HomeNewsSportsMoreWeatherAnnouncementsClassifiedsMy Trib.ComMy CityJobsHomesCars
Advanced Search
 

Holding on till the icebergs arrive


Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:
del.icio.usdiggNewsVine




trib.popular


PINEDALE -- Sometime this century, the three lower Colorado River basin compact states will start getting their water supplied by the planet's oceans.

California, Nevada and Arizona already have plans on the drawing board for more traditional methods of tapping into the ocean's vast water reserves to meet their ever-growing water needs, including the construction of desalination plants and pipelines.

Then there are the seemingly off-the-wall proposals to use giant tanker ships with huge water bladders to sweep across the ocean and drag water back to the West coast. Or using tankers to tow giant, insulation-wrapped icebergs from the Arctic to the coast.

Until that actually happens, though, the state can expect a lot of people will be eyeing the unused water in western Wyoming's Upper Green River Basin in order to quench those thirsty downstream states.

"Sooner or later, the lower basin will have to go to the ocean to get their water ... and those projects show how broadly we continue to think because water is so precious and important in the West," Wyoming State Engineer Pat Tyrrell said.

"Wyoming can't stand by ... we must preserve our developable (water) apportionment until that time," Tyrrell warned during a two-day conference this weekend on water management issues in the Green River Basin sponsored by the Stroock Forum on Wyoming Public Lands and People.

"If Wyoming, Colorado and Utah were to quit using water today ... even a full Colorado River will not satisfy the future needs of Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix and other cities," said Tyrrell.

"Our job is to keep what we have here, develop what we have here ... and fight them until its economically viable for them to go to the ocean," he said.

The Green River Basin is one of the last remaining areas of Wyoming that has water to develop and the land necessary to build additional dams and reservoirs. Wyoming also has water rights in the Green River that have not been exercised.

But other areas in Wyoming and other states such as Colorado also have their eyes on Green River Basin water.

In 2003, a proposal to move water from the Green River to the North Platte River by pipeline was resurrected and state officials conducted a feasibility study on the proposal.

And in 2006, Colorado entrepreneur Aaron Million proposed piping water from the Green River's Flaming Gorge Reservoir south of the city of Green River to the booming Colorado Front Range, and perhaps to a portion of eastern Wyoming as well.

The 400-mile long pipeline would cost between $2 and $3 billion and would supply enough water for up to 500,000 people a year, according to plans.

Lots of interest

Ben Bracken -- general manager for the Green River, Rock Springs, Sweetwater County Joint Powers Water board and its regional water system that serves around 40,000 customers in southwest Wyoming -- said there's an awful lot of interest in the Upper Green River Basin's water.

"The interest is not going away ... it's the joker in the deck when it comes to the demand on the (Green) river," Bracken told conference participants.

He told participants proposals such as Million's Flaming Gorge project clearly "shows that an excess of water (anywhere) in the West always garners a lot of attention," he said.

"When there's available water in the basin, there is always plenty of interest to develop it," said Bracken. "If we can't do it, there are always other people willing to try."

The Green River is the chief tributary of the Colorado River. The headwaters river begins out of Green River Lakes in northern Sublette County on the western side of the continental divide in the Wind River Mountain Range.

Powerful and wide, the scenic river flows south through the Upper Green River Valley into the Fontenelle Reservoir, then down to the Flaming Gorge Reservoir below the city of Green River in Sweetwater County. into Utah and through Canyonlands National Park, where it joins the Colorado.

Wyoming's consumptive use of Green River Basin water is limited by two Colorado River water compacts and a treaty with Mexico.

State water officials said there is approximately 16.5 million acre-feet of water in the Colorado River Basin allocated to the seven states in the compact, which includes Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, California and Colorado.

Under the compact, the three lower basin states are allocated 7.5 million-acre feet of water annually and under the treaty, Mexico is allocated 1.5 million acre-feet of water.

The remaining water -- which averages about 7.5 million acre-feet -- is allocated to the four upper basin states based on a percentage rate. Wyoming receives 14 percent of the remaining water each year for consumptive use, or approximately 1.1 million acre-feet on average years.

But storage in the Colorado River Basin has been generally declining since 1999, Tyrrell said. Lake Powell, for instance, is currently about 145 feet below the full level.

At the same time, there's been an "explosion" in population and use by the three downstream states, said Wyoming State Climatologist Stephen Gray.

"We've seen an incredible population growth in the lower (Colorado) basin, and that means more (water) taps to go around," he said.

"If we extend into the future and look at 50-year population estimates, there is a chance for an additional 10 million people or more to be living in those major cities like San Diego, Las Vegas and Phoenix," he said.

