Gov. Perry’s water board still won’t acknowledge climate change

[boutons_deux]

How political hacks installed by ideological assholes and replacing professionals can and do cause real damage

Gov. Perry’s water board still won’t acknowledge climate change as Texas faces dire drought in 2013

Two top environmental officials in the state of Texas told Raw Story this week that not only is the state ill-prepared to face a summer this year even hotter than the record-breaking drought of 2011, it has largely neglected to begin planning for the unprecedented drought conditions forecast for the next several decades by the U.S. government’s 2013 National Climate Assessment.

The situation is so dire that if fundamental changes are not made to how water is conserved in Texas, the clashing trends of climate change and population growth threaten to utterly strangle the Texas economy over the coming 20-30 years as water costs soar, and activists warn that Gov. Rick Perry (R) is doing nothing but making the problem worse.

“Because the folks on the Texas water board are appointed by Rick Perry, they tend to fall in line with what Rick Perry believes when it comes to climate change,” Alyssa Burgin, executive director of the Texas Drought Project, told Raw Story. “There are many people whose jobs are on the line when it comes to talking about climate change. A mention of it did appear in the most recent state water plan, but any discussion given to it was rudimentary and symbolic, as if they didn’t wish to be accused of being ignorant as scientists… Most of our reservoirs are already in dire need and we’ve not even begun the really hot months. Taken together, it’s going to look like the dust bowl of Oklahoma.”

Reacting to a prediction by the state’s climatologist that 2013 is likely to be the hottest year on record, Robert Mace, deputy executive administrator of Texas Water Development Board and a key figure in the state’s water conservation efforts, said that the most immediate effect of the anticipated water shortages will be rising rates.

The state’s top environmental regulator, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), refused to comment on this article, telling Raw Story they have no opinion on climate change and insisting that “causes of the drought” are not within their purview. The same agency unilaterally deleted all mentions of climate change from a 2011 scientific report on the health of the Galveston Bay estuary, and ultimately sought a Texas Attorney General’s ruling in order to deny Raw Story’s information request for the names of the individuals involved in the censorship.

But just how bad could it get? The Texas AgriLife Extension Service found that the 2011 drought cost farmers more than $7.6 billion in 2011 — so take that for a baseline. Dr. John Nielsen-Gammon, the Texas state climatologist, told Raw Story he’s concerned that agricultural and drinking water supplies will face unprecedented and systemic strain again in 2013, and that heat-related damages could be worse than 2011.

And if that short-term problem sounds challenging, consider the long-term implications: “Water plans look out 50 years in the future,” Mace said. “So, our plan is focused on a repeat of the drought of record [in the 1950s]… We take a look at what we think our population is going to do, and we think our population is going to almost double in the next 50 years.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/22/perrys-water-board-still-wont-acknowledge-climate-change-as-texas-faces-dire-drought-in-2013/

[MannyIsGod]

Well whether or not they acknowledge it they'll have to deal with it. The research I'm working on right now has large implications for West Texas water supplies moving forward and the picture is not good.

[Blake]

http://cdn.gsmarena.com/pics/13/01/water-perry-free-wp/gsmarena_001.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"they'll have to deal with it."

they'll wait until it's HUGE disaster and public outcry, then raise water rates and/or privatize water utilities and/or invite their for-profit buddies in to practice "disaster capitalism"

[TeyshaBlue]

Well whether or not they acknowledge it they'll have to deal with it. The research I'm working on right now has large implications for West Texas water supplies moving forward and the picture is not good.

It's not as if the state is not aware of it and actively working on conservation methodologies.

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/swp/2012/index.asp

The problem is the low hanging fruit is gone. Now comes the grinding of data and work by guys like you, Manny.

[BobaFett1]

:sleep

[DarrinS]

In my lifetime, it's been either massive flooding or drought.

Two "hundred year" floods in a five year period.



And all caused by Trucks, SUV's, and cow farts.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not as if the state is not aware of it and actively working on conservation methodologies.

http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterplanning/swp/2012/index.asp

The problem is the low hanging fruit is gone. Now comes the grinding of data and work by guys like you, Manny.

