Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Report: Climate Change Worsens Western Water Woes
WASHINGTON — Climate change is likely to diminish already scarce water supplies in the Western United States, exacerbating problems for millions of water users in the West, according to a new government report.
A report released Monday by the Interior Department said annual flows in three prominent river basins — the Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin — could decline by as much 8 percent to 14 percent over the next four decades. The three rivers provide water to eight states, from Wyoming to Texas and California, as well as to parts of Mexico. (File photo) A report released Monday by the Interior Department said annual flows in three prominent river basins — the Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin — could decline by as much 8 percent to 14 percent over the next four decades. The three rivers provide water to eight states, from Wyoming to Texas and California, as well as to parts of Mexico.
The declining water supply comes as the West and Southwest, already among the fastest-growing parts of the country, continue to gain population.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called water the region's "lifeblood" and said small changes in snowpack and rainfall levels could have a major effect on tens of millions of people.
The report will help officials understand the long-term effects of climate change on Western water supplies, Salazar said, and will be the foundation for efforts to develop strategies for sustainable water resource management.
The report notes that projected changes in temperature and precipitation are likely to alter the timing and quantity of stream flows in all Western river basins, with increased flooding possible in the winter due to early snowmelt and water shortages in the summer due to reductions in spring and summer runoffs. Changes in climate could affect water supplies to a range of users, from farms and cities to hydropower plants, fish, wildlife and recreation, the report said.
Western states are growing faster than the rest of the country, with some of the fastest growth occurring in the driest areas, such as Nevada, Arizona and Texas.
"Impacts to water are on the leading edge of global climate change," said Mike Connor, commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, an Interior Department agency that provides water to more than 31 million people in 17 Western states and power to 3.5 million homes.
The report "affirms the urgency of the planning we are engaged in," Connor said at a news conference Monday. "We need to take actions now to plan" for changes that are likely to occur over the next several decades.
The report addresses the expected impact of climate change on eight major rivers basins in the central and Western United States. Besides the Colorado, Rio Grande and San Joaquin, the report also looks at the Columbia, Klamath and Sacramento rivers on the West Coast; the Missouri River Basin in the Northwest and Great Plains; and the Truckee River Basin in California and Nevada.
All eight basins should see an increase in temperature of about 5 degrees (-15 Celsius) to 7 degrees (-13.89 Celsius) Fahrenheit by the end of the century, the report says. Four basins will see an increase in overall precipitation by 2050: the Upper Colorado, Columbia, Missouri and Sacramento, while four will see a decrease: the Lower Colorado, Rio Grande, San Joaquin and Truckee.
Reductions in spring and summer runoffs could lead to a drop in water supply in 6 of the 8 basins, the report said.
Due to early snowmelt and relatively higher winter rains from warmer conditions, all but the Colorado basin could become more vulnerable to floods, the report said.
Aiguo Dai, a climate scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said the report echoes predictions he and other researchers have made that climate change would reduce stream flow rates in Western U.S. rivers. But he said computer models used to assess global trends would not be helpful for small river basins such as the Klamath or Upper Rio Grande.
Even regional models that take local topography into account "still contain large uncertainties," Dai said.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman said the report did "a solid job" cataloguing Interior's efforts to respond to climate change. Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sponsored a 2009 law that aims to improve water management in the West and increase analysis of water-related data. The report released Monday was prepared in response to the Secure Water Act.
"Faced with forecasts of decreased stream flows and increased temperatures, it's more important than ever for communities to actively plan for changing conditions," Bingaman said. "In arid environments like New Mexico, every drop counts, and conservation and efficient water use are essential."
Weather experts said Monday an extreme drought that has gripped parts of nine states is expected to drag on for several months or intensify.
Portions of Texas and a small part of eastern Louisiana are the only parts of the nation that rank in the National Weather Service's worst drought condition category. The rest of Texas and Louisiana also are very parched, as are parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Florida.
Associated Press writer John Flesher in Traverse City, Michigan, contributed to this report.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


19 Comments so far
Show Alloil and water don't mix
This is a good article, but the author needs to check his conversion from Fahrenheit to Celsius. A CHANGE of 5 deg. F is a change of about 2.8 deg. C, not -15 deg. C.
The author has (improperly) used 9 C / 5 = F - 32 as an incremental change.
Bob -- I noticed the same remarkable numbers & it really means the author is numerically illiterate.
-15 C is not a random number or typo. He got it by plugging 5 F into an automatic scale converter.
5 degrees F is EQUAL to -15 C when you are talking about a balmy Christmas day in North Dakota.
However, a CHANGE of 5 degrees F. is equal to 2.78 degrees Celsius as you point out.
How could the author not realize that something was way, way amiss when he got a negative number out of his little converter?
hey, Randy G!
your last sentence sums up the problem with that error...
if the author is unable, or unmotivated, to grasp what the minus sign indicates, if it was noticed, at all, then one has to wonder whether the remainder of the piece has been prepared with equal lethargy, negligence or ignorance...
In this time of global warming, nuclear radiation, ocean acidification and so on, it is important for reporters to have a BASIC knowledge of math, physics, chemistry and biology. Reporters must be able to examine press releases from companies and the EPA and catch glaring mistakes. A good hairdo and a smile won't do.
No mention of fracking is leaving the elephant in the room like it does not exist. Tony
Good catch. How many millions of gallons are used to do that? In the same context, how much fuel and oil is burned everyday by the military to take oil from other countries? Cost of a gallon of gas is $400 I heard. Then there is NASCAR!