"In fact, Vegas alone could double in population," he said. "Imagine how that's going to put the pressure on a finite resource."

Gov. Dave Freudenthal said the notion that the lower states can take water from Wyoming to support their population explosion continues to be a problem for the state.

"It's perplexing situation ... the allocated water versus (where the most) use is or will be," he said. "The challenge is how do we protect the water we have against the interests of others in the region?"

Southwest Wyoming Bureau reporter Jeff Gearino can be reached at 307-875-5359 or at gearino@tribcsp.com.


Previous  
Wyo Dental Association promotes good oral hygiene  

Article Rating

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:

Reader Comments

There are 48 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Dewd wrote on Nov 17, 2008 8:32 AM:

" Required reading for anyone who wants to get their head around the problems of too little water in a too big ( and dry ) American West is Marc Reisner's 1986 " Cadillac Desert" , revised in 1993. He spelled it out over 20 years ago, and it still holds water today. Moreso given that global climate change has altered the playing field for the Southwest and southern California , and the glaciers and snowpack that feed the upper Green River with steady water are rapidly receding. That the city of Los Angeles owns water rights near Pinedale WY should be an eye opener. But they got those water rights in 1925. Now there's some real Californication for you ... "

Obvious Truth wrote on Nov 17, 2008 9:48 AM:

" The answer is to move to a zero growth model.

Each parent can be replaced by one child and our tax code must reward families with two or fewer children and punish those with three or more children.

Our thinking and our laws need to reflect today's realities. Currently neither reflects what is actually happening in America and for that matter globally.

Essentially we're out of water now. We have no sustainable extra capacity. This should indicate that more 10,000 unit subdivisions in California are a bad idea people.

We cannot keep growing our national and global population people in a country and on a planet that are not getting any bigger. Isn't that a no brainer? "

Vickers wrote on Nov 17, 2008 10:16 AM:

" This is and always has been an issue of supply and demand.

We cannot do much to increase the fresah water that the weather provides us.

But, we sure can do something about reducing human demand.

Let's not send more water to the southern basin states.

Instead, let's send them condoms and fencing materials for the boarder with Mexico. "

Czolgosz wrote on Nov 17, 2008 12:59 PM:

" Hey Obvious Truth,

After you. "

Winston wrote on Nov 17, 2008 1:03 PM:

" This cannot be solved by refiguring some formula of shuffling some bureaucrats statistics. Hard, long lasting decisions have to be made and people will have to give up some aspects of urban living forever.

It comes down to this; do we give up raising and growing our own food in this country and sacrifice wildlife for denser and denser urban living allowing unsustainable growth to continue?

We've over populated and over built and we do not seem to have the guts to face that or try and turn it around. "

Jamie wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:39 PM:

" Czolgosz, I like "Turth's" idea. Anyone may elect to have more than two children per family, they will just pay much higher taxes for those additional, surplus humans that they choose to bring into this world to compete for ever scarcer resources, like water...it is a great idea. "

Platte wrote on Nov 17, 2008 2:47 PM:

" When does growth stop? When we are all shoulder to shoulder in a rat's maze like Tokyo or LA? When we have no open space to grow crows, raise stock or allow room for a forest to clean our air and purify the ground water? I have to wonder if the government and developers realize that we don't need houses and strip malls everywhere nor should we have to live like that. Breeding more and building more will not produce any more drinkable water. "

Deana wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:23 PM:

" I think that the idea of a progressive tax on people with more than one kid per parent is a smart idea. It doesn't have to affect those that have more than two children per family now. It could start in a few years. Maybe start slowly, say only taxing families with over four kids, then in four more years drop that down to three kids, etc. It is one way to begin curbing the population levels and it must apply equally to all economic groups. "

Never too much wrote on Nov 17, 2008 3:58 PM:

" Yup, too many people and too little water, and jobs, and open space, and food and, well the list is becoming endless. Never too many people though, right? "

Northern Exposure wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:05 PM:

" Once the upper basin states are also out of water, who do we steal from next? Canada? The arctic? Not much farther north to push this over use demand. "

Simon wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:14 PM:

" Let the Californians drink wine from Barbara Boxer's (D, CA) illegal alien operated vineyard. They won't need our water then. "

All 4 it wrote on Nov 17, 2008 4:51 PM:

" I am all for it. Change the tax code and let's start making some real and enduring progress on this problem. "

Obamas Solution A Miracal wrote on Nov 17, 2008 5:16 PM:

" No worries. I am sure that Obama will turn the desert southwest's sands into drinking water. This will be only one of his many promised miracals. "

Wyo Boy wrote on Nov 17, 2008 7:42 PM:

" Hey Tyrrell, actually Lake Powell is less than 80 feet below full capacity (currently 68% of capacity). A far cry from where it was three years ago. You need to check your facts before embellishing your sound bites. "

Inky wrote on Nov 18, 2008 8:54 AM:

" I'm deeply troubled by Dewd's note about LA owning water rights near Pinedale.
Remember Owen Valley. Better yet, read "Cadillac Desert" and watch the movie "China Town," then buckle up. When tens of millions of thirsty people come knocking, what will little ol' Wyoming do? "

Rounds wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:19 AM:

" It is obvious, we do have to da_ned many people. Resources are not endless just like the planet isn't flat. Time for a change in our thinking before those thousands do come looking for a drink, and they take yours. "

profit wrote on Nov 18, 2008 9:27 AM:

" Obvious truth expounds what the Chinese are already doing to limit its population. One child/couple and severe penalties for having more. I don't think that would play here as it would increase the demand for abortion as couple aim for their preferred sex of the unborn. In China, couples practice infanticide. Maybe we should follow Bush's model and let only the rich live while the rest of us merely survive. "

LaShauna wrote on Nov 18, 2008 10:55 AM:

" This is grammar school math.

To many mouths, no enough glasses of water.

If you cannot increase supply, then you must decrease the demand.

POPULATION CONTROL IS REQUIRED BEFORE WE ARE OUT OF RESOURCES. "

Control on use wrote on Nov 18, 2008 11:09 AM:

" I'm for the tax. I also think that all water users in the lower basin states should pay much higher rates for water based on steps of consumption. In example if the average domestic consumer uses X amount of water monthly and that level is exceeded, they then have to pay a higher penalty rate per unit of water. We must put in some commonsense curbs or we'll find ourselves high and dry in the near future. "

Carrier wrote on Nov 18, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Sure, why not? Tax people with more than two kids. But why stop there? We can then force abortions for any woman getting pregnant with any more. Or better still, sterilization of both parties after kid 2 is born (both genders can get involved!). But wait, there's more: We can then eliminate the sick and handicapped who do not contribute and take up resources. Oh, even better is euthanizing the mentally infirm. Then we can take out paralized persons (better not have any accidents folks) since they will eventually be a drain on resources (medically). Maybe eliminating anyone over a certain age, ala Logan's Run, to curb demand on resources would be good too. C'mon people! The planet is in danger! Why stop at simple Unconstitutional taxation? "

Everett wrote on Nov 18, 2008 1:46 PM:

" This requires making and sticking to so hard choices for the nation.

Besides if you have two or fewer kids you may be able to put one of them through college and retire yourself before you're dead!

Who said that anyone should have more than two kids in the first place, and how well can you really raise them, giving each child the needed "parenting contact time" to produce a good and productive citizen if you have 3, 6, or 8 kids? "

Lonnie wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:22 PM:

" Carrier, You aren't even suggesting a slippery slope, you've gone straight off the sheer cliff.

Some commonsense "curbs" have to start somewhere.

We do not have endless natural resources.

So far our tax codes promote having more kids.

We even reward people that are low income for having more kids using the "earned income credit."

That is wrong thinking and the wrong motivation in this day and age.

Stop jumping to crazy assumptions and propose your idea to help reduce the demand and slow population growth.

All of our quality of life will be impacted directly in time. More importantly, our kids and grand kids quality of life will be reduced by our failure to act to solve this on going and worsening problem.

Do you have any workable ideas, or do you just want to complain about it and watch the train wreck as it unfolds? "

Keller wrote on Nov 18, 2008 3:53 PM:

" According to the CST story about lead bullets we'll all die of lead poisoning before we die of thirst. So, what do we have to worry about as far as water goes? Al Gore is telling us that the sky if falling over global warming too. What's next, an attack by giant zombies? "

Barbara wrote on Nov 18, 2008 4:29 PM:

" profit, have you ever heard of birth control? It's not just for breakfast any more. One ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure (or 18 years of raising unwanted, extra people or living knowing you had an abortion). It is true that many families and single people have to many children. These are also all to often people that they are not emotionally prepared to raise children properly or financially prepared to raise children properly. In the end nearly all of our problems on this planet boil down to one thing; too many people. Birth control and a tax on more than one kid per parent are two good starts to this water issue and oh so very many other issues also. "

Carrier wrote on Nov 18, 2008 5:24 PM:

" Just wanting people to think, Lonnie. If things were to get that desperate, where would we stop?