Disagree with your last statement although I guess it depends on what you mean by low hanging fruit. I guess in a political sense thats true but water conservation out West isn't a tough nut to crack. I'm not sure about Texas' numbers, but I know that NM is basically in deep shit mainly because of the idiocy of the way water rights were handed out and agriculture in general. We simply need to cut agriculture out of the loop here in NM. It sounds harsh, but an industry that makes up 2% of our economy is using up the vast majority of the water. I'm almost positive its the same out in West Texas but I haven't looked at usage numbers.

[Jacob1983]

What if a human believes that climate change does exist but not to the extent of The Day After Tomorrow? What if it's just natural and humanity is not really responsible for it? Why the gloom and doom?

I think it's natural but obviously driving cars and taking shits in the ground probably hurt the environment a little but not to the extent of that the Al Gore types preach about. And you can't stop people from driving their cars because a lot of people don't have the luxury of living in a huge metropolitan area that has mass transit. Some people rely on their cars heavily and cannot use public transportation because they are either too far away or it's not available.

[Drachen]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/russia-already-stockpiling-snow-to-ensure-white-2014-winter-olympics/

I have spent the last 5 minutes trying to come up with a yakov smirnoff joke to go along with this, but I gave up.



In soviet russia fuck you.

[boutons_deux]

What if a human believes that climate change does exist but not to the extent of The Day After Tomorrow? What if it's just natural and humanity is not really responsible for it? Why the gloom and doom?

I think it's natural but obviously driving cars and taking shits in the ground probably hurt the environment a little but not to the extent of that the Al Gore types preach about. And you can't stop people from driving their cars because a lot of people don't have the luxury of living in a huge metropolitan area that has mass transit. Some people rely on their cars heavily and cannot use public transportation because they are either too far away or it's not available.

Even if you've been duped by ALEC/Kock Bros/BigCarbon/US CoC propaganda/lies, as a typical ignorant right-wingbat, that GW is not AGW, GW is, and will be, a huge problem for water, agriculture. Lots of large corps, the US military are already planning for the disaster. Humans have had a very stable, nourishing planet for 1000s, 1000s of years. That epoch is coming to an end.

[TeyshaBlue]

Disagree with your last statement although I guess it depends on what you mean by low hanging fruit. I guess in a political sense thats true but water conservation out West isn't a tough nut to crack. I'm not sure about Texas' numbers, but I know that NM is basically in deep shit mainly because of the idiocy of the way water rights were handed out and agriculture in general. We simply need to cut agriculture out of the loop here in NM. It sounds harsh, but an industry that makes up 2% of our economy is using up the vast majority of the water. I'm almost positive its the same out in West Texas but I haven't looked at usage numbers.

I think NM and West Texas share a lot of traits, especially in the water rights aspect. However, I think Ag is a much larger player in West Texas than in NM. Cotton is still a pretty large piece of the economy out there.

[boutons_deux]

All of the West is in deep shit because of water shortages. Mining for minerals, fracking, etc are consuming Bs of gallons of water and poisoning plenty of streams, deep injection of wastewater will poison deep "fossil" water reservoirs which will eventually be needed.

[MannyIsGod]

I think NM and West Texas share a lot of traits, especially in the water rights aspect. However, I think Ag is a much larger player in West Texas than in NM. Cotton is still a pretty large piece of the economy out there.

Growing cotton in a desert. SMH.

[MannyIsGod]

All of the West is in deep shit because of water shortages. Mining for minerals, fracking, etc are consuming Bs of gallons of water and poisoning plenty of streams, deep injection of wastewater will poison deep "fossil" water reservoirs which will eventually be needed.

Deep aquifers are never potable water. We need them now and if we could use them we would be.

[TeyshaBlue]

Deep aquifers are never potable water. We need them now and if we could use them we would be.

It's got what plants crave!

[Homeland Security]

Tip: find companies that have cutting-edge reverse-osmosis membrane technology for desalinization and invest in them.

[Drachen]

It's got what plants crave!

Reading's for fags.

[Nbadan]

Tip: find companies that have cutting-edge reverse-osmosis membrane technology for desalinization and invest in them.

Good tip...might need to start a bottle water company too...

[101A]

Climate change has given us more days of snow this year than any ever recorded here in Western Pa (including every single day this week - gonna drive twenty miles and roast that fucking Groundhog). Maybe Climate Change will bring y'all more rain, not less.

[boutons_deux]

Climate change has given us more days of snow this year than any ever recorded here in Western Pa (including every single day this week - gonna drive twenty miles and roast that fucking Groundhog). Maybe Climate Change will bring y'all more rain, not less.

