Not sure if I'll find more information here or on the Outdoor board, but I'd love to hear informed opinions on what is at the source of the issue with the Colorado.

From what I've read so far - Precipitation isn't really changing, and the US population isn't growing - nor are we consuming more meat or dairy than prior generations per capita.

So if 79% of water drawn from the Colorado goes to Agricultural use, and only 12% to residential - what's the issues driving it's over consumption?


Is it population redistribution? (Growth in Colorado and Texas)

Is Agricultural Science pushing us to use more water in our processes?

This seems like a pretty big issue for Texans and could get pretty political and fairly urgent. Just curious what F16'ers know on the subject.

Which Colorado?

the population isn't growing?

IIRC, the hubbub was about a deal that greatly favored Kalifornia versus the other states. Like most other things, it really allowed Kalifornia to have too much say in the river matters. I think I read a few minutes ago a headline that a new deal has been reached, but I didn't read the article.

As for Texas, we are starting to have serious water issues out west and in the panhandle. Our idiot legislature needs to stop fellating each other and actually get on the ball of crafting legislation and easing regulations that allow for desal and the pumping of excess water to the west. Texas is going to be in big trouble if those morons don't get off their fat asses.

From what I've read, it seems that the interstate compact governing use of the Colorado was drawn up during a rather wet period, and that consequently, they thought they had more to divide than they actually do have. They probably need to revise it to adjust everyone's numbers downward. However, the agricultural use issue is certainly going to come up at some point, and it's going to get messy when it comes to a head, at some point.

The Texas Colorado does not start in Colorado. It starts in Texas.

Not sure where that agriculture number comes from, but the City of Austin is killing off rice production down in Matagorda County. They will not let the water down stream and the farmers needing that warmer are having to let equipment sit idle or drill their own wells for water that was for a long time always counted on.

CA is also worried about the high concentrations of salt being discharged back in the sea.

I know, it's CA. But you can bet your arse there is an army of NGOs ready to sue.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Almonds in California take a crap ton of water.

They could solve this issue with desalination and revising appropriations of water. But California refuses to consider desalination because of the amount of energy required amd a NIMBY thing.

They should come up with a compromise where Nevada provides solar or nuke power to Cali for the desalination plants. Which Cali then uses for irrigation, which would cut Cali's need for river water and allow the Nevada side to refill.

But people are stupid.

---

From what I understand, Newsom, to his rare credit, supports desalinization plants and pipelines to move the water inland. He is hamstrung by his own party.

BTW, I think that the 100 year old interstate compact I mentioned divides the water between the states, rather than uses. How each state uses its allocation is probably an internal matter. So, if they were to go back and cut down the amount of water that each state can draw, that still would not address how much should be devoted to agricultural and how much to human consumption.

Bird Poo said:

---

CA is also worried about the high concentrations of salt being discharged back in the sea.

I know, it's CA. But you can bet your arse there is an army of NGOs ready to sue.

---

Brine can be spread out over a large area and in high current areas to minimize impact.

Since 1980, the US population is up almost 50%. A lot of that is in the West/Southwest. There isn't enough water for the people to water their yards, have massive pools, drink, bathe, and flush, and to produce the agriculture that feeds them.

In 1980, Las Vegas has 439,000 people, now it's close to 2 million.
In 1980, Phoenix metro had 1.4 million, today it's 4.6 million.

The same is true for just about all of Southern California. Utah is the same.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

Bird Poo said:

---

CA is also worried about the high concentrations of salt being discharged back in the sea.

I know, it's CA. But you can bet your arse there is an army of NGOs ready to sue.

---

Brine can be spread out over a large area and in high current areas to minimize impact.

---

Can't it just be turned into sea salt for sale?

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Not sure if I'll find more information here or on the Outdoor board, but I'd love to hear informed opinions on what is at the source of the issue with the Colorado.

From what I've read so far - Precipitation isn't really changing, and the US population isn't growing - nor are we consuming more meat or dairy than prior generations per capita.

So if 79% of water drawn from the Colorado goes to Agricultural use, and only 12% to residential - what's the issues driving it's over consumption?


Is it population redistribution? (Growth in Colorado and Texas)

Is Agricultural Science pushing us to use more water in our processes?

