a high to low point every 20 or so years, so at the low point people flipped out.

//I know, cool story.

HeadLever: Are you seriously stating that Glaciers provide 10% of the water in the continental US? I am going to have to thow a flag on that statement.

Glaciers in the lower 48 consiste of about 2 cubic miles of wate

I didn't say 10% of the US's water comes from glaciers - I said ~10% of the nation's electrical generation. Most of the US's hydro power are Pacific Northwest based, these are greatly reliant on glacial melt. Especially now that the US forest service has shown that increasing precipitation in the form of rain doesn't necessarily mean more river water runoff.

Link (new window)

"In British Columbia, Canada, hydropower accounts for approximately 90% of the electricity. In dry years glacier runoff constitutes most of later summer inflows to several large reservoirs. In the Columbia River Basin 10-20% of annual flow and 50% of summer flow are from glaciers."

Link (new window)