SAWS is predicting first ever Stage 3 in May, and Stage 4 a couple months later. extreme TX drought predicted through end of 2013

[CosmicCowboy]

SAWS is predicting first ever Stage 3 in May, and Stage 4 a couple months later. extreme TX drought predicted through end of 2013

That is weather and not climate change.

[boutons_deux]

That is weather and not climate change.

no, that's Edwards aquifer level, not weather nor climate.

[CosmicCowboy]

no, that's Edwards aquifer level, not weather nor climate.

Aquifer level is determined by rainfall over the recharge zone which has been influenced by weather. The jet stream is way out of normal position right now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In my lifetime, it's been either massive flooding or drought.

Two "hundred year" floods in a five year period.



And all caused by Trucks, SUV's, and cow farts.

AL GORE!!!

[MannyIsGod]

Climate change has given us more days of snow this year than any ever recorded here in Western Pa (including every single day this week - gonna drive twenty miles and roast that fucking Groundhog). Maybe Climate Change will bring y'all more rain, not less.

Not likely although I also wouldn't say its likely climate change has brought you more snow. Days where it snows isn't necessarily a very meaningful metric outside of the context of the total snow for the season. In any event, Texas' latitude is likely to bring it under the influence of enhanced circulations that will provide more subsidence which in turn mean a drier environment. Even with the same type of precipitation as we have now increased temperatures will really hurt via increased evaporation. I'm looking at indicators that increased evaporation since 1980 is ALREADY having a significant effect on water supplies.

Western PA is in a completely different environment and I have no idea what the projections are for you but warming in the winter would provided increases in precipitation because the more you warm air the more water vapor is able to hold. Your proximity to the normal winter storm track and the warmer air combined could (this is me speculating as I've not seen data specifically for PA) increase the days where you see snow but one year does not a trend make.

[MannyIsGod]

Aquifer level is determined by rainfall over the recharge zone which has been influenced by weather. The jet stream is way out of normal position right now.

Only half right. Level in the Aquifer is also heavily dependent on how much is taken out. I'm curious as to the trends in usage of water drawn out of the Edwards but if I start looking that up I'm liable to spend hours of time looking at stuff I don't have hours to look at.

[Drachen]

Only half right. Level in the Aquifer is also heavily dependent on how much is taken out. I'm curious as to the trends in usage of water drawn out of the Edwards but if I start looking that up I'm liable to spend hours of time looking at stuff I don't have hours to look at.

Saws is obviously not the only draw on the edwards, but I remember hearing something on the radio about the fact that we are using as much water as in 1990, so I thought I would look it up. Pretty good and we could absolutely do better, but it still pretty nice.


As a result of a nationally recognized conservation program, SAWS is using the same amount of water today as it did more than two decades ago, despite a population increase of 67%. Given these accomplishments, the 2009 Water Management Plan Update includes goals of 116 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) by 2016, with 126 gpcd in high years and 106 gpcd in low years. SAWS has a unique commercial conservation program as well as a strong residential program, such as direct rebates and services to help customers reduce water use, certification programs for industry, and public education programs for the entire community.

Link (http://www.sanantonioedf.com/business-profile/utilities/water)

[MannyIsGod]

I just came here to post that I stumbled across that figure by a journalist who reports on water issues on my twitter feed. Thats pretty damn amazing. Albuquerque has managed to lower water usage in that same time frame but I can't remember if thats per capita or overall.

[Drachen]

I also wonder how the fact that saws has all of bexar county will change those numbers.

[DMC]

Perry got waterboarded?

[boutons_deux]

I just came here to post that I stumbled across that figure by a journalist who reports on water issues on my twitter feed. Thats pretty damn amazing. Albuquerque has managed to lower water usage in that same time frame but I can't remember if thats per capita or overall.

Flying into Laredo and Phoenix, I saw most lawns were brown dirt. ABQ is like that?

[MannyIsGod]

Very little grass in New Mexico. Santa Fe has pretty much no lawns and Albuquerque has some but not very many either.

[TeyshaBlue]

Very little grass in New Mexico. Santa Fe has pretty much no lawns and Albuquerque has some but not very many either.

Fair amount of trees in those parts. Love the smell of evergreens.