This seems like a pretty big issue for Texans and could get pretty political and fairly urgent. Just curious what F16'ers know on the subject.

---

Just to clarify here: you're aware that the Colorado river which is the subject of all the concern and controversy in CA and AZ is not the same Colorado river in TX, right?

I'm just unclear as to whether you're trying to extrapolate from their current issues to our potential future issues, or have conflated the two separate rivers.

https://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply-planning/water-use-summary/

The water availability issues related to the Colorado River in Texas is twofold: Supply - severe drought conditions in the watershed area last year and low rainfall in the recharge area this year and Demand - increasing residential use in the the Austin area and starting in '24 or '25 from the Houston area.

LCRA's usage last year was 43% to municipal (residential/city), 41% to Agriculture - for Rice Farming in Colorado, Wharton, and Matagorda counties, 8% industrial - (supplying South Texas Nuclear Power Plant and OQ Chemical Corp along with cooling water for Decker and Fayette power plants), and the remainder for Environmental/Recreation (Basically preventing the stream bed from being dry and putting fresh water into estuary system on the coast.

In 2023 the only water for Ag use to be made available will go to the LCRA Garwood district where the Lehrer's negotiated "run of river" rights. Eagle Lake, Pierce Ranch, and Matagorda county will not have water made available to them. As a result, planted rice in Texas will fall from ~190,000 acres to something in the 130-150k acre range. Annual evaporation from Highland Lakes is 159,000 acre feet a year - which exceeds usage by all ag and industrial customers.

In '24 or '25 Houston Area / Brazos River Authority will begin buying somewhere around 25,000 acre feet of water / year from LCRA - about the same volume not available for Ag use this year.

It is my opinion that there will be no water available for Ag irrigation in another 20 years unless population growth stops, there is significant change in water consumption habits, or we enter a wetter climate cycle in the Hill Country.

I'll be at the LCRA meeting in Austin on June 6 and can update again after those discussions.

Water rights were set unknowingly during a historic wet period. Lots of growth. Now, historic dryness for two decades. Komifornia doing comie things. Reduced snowfall. You know; that whole thing.

The Chinese are helping take out California almonds. They planted a s-ton of their own nut trees and tanked the almond market. Thousands of acres of almond trees are being yanked out by their roots.

If we're talking about the Texas Colorado River, the LCRA is almost done with a new off channel reservoir near Warton.

https://www.lcra.org/water/water-supply-planning/new-water/

Win At Life said:

---

Water rights were set unknowingly during a historic wet period. Lots of growth. Now, historic dryness for two decades. Komifornia doing comie things. Reduced snowfall. You know; that whole thing.

---

And despite the fact they got so much rain and snow this year that their reservoirs are full or almost full, they'll waste a large quantity of it to protect a snail or some other irrelevant lifeform.

I was aware of the Colorado/Cali issue getting the attention, but honestly did think we had the same issue with waters flowing our way.

Do we not? It's difficult to filter through the articles about it because they all have their obvious agendas - such as The NY Times article blaming it all on beef and dairy, with the not-so-subtle agenda of forcing diet change for liberal reasons.

What I can't quiet recon is the source of what has changed - with a pretty flat population number and I don't believe we are consuming more beef/dairy per capita, so where is the use rising?

If the Texas side of the equation is quite different I'm glad to hear it, and maybe that also sheds light on the source of the problem

Two new lakes are being built up here in north Texas for DFW.

That obviously doesn't help y'all in west Texas nor down south.

California just had so much rain they are now fretting about flooding so their water sources are good for a year or two I assume. No idea how long full reservoirs last out there.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I was aware of the Colorado/Cali issue getting the attention, but honestly did think we had the same issue with waters flowing our way.

Do we not? It's difficult to filter through the articles about it because they all have their obvious agendas - such as The NY Times article blaming it all on beef and dairy, with the not-so-subtle agenda of forcing diet change for liberal reasons.

What I can't quiet recon is the source of what has changed - with a pretty flat population number and I don't believe we are consuming more beef/dairy per capita, so where is the use rising?

