gringorio
Senior Nomad
Posts: 812
Registered: 4-10-2004
Location: Tucson, Arizona
Member Is Offline
|
|
Delta defines Baja, Sea of Cortez
After a long-term brain fart, I'm back to visiting Nomads and wanted to post the following article that I also posted in my conservation forums.
The question I have for all you Nomads is: How has the Colorado River Delta shaped your ideas of Baja and the Sea of Cortez?
Gringorio 
Simple water fee could salvage ecosystems
Karl Flessa
My Turn
Aug. 21, 2006 12:00 AM
Arizonans know the value of water. We drink it, we swim in it, we wash with it. Water supplies our farms and industries and carries away our wastes.
Arizona's growing economy thrives on water diverted from nature for our human needs.
Not enough water falls from the sky to satisfy our needs. So we build reservoirs, dig wells, construct canals and pump the water from where it is to
where we live and work.
We treat it and deliver it to our homes and farms. In fact, we pay only for treatment and delivery. Does that make our water free?
We pay a hidden cost for diverting water, one that's not reflected in our water bills. When Arizona was settled, the Gila and Santa Cruz rivers flowed
all year round. Forests of cottonwoods and mesquites once lined their banks, offering cool shade for humans and animals alike.
Groundwater pumping has drained the Gila, the Santa Cruz and many other Arizona rivers. So much water is now taken from the Colorado that the river no
longer reaches the sea. Many springs have gone dry because we have pumped out the groundwater that supplied them. We've already lost a lot of these
riparian habitats; we can't afford to lose more.
Our free-flowing streams and springs support the habitats, fish and wildlife that attract the hikers, campers, boaters, fishers, hunters and
bird-watchers that are an important part of Arizona's economy.
Natural floodplains reduce the damage from violent floods. Wetlands serve as natural purifiers of polluted water. Colorado River flow increases the
shrimp catch in the Gulf of California, providing much-needed jobs in Mexico. Human society benefits from these and other ecosystem services that
depend on water.
We can put some water back into our rivers by paying just a little for the water we divert. It won't cost much but it could restore many riparian
habitats and protect them for the benefit of future generations of Arizonans.
Here's how it could work: Just add an ecosystem fee of $1 for every 100,000 gallons of water used. That's about $1.34 per year for the average Phoenix
household. According to the Water Services Department, the average Phoenix household pays about $275 to use approximately 134,000 gallons of water per
year.
Adding an ecosystem fee of just $1 per year for every 100,000 gallons won't have much impact on the average household. If every household and farm in
the Southwest that used Colorado River water paid an extra dollar per 100,000 gallons, the ecosystem fees would add up to about $45 million each year.
Add in fees from other surface water and groundwater and the money adds up fast.
An ecosystem fund would support restoration and protection of the ecosystem services that depend on water. The fund could help improve irrigation
practices, allowing the saved water to be used for restoration.
Ecosystem-fund money could support research on the best ways to use reclaimed water for restoring riparian habitats. The fund could compensate farmers
who were willing to let their field lie fallow for a year, letting their water support natural or restored habitats.
Natural ecosystems don't recognize political boundaries so the ecosystem fund must be regional and international in scope. Everybody pays; everybody
benefits.
If we don't protect the water that ecosystem services depend on, our economy and our society will suffer.
Putting water back into the rivers isn't just good for nature. It's good for people, too.
The writer is professor of geosciences at the University of Arizona. He directs the Research Coordination Network for the Colorado River Delta. He can
be reached at kflessa@email.arizona.edu.
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64478
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
I don't understand how a tax on water used will make more water appear out of the sand?
Stop making golf courses in the desert... that could be one place to start, if you know how much water turf grass needs... drip irrigation only for
all landscaping... a pipeline to Canada to bring down the melting snow from the Great White North...
|
|
|
Don Alley
Super Nomad
Posts: 1997
Registered: 12-4-2003
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
I don't understand how a tax on water used will make more water appear out of the sand?
|
What the tax on water could do is be earmarked to pay for water for uses other than consumption. So, in theory, there could be economic incentives to
leave water for mother nature to compete with the economic incentives to consume water.
We went through all this in Montana when I was active in Trout Unlimited. And it was a tough sell to the ranchers and the argument is still evoling.
In Montana, and I believe many other western states, water law is so tilted towards consuming that a water right requires use of the water. In other
words, under law any user (farmers, ranchers, cities, hydrodams etc) that choses to conserve water to leave in the stream or aquifer for conservation
or environment loses his water right.
And the ag community likes it that way. They would rather see the senior water rights remain in the hands of fellow aggies than be leased or sold to a
govt agency.
Keep in mind, though, that local irrigation (irrigating land adjacent to a river) results in groundwater recharging that re-enters the river
downstream. Most of the irrigation water returns to the river or aquifer. That's not true when water is removed in large aqueducts and transported to
distant cities. So maybe instead of buying agricultural water rights we could pay city folks to not water their lawns.
Anyway, whatever solutions there may be they won't be "simple."
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
The Colorado River Delta------
During the "flood" years of the late 70's, and early 80's, I and my friends spent many days in the delta country, both boating, and just exploring by
foot. It is a magnificant place when it is "alive" and well, as it was for those brief years when the delta came back to life.
Thus, the delta has a profound influence on how I think about Baja, and the Sea of Cortrz---------it is a vital link in the health of the SOC, in my
opinion.
|
|
|
Hook
Elite Nomad
Posts: 9006
Registered: 3-13-2004
Location: Sonora
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive
|
|
A most excellent analysis, Don. You are a great asset to this board.
It just amazes me that, here in California, in all but the wettest periods, we live under a constant threat of water shortages and power shortages and
highway congestion.
And yet rampant development continues.....all because someone's property rights trumps any common sense.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Hook
A most excellent analysis, Don. You are a great asset to this board.
It just amazes me that, here in California, in all but the wettest periods, we live under a constant threat of water shortages and power shortages and
highway congestion.
And yet rampant development continues.....all because someone's property rights trumps any common sense. |
I agree--I really enjoyed reading all of the posts. I also agree with Hook about California.
No one could have picked a worst place to build a large settlement than Los Angeles. While I still love the Owen's valley, I would have loved to have
seen it when Little Lake really was a lake---before the Los Angeles Department of Power and Water "bought" the water rights.
The lining of the water canals in Imperial Valley has been a major controversial topic that directly affects Baja agriculture. Since we moved, I
have not kept up with the battle. And there is also a raging battle over selling water rights to San Diego. The water there is all from the Colorado
River.
If there ever was that tax, I would like to see at some of it going to do something about the New River --- I still love Calexico, and paving over it
like they did in Mexicali does not make it go away.
Diane
[Edited on 8-25-2006 by jdtrotter]
|
|
|
ursidae69
Nomad
Posts: 275
Registered: 2-22-2004
Location: Youngsville, NM
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
I don't understand how a tax on water used will make more water appear out of the sand?
Stop making golf courses in the desert... that could be one place to start, if you know how much water turf grass needs... drip irrigation only for
all landscaping... a pipeline to Canada to bring down the melting snow from the Great White North... |
The tax won't directly make more water appear, but might fund research in ways to use water more efficiently, indirectly making more water available.
I agree with you on the golf course remark.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
