🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 11:40:03 -0800, "Phxbrd"
<lesliesethhammond@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Remuda" <rio@verde.zz> wrote in message 
>news:02emo4lmo59jlnkq4ogdg1tmgum2des2rc@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:12:27 -0800, "Phxbrd"
>> <lesliesethhammond@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"GLOBALIST" <free.tuneup@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:343a5691-e575-42d5-9a40-669771192ba1@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>On Feb 4, 1:59 pm, hp...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>> On Feb 4, 12:08 pm, "goldst...@nym.hush.com" <goldst...@nym.hush.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Here's why illegals should be deported and immigration halted:
>>>>
>>>> > California farms, vineyards in peril from warming, U.S. energy
>>>> > secretary warns
>>>> > Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press
>>>> > "I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could
>>>> > happen," says Nobel winner Steven Chu.
>>>> > 'We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in
>>>> > California,' Steven Chu says. He sees education as a means to combat
>>>> > threat. (But Hispanics have a 68 percent drop out rate).
>>>> > By Jim Tankersley
>>>> > February 4, 2009
>>>> > Reporting from Washington -- California's farms and vineyards could
>>>> > vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in
>>>> > jeopardy,
>>>>
>>>> > Chu warned of water shortages plaguing the West and Upper Midwest and
>>>> > particularly dire consequences for California, his home state, the
>>>> > nation's leading agricultural producer.
>>>>
>>>> > In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could
>>>> > disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water
>>>> > vital to agriculture.
>>>>
>>>> > "I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could
>>>> > happen," he said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more
>>>> > agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how
>>>> > they can keep their cities going" either.
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/04/MNV415MGL...
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-warming4-2009feb04,0,7454963....
>>>>
>>>> Only a worthless government would tolerate the presence of millions of
>>>> third-world
>>>> invaders.
>>>>
>>>> mitch- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>You are not running out of water because of undocumented immigrants.
>>>You are running out of water because the Colorado River can no longer
>>>supply the zillions of new housing developments.  And they are lying
>>>to those home buyers by not telling them they may soon not have any
>>>water.
>>>----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>There is no such thing as 'water shortage'.  We have the same amount of
>>>water the earth has always had.  We're in a closed loop system where water
>>>merely rotates between sky and earth.  We drink dinosaur pee.
>>>
>>>Man's only problem with fresh water is his insistence on building homes
>>>where LOCAL water becomes scarce.
>>
>> Like say...Aridzona....
>>
>>>Dumbfucker Californicators live beside
>>>the Pacific ocean and whine about "water shortage" when all they have to 
>>>do
>>>is desalinate all the water their heart's desire.
>>
>> True that.
>>
>>>Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to clear up for you.
>>
>> The compact storge adjustments beyween AZ and NV in Lake Mead.
>
>Fuck California AND Nevada.

Bad answer, here, dolt:

http://ag.arizona.edu/cgi-azwater/print.pl?file=awr/novdec06/guestview.html

There is yet another effort currently underway which is every bit as
important as the accomplishments listed above. Reclamation, through a
public process that includes consultation with the seven Colorado
River Basin States and others, is developing shortage and coordinated
management guidelines for the Colorado River. An environmental review
process currently underway is expected to be completed in December
2007.

These guidelines, when implemented, will: (1) provide specific
criteria for the declaration of shortages to the Lower Division States
(Arizona, California and Nevada); (2) provide a new framework for the
coordinated operation of Lakes Mead and Powell; (3) implement a
mechanism for the storage and delivery of conserved system and
non-system water in Lake Mead; and (4) modify and/or extend the
interim surplus guidelines through 2025.

Through this action, we anticipate that individual entities in the
Lower Basin will be able to develop storage credits through
extraordinary conservation as well as augment existing water supplies
through interstate water exchange programs. Furthermore, this action
will provide a greater degree of certainty to water users,
particularly in Arizona, with regard to future Colorado River water
supplies.

The consensus reached by the Basin states and submitted to the
Secretary in February is a major accomplishment in the Basin. Through
their preliminary agreement, the states have set aside longstanding
differences over interpretation of the 1922 Colorado River Compact in
favor of pragmatic approaches to operating the river. Under the
proposal, all seven states gain practical benefits.

California gains the flexibility to develop storage credits in Lake
Mead, allowing water to be stored for future diversion when needed.
This will allow water users in California to use Colorado River water
in conjunction with other water supplies within the state, ultimately
providing the operational flexibility to conserve significant amounts
of water.

Through the development of storage credits and exchanges, Nevada
obtains a significant benefit in the increased ability to augment its
Colorado River water supply to meet its growing needs. This
flexibility would allow the state to develop its in-state water
supplies, such as groundwater, while also augmenting its supplies
through future water exchanges.

The proposed agreement would provide the Upper Division states �
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming � with more operational
flexibility with Lake Powell. Under current operating guidelines, Lake
Powell fluctuates significantly while Lake Mead remains more stable.
The proposal by the states will, in simplified terms, allow the two
lakes to move up and down together. This will protect recreational
uses and power generation at Lake Powell while still allowing the
upper basin to meet its compact obligation for water deliveries to the
lower basin.

Arizona gains in a number of ways. The development of storage credits
and exchanges will help Arizona augment its future water supply needs,
especially in times of shortage. And maintaining higher elevations in
Lake Powell would significantly benefit recreation in the City of Page
and the surrounding area, as well as benefit power users in Arizona
who receive a significant share of Glen Canyon Dam�s power generation.
Most importantly for Arizona, the states� proposal offers modest and
staged implementation of shortages should they occur in the lower
basin. Under the proposal, shortages would be incurred when Lake Mead
reaches elevation 1075 feet above mean sea level (approximately 145
feet below full), and would be limited to 400,000 acre-feet (less than
one-third of the amount Arizona routinely diverts into the CAP each
year). If Lake Mead continued to drop, and reached elevation 1025,
shortage levels would be limited to 600,000 acre-feet. While the CAP
must bear the brunt of lower basin shortages, these amounts are very
manageable within its 1.5 million acre-foot normal supply.

In short, the elements of the basin states proposal offer benefits for
all the states and users of the Colorado River system. On behalf of
the Secretary, the Department of the Interior is carefully considering
the proposal, along with other alternatives, as part of the
environmental compliance process. Only after fully evaluating all the
alternatives and considering public input will the Secretary be able
to select and implement a set of operating guidelines. A draft
environmental impact statement is expected to be published in February
2007. All interested parties are encouraged to review and comment on
the proposals.

When the new operating guidelines are completed, we expect they will
be another accomplishment to be shared by all the parties involved in
shaping water management on the Colorado River. Arizona water leaders
should again be proud of the role they have played in this effort.