If the Texas side of the equation is quite different I'm glad to hear it, and maybe that also sheds light on the source of the problem

---

How are you define flat population growth?

We've had massive growth in Texas.

Which would make sense if this is a Texas issue in residential - but our growth it coming as redistribution.

If it's about food production - isn't that tied to aggregate US population plus exports? The US population is pretty flat overall

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Which would make sense if this is a Texas issue in residential - but our growth it coming as redistribution.

If it's about food production - isn't that tied to aggregate US population plus exports? The US population is pretty flat overall

---

But you are conflating overall US population growth with a Texas based water issue? Not sure I get what you are saying yet.

The Sun Belt has seen significant growth as people have left the north combined with immigration from south of our border.

DFW is the 4th largest MSA with about 8M people. It's grown 27% just since 2010. That's just DFW and doesn't factor Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. We are growing at a clip much faster than the rest of the country.

I guess I'm just saying that if food production is the issue - production isn't limited to the local population. I would think it would tie to the US population closest

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Almonds in California take a crap ton of water.

They could solve this issue with desalination and revising appropriations of water. But California refuses to consider desalination because of the amount of energy required amd a NIMBY thing.

They should come up with a compromise where Nevada provides solar or nuke power to Cali for the desalination plants. Which Cali then uses for irrigation, which would cut Cali's need for river water and allow the Nevada side to refill.

But people are stupid.

---

Colorado River water rights are also based on seniority, so California feels no pressure to compromise. They can act like complete idiots and Nevada and Arizona are the ones left holding the bag.

I think agriculture will eventually take the brunt of pain. When you see these stats that show an 80/20 split between agriculture and resident use, it's pretty clear that the people don't matter. You could chase out half the population of Arizona and it'd still be using 90% as much water. That's not gonna cut it.

They need to tear up the hundred year old deal that lets California do whatever it wants, chase off the environmental wack jobs that refuse to consider any project that might have any negative ecological impacts, and get serious about water planning.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I was aware of the Colorado/Cali issue getting the attention, but honestly did think we had the same issue with waters flowing our way.

Do we not? It's difficult to filter through the articles about it because they all have their obvious agendas - such as The NY Times article blaming it all on beef and dairy, with the not-so-subtle agenda of forcing diet change for liberal reasons.

What I can't quiet recon is the source of what has changed - with a pretty flat population number and I don't believe we are consuming more beef/dairy per capita, so where is the use rising?

If the Texas side of the equation is quite different I'm glad to hear it, and maybe that also sheds light on the source of the problem

---

The issues with the Colorado River in the Pacific basin are different. There, the first issue is the allocation of water to states that are members of the compact. Beyond that, you then have usage issues.

I'm no engineer but why couldn't something be done like the Central Arizona Project? This is an amazing thing to see out here.

The lower Colorado River states like California, Nevada and Arizona just reached a deal to conserve water. The upper states (Utah and Wyoming) will likely follow. Agriculture could benefit greatly by using drip irrigation like the Israelis instead of the big rainmakers we currently use, but that means large scale spending on watering networks and in some cases, covering for field crops (creating a virtual greenhouse). In Israel the state would help cover that cost.

This was a killer winter for snow. Utah got up to 300% normal water in snowpack which will greatly help the Great Salt Lake and Lake Powell, so we have a brief reprieve from drought. Yet we simply cannot have more people growth without seriously impacting quality of life.

cypress-ag said:

---

Not sure where that agriculture number comes from, but the City of Austin is killing off rice production down in Matagorda County. They will not let the water down stream and the farmers needing that warmer are having to let equipment sit idle or drill their own wells for water that was for a long time always counted on.

---

Didn't think they still produced rice in Matagorda Co. We sold out in the early 80's due to ridiculous school taxes as a result of the STNP being a quasi-govt. agency and tax exempt. Also thought the end of the allotment system hurt rice farmers. ???

The obvious solution to our water problem is that the earth is long overdue for some H2O replenishment courtesy of a neighborhood comet dropping in for a visit.

I'm always amazed at the number of open ditches and canals I see in California- an area of high evaporation, as well as flood irrigation.

I'm not sure I'd want their winters, but if you live in a Great Lakes watershed this will never be an issue for you.