|
|
|
|
|
by lazide
1390 days ago
|
|
Those two facts are not contradictory at all! See the agreement this is under [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact]. Under current conditions, it’s easy for Arizona or Nevada to no longer have any allotment while California still has plenty left. That said, now is the 10% of the time the State doesn’t have too much water. Also note, water supplies are generally local or at most regional. The water pulled from the Colorado under the compact is pulled and transported by the Metropolitan Water District and goes to SoCal. Even if it dries up, and the aqueduct pulling water from the Central Valley and Eastern Sierra breaks - that really only impacts LA. Which is a lot of people, and would be a crisis (ad unlikely, to put it mildly!) but a tiny portion of California by number of cities, geographic area, etc. |
|
Again, you seem to be dismissive that California is about to destroy the economy of two other states in a quest for cheap water.
The CRC:
>Extreme shortage. The most severe shortage considered in the interim guidelines is when the level of Lake Mead drops below 1,025 feet (312 m), in which event 7,000,000 acre-feet (8.6 km3) per year will be delivered to the Lower Basin states: 4,400,000 acre-feet (5.4 km3) to California, 2,320,000 acre-feet (2.86 km3) to Arizona, and 280,000 acre-feet (0.35 km3) to Nevada.
90% of the water in Las Vegas comes from Lake Mead. In the event of Lake Mead drying up, the entire state of Nevada gets less than 0.5% of the volume of the Colorado. While I guess it's nice to know that SoCal has other options when the water runs out, we're talking about a humanitarian disaster for a Las Vegas that has no other options.
If desalination is really unnecessary, California should stop blocking efforts to revise the Compact.