We always want to jump to taxing or saying population control is the answer. No, population control EDUCATION can be PART of a workable solution. This has to include tax credits to companies that make desalination much less expensive to do. Incentives for companies to develope new technologies which would include more efficient agriculture for more food production. Instead of paying farmers NOT to produce food, which has been and still is and always will be, idiotic; pay them to produce MORE food.

When I read someone actually infer we take a page from the Chinese population control book, it makes me shudder. Unless I misinterpreted what profit meant.

You're right, Lonnie, there must be workable solutions. Incentives to produce low cost methods to make salt water (which we have in abundance) into fresh (which is soon to be in shortage) are a must. So insted of automatically taxing, how about giving the people with the minds to do it, more of an incentive to produce results. "

Jim wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:35 AM:

" The biggest problem with desalination is the brine left over. It's some nasty stuff so what to do with it? That is the problem that needs to be solved. However those who propose that this is a simple population vs. supply issue don't realize there are other variables in play such as technology/entrepreneurship. Find a way to use that brine for industrial/commercial purposes and boom there goes the water problem.

Also some of the best families I have ever met are large farm families. "

Ron wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:09 AM:

" Jim, Desalinization outfits now sell the residual salt for winter use on roads and industrial use. It is a bonus by product of the fresh water making process. Under subsequent refinement it is also used for humn consumption. "

Lonnie wrote on Nov 19, 2008 9:17 AM:

" Carrier, Making more water from the sea only delays the inevitable, central problem.

What do you say we do when we physically run out of space for more human dwellings? Places to put our trash and sewage? What do you do when we cannot produce enough food to feed all of the hungry mouths?

None of this will happen tomorrow, or even the day after. But the time is coming, and we must figure out how many people is to many people geographically around the planet.

For now, we must worry about America, but as the economy and resource supply is truly global, we must also be concerned about the rest of the planets ability to support our endless human expansion.

By the way, a good idea can come from anywhere, even our opposition.

I am not some hippie nut. I am a rather ordinary and conservative house wife (yes, we had two children only) that has traveled the world working, and sees the growing problem for what it really is. I care about the grand kids future and I am unwilling to be blind to it for my own comfort and conveniance. "

Claira wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:23 PM:

" I agree. Making more water from whatever source is not a solution. It only forestalls the inevitable. We can expand the population without end and we had better own up to that fact soon. "

Paula wrote on Nov 19, 2008 12:47 PM:

" Carrier, The taxes will only be higher for people that opt to have more than one child per parent.

That leaves the choice up to you, just like a consumption tax.

Taxes have long been proven to be very useful in shaping choices and as a tool to enforce social policy.

Look at the current system, it rewards having more and more children. That's wrong headed thinking today.

This is the fairest way to make this change in thinking and behavior. "

outa control wrote on Nov 20, 2008 11:01 AM:

" So called Conservatives and Liberals seem to have more in common than they think. Wyoming being one of the most conservative voting states in the union, there seems to be no shortage of people who want to control other peoples lives to suit their own way of thinking, Where did all the "we don't want the government controlling our lives" people go or is it more like " we don't want the government controlling our lives but they can control other peoples lives." "

LaVerna wrote on Nov 20, 2008 1:52 PM:

" outa control, OK, so what is your solution to too many people and not enough (for now) fresh water?

The governments control much more than our breeding habits now, which of their other controls do you wish to roll back in the name of freedom.

And, oh by the way, we all squeal like pigs about our d_mned freedoms, what about our RESPONSIBILITIES?

You cannot have the one with out owning up to the other. "

Petra wrote on Nov 20, 2008 2:02 PM:

" All of the whiners complaining about loss of freedoms that are afraid of putting population controls in place might well change their tune when they are dying of thirst. In typical American fashion, we'll do nothing until it is too late and our quality of life is already heavily impacted and cannot be reversed. "

To Many wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:05 PM:

" How do we figure out how many is to many people for the water supply? Do we breed and build until we run out and then say, oops! That's to many! Now what? If we're asking questions now, it is likely that we are near or at that magic to many number now. "

Where are the plans wrote on Nov 20, 2008 4:49 PM:

" Where are all of those plans for CA and AZ to keep building and the water supply to keep up with the growth? "

Denise wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:42 AM:

" Where are the plans, Do you really think that the developer controlled governments in CA, AZ, or NM are really looking ahead farther than next quarters profit statement? CA has leveraged the next four generations with future borrowing all for today's population not to have to feel the pinch of reality. There are no plans and no one is looking ahead at all. We elect by popularity contest not by honesty and smarts. Did you just watch the last phoonie election? We're sending an unprepared, untested and unskilled socialist to DC! "

Perry wrote on Nov 21, 2008 10:54 AM:

" Its feast or famine with our self serving elected officials.