[boutons_deux]

Can the World Afford Cheap Water? (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/)

In the U.S., agriculture, industry and people combine to use more water than flows in the nation’s rivers. The difference is pulled up from beneath surface of the earth. “We depend on ground water (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ogallala-aquifer), it’s going away,” noted economist Jeff Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, which convened the State of the Planet: Water (http://stateoftheplanet.org/webcast/) conference. “This is anew geologic era (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=happy-earth-day-welcome-to-the-anth-12-04-22) where humanity has taken over key [planetary] drivers: the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle.”

The obvious solution, at least to economists, is: if water has become a scarce good then it needs an appropriate price to properly allocate it. Water engineer John Briscoe of Harvard University noted that Australian farmers survived the recent crippling drought—which resulted in a 70 percent reduction in water flow in the Murray-Darling river basin—because of a water trading system (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=australia-water-management) that shifted water use from low-value, high-water use crops like rice to cities that needed the H2O more. “This is Econ 101 at work,” he said.

Financial products innovator Richard Sandor—pioneer of interest rate derivatives andcarbon market evangelist (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-trade-or-carbon-con)—suggested that water would prove the big commodity play of the 21st century. He predicted that both water quantity and quality could be traded as goods. Such a cap-and-trade market also garnered support from Brian Richter, leader of the global freshwater team at The Nature Conservancy: “There is an ability for a market-based system to provide strong incentives to drive water conservation,” he noted.
“Efficiency of use goes up very quickly.”

The problem is that “efficiency of use” may mean some get to use no water at all. Many farmers in Australia have been driven bankrupt by the drought, as Briscoe admitted while also arguing that a market proved better at allocation than government rationing would have. “Markets are well-trained to ignore the poorest people,” the Earth Institute’s Sachs later countered. “They direct the resource to those who will pay for it and direct it away from those who cannot.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130329

Same with oil for transport. Tax it up to make it expensive, and watch the efficiency go up quickly.

[CosmicCowboy]

Can the World Afford Cheap Water? (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/)

In the U.S., agriculture, industry and people combine to use more water than flows in the nation’s rivers. The difference is pulled up from beneath surface of the earth. “We depend on ground water (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-ogallala-aquifer), it’s going away,” noted economist Jeff Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, which convened the State of the Planet: Water (http://stateoftheplanet.org/webcast/) conference. “This is anew geologic era (http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=happy-earth-day-welcome-to-the-anth-12-04-22) where humanity has taken over key [planetary] drivers: the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle.”

The obvious solution, at least to economists, is: if water has become a scarce good then it needs an appropriate price to properly allocate it. Water engineer John Briscoe of Harvard University noted that Australian farmers survived the recent crippling drought—which resulted in a 70 percent reduction in water flow in the Murray-Darling river basin—because of a water trading system (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=australia-water-management) that shifted water use from low-value, high-water use crops like rice to cities that needed the H2O more. “This is Econ 101 at work,” he said.

Financial products innovator Richard Sandor—pioneer of interest rate derivatives andcarbon market evangelist (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-trade-or-carbon-con)—suggested that water would prove the big commodity play of the 21st century. He predicted that both water quantity and quality could be traded as goods. Such a cap-and-trade market also garnered support from Brian Richter, leader of the global freshwater team at The Nature Conservancy: “There is an ability for a market-based system to provide strong incentives to drive water conservation,” he noted.
“Efficiency of use goes up very quickly.”

The problem is that “efficiency of use” may mean some get to use no water at all. Many farmers in Australia have been driven bankrupt by the drought, as Briscoe admitted while also arguing that a market proved better at allocation than government rationing would have. “Markets are well-trained to ignore the poorest people,” the Earth Institute’s Sachs later countered. “They direct the resource to those who will pay for it and direct it away from those who cannot.”

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/?WT_mc_id=SA_DD_20130329

Same with oil for transport. Tax it up to make it expensive, and watch the efficiency go up quickly.

Yeah, there is Boutons trying to fuck the 99% again with his regressive taxation plans. Carbon taxes hurts the poorest the most and the richest can afford it. They are the ones driving the gas guzzlers because they can't afford new Priuses

[boutons_deux]

"Carbon taxes hurts the poorest the most"

as with regressive other taxes, there are techniques to help low end.

The taxes collected could subsidize all forms of public transport.

[Wild Cobra]

Same with oil for transport. Tax it up to make it expensive, and watch the efficiency go up quickly.
Really?