From the article__"All eight basins should see an increase in temperature of about 5 degrees (-15 Celsius) to 7 degrees (-13.89 Celsius) Fahrenheit by the end of the century."
Some screwed up C and F numbers there. However: we won't have to wait until the "end of the century" to see temperatures rise several degrees, it will be happeing this year and from now on. Last summer temps were on average 30 degrees F above the normal ever recorded for near 90 straight days in Russia and other areas of Asia.
In the US we are seeing drught in many states, flooding in many others, record numbers of massive tornadoes, record snowfalls in the winter and record setting rains in the summer and world wide climate change it has just begun in ernest.
The Arctic region of Earth is the prime mover for world wide climate and weather and the Arctic area has felt the effects of global warming far more than any other area of Earth. The Arctic climate is experiencing dramatic climate change. It is not going to get better, the atmospheric Co2 level is now nearing 400 ppm and the level of atmospheric methane is the highest it has been during the past 40,000 years and rapidly rising as the Arctic permafrost and perennial sea ice continuse to melt.
The article points out a big problem that should be warning us to protect the water supply and use it more wisely. The major expendable uses of water should be curtailed.
It's obvious how the author made the conversion mistake, but I don't think that discredits the entire article. The study he/she is discussing is consistent with a large body of scientific research and modeling that shows that the SW US is vulnerable to future drought as a result of climate change. (I am in the middle of reviewing one such paper just now).
Journalists are not trained to think like scientists and engineers, so it is not surprising that he/she did not immediately spot the mistake.
Has anyone heard or seen about these radar questions? Folks are calling it weather manipulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ArcTM8Rcg&NR=1
I believe the "folks" who claim radar is the reason of world wide weather problems are the same ones who say Co2 is a plant food only.
One major problem is the dramatic reduction of glaciers in North America during the past 220 years or since the Industrial Age began. The glaciers feed the streams and rivers during the hot months and the glaciers are disappearing. For example in Glacier National Park the following is what has occurred during the past 220 years.
"During the middle of the twentieth century, examination of the maps and photographs from the previous century provided clear evidence that the 150 glaciers known to have existed in the park a hundred years earlier had greatly retreated, and in many cases disappeared altogether." There are only a few left.
This article does a better job of reporting on the study:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-to-hit-american
And if you want to see the real thing, you can download it at:
http://www.usbr.gov/climate
The Executive Summary is not too long.
I hear the discontent, but I will spew my HO,,,he's from Michigan and didn't even MENTION the presence of water here and the systematic destruction of Michigan financially including a nazi emergency manager over taxpayer's funds, martial law even on the ELECTED officials. Look out people, they are coming for you and either duck and run, or stand and be heard. This is our state, our water, we work on trying to keep it cleaned up, and we conserve here. Get used to it. If you can't fight for waterrights then learn to wash dishes in a couple inches of lukewarm water, and forget watering your lawn. Oh and stop running to the store every two hours.
this is what happens as the US education system and mass media go south ...
the mistake he made was to convert 5 and 7F to C ... they were accurate conversions ... the problem is that he lost control of what he was writing ... and whoever edited it missed the mistake as well ... poorly written sentence ... and then all the readers have fun tearing the article apart ... makes sense ... everyone grabbing for the first stone ...
Common Dreams really is the best! Dragging as many as possible screaming and kicking into the light ... not an easy task ..........
Yes "Finallyawake", never make ANY errors when writing, even a mis-spelled word will bring out the critics and detractors who will stone the author.
It seems as if most have missed the important point here. Water woes are a major issue, but as the title of this actually imformative articele states, "Climate Change" is the root cause of the problem.
"Global warming" = Climate Change = flooding, droughts, heat waves, record setting snowfall, record setting rain, rapidly dying coral reefs, water woes and most don't want to hear the words "global warming" and "climate change".
WayneWR -- no one is stoning the author or denying the validity of the rest of the article. This is not just posters nitpicking or saying, "We are such clever people--while the author is an imbecile." I don't believe any of the criticisms were an attempt to deny the reality of global climate change--but I should probably speak only for myself.
The is an article about devastating changes in temperature-- and actually reporting accurate and logical temperature changes is not a side issue.
Coming up with a large negative number when you are discussing an INCREASE in regional temperatures is not the same as a typo or a spelling error. Maybe the author did not make the conversion himself but he should have noticed it didn't make sense.
It indicates that the author is unfamiliar with the basics of math--not to mention the metric system. If you are writing articles discussing perhaps the most important scientific issue of our time, don't you think some basic knowledge of science is helpful? Has AP fired all its editors with basic math and science skills?
Why was this Department of Interior scientific report considered of such minor importance by AP that it was passed off to a journalist without any science background in Michigan?
This is part of a much larger issue in corporate journalism: the inexorable drive to cut costs & maximize profits; to function as paid stenographers for corporate and government press releases; and to frame each story as "he said, she said" conflicts.
Admittedly, not all of that comes into play with this article. This is a summary of a government report without critical comments.
What if AP had decided, however, to get a few remarks from the 'other team' in the climate change debate, and Dr. Richard Lindzen was quoted as saying that this study was just alarmist bunkum to generate research grants.
How would the author even begin to evaluate the merits of the study versus Lindzen's criticisms?
This is an EXTREMELY important study and deserves a reporter who can handle the basic temperatures accurately. Or at least know enough to get some help with the Celsius scale.
And when the time comes, the US will just steal water from Canada. Much easier than implementing strict conservation.