They either over react and spend billions on non-problems, or they wait until no amount of time, money and effort can repair a problem.

I guess we'll see what the Obama administration will do and who they will back in this matter.

Since he is an urban dweller that understands little of the west or rural life I am sure that he will demand that we go without in order for the cities (with their high concentrations of liberal voters) get everything that they want. "

Natally wrote on Nov 21, 2008 11:56 AM:

" Of course Obama and the democrat congress will side with the cities and their high maintenance populations. It is what he knows and understands. We're just empty fly-over land waiting its time to become strip malls and housing tracks so that more urban gangs can move in and take over while they wait for their public funding support to come from the White House. "

To Wyo boy wrote on Nov 21, 2008 5:04 PM:

" I agree on checking the facts but we need to remember the upper 25% of lakes hold 50% of the water so if Lake Powell is 80 feet down what is that saying? Basically it is less then 50% full.
Furthermore I agree no more water for the lower basin. We entered a pact with Nebraska years ago, supplying them with water for 50 years and now we can't get out of it. Our lakes are drained beyond any recreational standard, rivers running very low, and they still ask for more. I say NO lets keep the Green River Basin for ourselves, let the overpopulated morons build distilleries etc for their own use. Not our problem! "

SO wrote on Nov 21, 2008 8:04 PM:

" If we were to follow the model of taxing a family more for having extra children then we could sell children credits. They would work like that carbon credit scam except the child credit would be the opposite of al gore's scam.

For every child the neolibs murder prior to birth another family would be able to obtain the credit and actually give a life to try to make up for the act of murder that took place. The murderer would have no right to have any future children thus putting a stop to gender selection (a problem the Chinese now have). "

DM wrote on Nov 23, 2008 11:27 AM:

" I agree on the children issue. Morons continue to have multiple children the core of Idiocracy and we support it here in the USA by rewarding those idiots for having more children. So I have to ask who are the idiots, those having children for increased government funds or those of us supporting such a ritual? We give tax credits for dependants, earned income credit for all your kids, free government housing, food stamps, WIC....Yes WIC,not for men but supported by the USA government? Equal rights my arse! We hand out free medical for those too stupid to work and we wonder why the economy is distraught. I say cut them all off and people will quit having as many childdren then we might have water enough for those we do have. Until then, wait for rain and look up! "

No Brainer wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:04 AM:

" You gotta apply for and receive a license to own a dog in many communities, perhaps there should be a licensing process, test and fee to have a kid too? Just becuase you are biologically equipped to reproduce it doesn't mean that you should be allowed to. The math is simple whether it is too much garbage being created, too little water to drink, road rage or crowding; too many people for an ever shriking supply of natural resources. "

Len wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:17 AM:

" Sending more water to ever growing cities that are now out of water will solve nothing. We are putting bandaides on an open chest wound and expecting the patient to live. We must treat the cause of this problem and not keep fooling around with the symptoms. "

Paris H wrote on Nov 24, 2008 10:44 AM:

" Were living in a false dream world and we all need to wake up and face our problems. That is exactly what has happened recently with the economy. The time for a similar crisis with water is right around the corner. If the Californians think that the burst housing bubble hurt, they are in for a real shock when one of the basics of life, water, is no longer endlessly available to them for their lawns and to wash their BMW's or simply for them to drink. I fear that we will have lost long before the powerful political powers that be (financed by the rich Californians) will have drained our rivers and lakes long before California is made to go without. So long farming, so long ranching, so long wildlife. All in the name of unsustainably large cities and their spoiled life of man made wonders. "

Czolgosz wrote on Nov 24, 2008 12:18 PM:

" Hey Platte:
Ever been to Wyoming and looked around? "

Chopping up the land wrote on Nov 24, 2008 1:47 PM:

" I see the hidious urban sprawl creeping up from Cheyenne along 25 everyday. If we are so fast and careless to turn once beautiful plains into ugly little 35 acre ranchettes, what are the crazies in CA, NM, AZ, NV and elsewhere doing to what open space it is that they now have left? I agree, population and growth control are the only real solutions. All else in an inadequate band aide. "

James wrote on Nov 25, 2008 10:50 AM:

" The economic bail out is the lease of our real long term worries.

Once we're out of water we'll all ask what they h_ll happened and why didn't anyone think about this. Then we'll all look to the government for a solution. "

Nero wrote on Nov 25, 2008 2:43 PM:

" Yet, here we sit, doing nothing. Guess that I'll get that fiddle and watch Rome burn some? The rich folks in the lower basin states may enjoy the music while they enjoy raping the rest of the west for resources. "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
(optional)
   
Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.