Time to wrap this up. This will be the last post on Dead Pool, lest I be accused of beating a dead horse, putting readers to sleep, needlessly frightening children, or worse.
It would be a good idea to read Part 1 and Part 2 before this post.
So what is left for Powell to do after depopulating Phoenix? He can offer some solutions for staving off disaster. He suggests two "simple" things:
-
80% of Western water use is for agriculture; Powell wants that cut to 70%
-
Of the remaining 20%, cities may use up to half that for landscaping; reduce that to 50%
He says those two steps will free up 2.7 MAF per year, or about 20% of the Colorado River's flow. Ag use could be cut by growing more appropriate crops for arid regions.
Pricing should be used, and water trading/marketing should be facilitated (I can see David Zetland smiling).
Powell notes that the West may be its own worst enemy - consider the Waveyard, the water theme park slated to be built in Mesa, AZ. In fairness, it is supposed to use non-potable water, although it must be treated because of human compact. But business as usual must be discontinued.
And speaking of business as usual, the Colorado River Compact should be replaced. Powell acknowledges that this will be very difficult, but asserts that a different agreement with more players at the table is needed for the new climatology. So if you believe "the Phoenix Fable" may be realized, then a new way of thinking is needed.
So what did I think of the book? I liked it a lot. Powell's historical perspective is very good. Don't expect Cadillac Desert; it's not intended to be a replacement or sequel, although I might describe it as Cadillac Desert with climate change. He goes into the environmental effects of dams, how they will not "create" more water, and the folly of answering climate change concerns by building more of them. He even discusses cloud seeding and desalination. His solutions are not new, but would be effective if the political will (or whatever it takes) could be mustered to implement them.
A colleague of mine thought that Powell did a very good job until the last few chapters, where he performs the analysis. I will admit that the analysis could be considered by some to be weak, but the book is not intended as an academic tome; it's a book for the intelligent layperson. Besides, Powell is not a hydrologic modeler. So I think his simplistic approach is appropriate; it serves to get his point across.
So I recommend Dead Pool. It tells a tale that may not come true, but certainly needs to be discussed. Powell deserves kudos for penning it. A lot of people won't like it.
Let me broach one last point, one that Powell did not consider. In fact, I've heard no one else mention this: ethics.
Are there ethical issues here?
Several years ago, I listened to a talk by a Federal scientist about climate change in the Southwest. After the talk, he was unusually candid. What really annoyed him was seeing Western governors trekking to DC, hats in hands, asking for Federal government help to cope with the drought. But once back home, that message is forgotten, and it is "grow, grow, grow", for local consumption. Is that ethical?
How about water managers who don't want to tell it like it is, or like it could be, or keep doing the SOS, for fear of stifling growth and upsetting the public. Granted, predicting the hydrologic future in the face of climate change is not easy. But it can be done, at least in probabilistic terms. Certainly you can inform people that serious problems may be on the horizon. Shouldn't the public be apprised of this? Shouldn't people/firms who are thinking of relocating to these areas be given more than Reclamation's "all is rosy" graph in Part 2? Don't they deserve a peek at a graph like Powell's showing that there is a certain probability that Scenario X will occur?
Let me close with a true story.
A number of years ago, Kelly Summers, a well-known figure in New Mexico hydologic circles, was hired as the City of Albuquerque's first hydrogeologist. After a few years, he noted that well water levels were dropping at an alarming pace, and his study of the stratigraphy led him to conclude that the most productive zones in the basin aquifer were much less extensive than they were believed to be. In his inimitable, curmudgeonly style, he told his bosses that this did not bode well for the city's future water supply. He was told to shut up. He didn't, and he was fired because of it. A few years later, he was vindicated by a hydrogeologic study. The ultimate result: the city developed a plan to cope with what Kelly discovered.
Summers behaved ethically; his superiors did not.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, water managers, policy-makers, and decision-makers could use a few Kelly Summers.
"The future of the West hinges on whether it can defend itself against itself." -- Bernard DeVoto, Harpers, January 1947
"It's a desert, stupid." -- bumper sticker produced by the water conservation folks, City of Albuquerque, early 1990s (at least one person lost her job)
Comments