The Worlds Endangered Lakes

[YMC]

PROJECT GREEN
*Running Dry*

Climate research says Lake Mead, in the Southwest, could be gone by 2021. How millions in southern California and neighboring states would be affected.




Image: http://ndn.newsweek.com/media/79/lakes_slah.jpg (http://www.newsweek.com/id/110949)
*GALLERY*

* The World's Endangered Lakes (http://www.newsweek.com/id/110949) *

Climate change, increased demand, pollution and other hazards are threatening bodies of water around the globe. A look at lakes that are most at risk.

By Jamie Reno (http://services.newsweek.com/search.aspx?q=Author:%5E%22jamie%20reno%22$&sortDirection=descending&sortField=pubdatetime) | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Feb 14, 2008

*Related:*
* Tim Barnett (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Tim+Barnett)
* Colorado River (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Colorado+River)
* Lake Mead (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Lake+Mead)

You need not go to the Middle East, North Africa or Southeast Asia, where there are already reported water shortages, to understand the value and scarcity of the life-giving liquid. Just look in America's own back yard. The American Southwest has been in a protracted drought for nearly a decade, with sinking water levels in lakes and rivers and decreasing snowpack in the mountains. And now a prominent scientist from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, says that Lake Mead (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Lake+Mead), which supplies water to 22 million people throughout the region, could be bone dry in just 13 years.
It may sound like the plot of an apocalyptic sci-fi flick, but Tim Barnett (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Tim+Barnett), a research marine geophysicist and climate expert at Scripps, says there's a 50 percent chance that the manmade lake, a reservoir created by Hoover Dam located on the Colorado River (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Colorado+River) 30 miles southeast of Las Vegas, will be dry by 2021, or even sooner if climate changes continue as expected and water use is not curtailed.
Barnett, lead author of a paper titled "When Will Lake Mead Go Dry (http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/02-08LakeMead.asp)"which will appear in the peer-reviewed journal Water Resources Research, published by the American Geophysical Union, says human demand and human-induced climate change are creating a net deficit of nearly 1 million acre-feet of water per year from the Colorado River system, which includes Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Barnett talked to NEWSWEEK's Jamie Reno about the Lake Mead study, what it means for the Southwest, and what—if anything—can be done to save the lake. Excerpts:

*NEWSWEEK: When and why did you begin the Lake Mead study?*
*Tim Barnett:* We started in earnest at the beginning of last summer. It was a curiosity-driven project. I just wanted to find out if things were this bad, and we quickly concluded that they are … We were stunned at the magnitude of the problem and how fast it was moving. It's not a scientific abstraction. This will impact every person living in the Southwest.
*How were you actually able to determine that the lake could run dry by 2021?
*Our analysis of Federal Bureau of Reclamation (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Bureau+of+Reclamation) records of past water demand and calculations of scheduled water allocations and climate conditions indicate that the system could run dry, even if mitigation measures are implemented. We started from the level it is today. We know how much water is coming in and how much will go out, to the farmers, to the cities, etc. We also know the rate of transfer to Mexico: 1.5 million acre-feet per year. The final thing we added, which the Bureau of Reclamation does not add in, were evaporation and infiltration into the soil, which is 1.7 million acre-feet per year. We added up all these numbers and put in the prorated amount from climate change, and found we had a negative number. We were stunned.
*The Lake Mead/Lake Powell system is a source of water for millions of people throughout the Southwest. How many people would be directly affected if Lake Mead ran dry?*
Thirty million people, or more. Everyone in Southern California, everyone in the entire region would be affected.
* 1
* 2 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/110958/page/2)
* 3 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/110958/page/3)
* Next Page » (http://www.newsweek.com/id/110958/page/2)



More... (http://lincolnparkforums.com/showthread.php?t=15881&goto=newpost)

[Cherub]

I think people choose to simply think things aren't as bad as they hear

From the looks of it things are going to go from bad to really bad quickly

[LPTaxpayer]

But, at the same time, I do not think it is "right" to move water from one area to another. There has to be a focus on purifying the salt-water of the oceans.

True, it's going to get worse rather quickly. But, this should not give rise to "take" fresh water from one area and "give" to another area. Making all areas bad is not the solution.

[Harrison]

LPTaxpayer,

I agree wholeheartedly! Our fresh water in our Great Lakes is our biggest natural resource and we are giving it away at an alarming rate! If this continues, our fishing and hunting industry (touristry) will cease to exist.

[Scotto]

LPTaxpayer,

I agree wholeheartedly! Our fresh water in our Great Lakes is our biggest natural resource and we are giving it away at an alarming rate! If this continues, our fishing and hunting industry (touristry) will cease to exist.
Also keep in mind that the Great Lakes are used as transportation corridor for shipping and any lowering of the water level equals less cargo for all ships.

http://www.great-lakes.net/teach/business/ship/ship_1.html
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/10/26/lakes-water.html?ref=rss

[EMUJeff]

One advantage is the Great Lake Alliance of US States and Ontario who boarder the great lakes. They all have to agree to allowing water resources be taken before any one of them can do so. This makes since as all of their interests is in the same bodies of water that are all affected by each other.
A lot of the level issues have been caused by increased use by those living right here. New community developments cause greater land, and therefore, water use. Additionally, inland water use decreases the aquafers that used to feed or be fed by the lakes.
Some of the decrease also has come from the dry summers we have had over 4 of the last 5 years. This winter should bring relief for this year, barring a really dry spring. As of February 10th we were over 1.5 inches above average in rain and 4.5 inches above average in snow.
Little of this water disapearance comes directly from water being sent to Arizona or places like that at this time.
I do wonder, with the economic issues we are having in this state, how long it will be before we get a financial offer some feel we can't refuse?
EMUJeff

[Harrison]

Before Michigan and Canada decides to sell their souls on an offer they think they cannot refuse, they had better think about the fact that we cannot live without fresh water.

[Scotto]

Before Michigan and Canada decides to sell their souls on an offer they think they cannot refuse, they had better think about the fact that we cannot live without fresh water.
I can tell you that it would be political suicide for any Ontario government to allow bulk export of water from the Great Lakes, once this happens the door will open and it won't be legally able to close.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/water/

[greenrenovator]

Great Lakes Citizens Health Report Blocked by Feds



For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.


Researchers found low birth weights, elevated rates of infant mortality and premature births, and elevated death rates from breast cancer, colon cancer, and lung cancer.


The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study......


Thanks to Sheila Kaplan and the Center for Public Integrity, the report is now online. It is in your best interest to start reading it now. (http://www.publicintegrity.org/GreatLakes/index.htm)

[LPTaxpayer]

I do wonder, with the economic issues we are having in this state, how long it will be before we get a financial offer some feel we can't refuse?
EMUJeff

EMUJeff - I hope we don't do this! If we do, those of us left in the area will suffer. There are the oceans. Increase the process to take the salt out of the water.

AND, LEAVE OUR WATER ALONE!

[Harrison]

Agreed, LPT!

[greenrenovator]

Got this off the wire this morning, I just hope that something good comes out of it,sinceThe Great Lakes hold one-fifth of the world*s freshwater supply and currently provide drinking water to over 42 million people. Yet each day, our Lakes are damaged economically and ecologically by untreated sewage, toxic pollution, and invasive species. Michigan is the heart of the Great Lakes, and as residents of this great state it is our responsibility to protect our water resources.

Great Lakes agenda at the federal level (http://www.michiganliberal.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=51324EDC4F334D482EF6755A7206DFB9?diaryId=11500)

by: Eric B. (http://www.michiganliberal.com/userDiary.do;jsessionid=51324EDC4F334D482EF6755A7206DFB9?personId=1738)

Sat Feb 23, 2008 at 12:33:33 PM EST


I understand that if you go looking for John Cherry next week in Lansing, you won't be able to find him. That's because, as chairman (http://www.glc.org/about/) of the Great Lakes Commission (http://www.glc.org/), he'll be in Washington promoting the Great Lakes legislative priorities for 2008 (http://www.glc.org/restore/pdf/leg-priorities2008.pdf) around and on Great Lakes Day, which is Wednesday.
Every year is important in building a sound federal policy towards the Great Lakes. I realize that there are lots of folks who don't want the feds involved, but as interstate and international bodies of water, there's no getting around the federal role. And, because the lakes themselves play such an important role in daily life here in Michigan (from commerce to tourism to even influencing the weather), it's important that federal policy be based on protecting and restoring and not regarding them as a resource to be squandered for short-term gain.
The biggest Great Lakes fight this year might be over getting Congress to sign off on the Great Lakes Compact (that is, might, if the various state legislatures get their acts together and present it to Congress before the elections, it could be that both parties see it in their interests to not antagonize the electoral vote heavy Rust Belt and let the thing squeak through).
The actual legislative initiatives are fairly comprehensive and built around a solid understanding of how things that take place even far inland impact the lakes themselves. For instance, the legislative priorities call for money for buffer strips for inland farms (a buffer strip is a strip of vegetation -- usually trees -- between farm fields and streams meant to prevent fertlizer and pesticides from running off fields and into inland waters ... the failure to do so is believe to be a cause of the Dead Zone at the mouth of the Mississippi, and which has seriously damaged Gulf Coast fisheries).
It involves appropriating money for electronic barriers to (hopefully) prevent the spread of Asian carp into the lake system. You might remember this from last year, when Smirky vetoed the reauthorization of the Water Resources Development Act on the grounds that it spent too much money, when it only authorized Congress to appropriate money for the projects at a later date and spent exactly zero (0) dollars on its own. The veto was overridden.
And, of course, one of the other priorities is federal legislation prohibiting ocean-going freighters from dumping ballast water full of non-native critters into the lakes. Although you can credit the state Legislature for taking a leadership role on this issue last year, movement at the federal level has been stalled, naturally, by the shipping lobby, which doesn't like the idea of being told that it can't dump ballast water laden with non-native species wherever it damn well feels like it.