Internal combustion engines could be more efficient than they are today, but at the problem is, that increased power efficiency leads to higher pollution. Fuels are now formulated to so that the unburned portions are primarily CO2 and H2O out the tailpipe, but the catalytic converter is doing much of this. Modern engines operate somewhere around 15:1, maybe 17:1, air/fuel ration for gas engines. 100% efficiency would be more like 25:1.

Problem is, pollution. The EPA standards are driving lower efficiency and cafe standards are driving fuel efficiency.

It isn't fuel taxes driving shit. In European nations, people just drive cars with smaller engines and drive far less, unless they are the ~10% or better.

Increased fuel taxes would just increase the costs associated with transportation. Push then high enough, and people will start going electric, but at the expense of making far less people capable of affording personal transportation.

[TeyshaBlue]

Really?

Internal combustion engines could be more efficient than they are today, but at the problem is, that increased power efficiency leads to higher pollution. Fuels are now formulated to so that the unburned portions are primarily CO2 and H2O out the tailpipe, but the catalytic converter is doing much of this. Modern engines operate somewhere around 15:1, maybe 17:1, air/fuel ration for gas engines. 100% efficiency would be more like 25:1.

Problem is, pollution. The EPA standards are driving lower efficiency and cafe standards are driving fuel efficiency.

It isn't fuel taxes driving shit. In European nations, people just drive cars with smaller engines and drive far less, unless they are the ~10% or better.

Increased fuel taxes would just increase the costs associated with transportation. Push then high enough, and people will start going electric, but at the expense of making far less people capable of affording personal transportation.

Actually, the optimum or stoichiometric ratio for contemporary gasoline is about 13:1. The EPA controls for 14.1 w/catalytic convertors. Any ratio north of these and you get into lean burn and serious heat issues.

[Wild Cobra]

Actually, the optimum or stoichiometric ratio for contemporary gasoline is about 13:1. The EPA controls for 14.1 w/catalytic convertors. Any ratio north of these and you get into lean burn and serious heat issues.
OK, I just looked up a few things.

Here's where I got mixed up.

The 25:1 is by molecule, not by mass, and for this reaction:

25/2 O2 + C8H18 -> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O

The other ratios are by mass. I do recall the 14.7:1, rounded to 15, and made a mistake.

Even my 25 was wrong. Should be 25:2 for molecule ratios.

---add---

Your 14.1 comes from the mandated 10% ethanol. It's stoichiometric ratio is 9:1 where gasoline is 14.7:1. The mix calculates to 14.13:1.

[MannyIsGod]

Fair amount of trees in those parts. Love the smell of evergreens.

Mostly Pinon Juniper which is practically a shrub. All the Douglas Fir are up high in the mountains (and dying due to bark beatles and drought). We have a fair amount of Aspen around too. This is in Santa Fe, though. Not much treewise in Albuquerque unless its right by the Rio Grande then you see a lot of Cottonwood.

[101A]

Not likely although I also wouldn't say its likely climate change has brought you more snow. Days where it snows isn't necessarily a very meaningful metric outside of the context of the total snow for the season. In any event, Texas' latitude is likely to bring it under the influence of enhanced circulations that will provide more subsidence which in turn mean a drier environment. Even with the same type of precipitation as we have now increased temperatures will really hurt via increased evaporation. I'm looking at indicators that increased evaporation since 1980 is ALREADY having a significant effect on water supplies.

Western PA is in a completely different environment and I have no idea what the projections are for you but warming in the winter would provided increases in precipitation because the more you warm air the more water vapor is able to hold. Your proximity to the normal winter storm track and the warmer air combined could (this is me speculating as I've not seen data specifically for PA) increase the days where you see snow but one year does not a trend make.

Ran 3 miles last night - 24 fucking degrees. I am ready for the global warming apocalypse, tbh. This sucks. Hell, it's 33 RIGHT NOW!!! - Supposed to snow again on Friday.

[Wild Cobra]

Ran 3 miles last night - 24 fucking degrees. I am ready for the global warming apocalypse, tbh. This sucks. Hell, it's 33 RIGHT NOW!!! - Supposed to snow again on Friday.
I miss Global Warming.

How about you?

[boutons_deux]

Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes

Slower progression of upper-level waves would cause associated weather patterns in mid-latitudes to be more persistent, which may lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events that result from prolonged conditions, such as drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL051000.shtml

[101A]

I miss Global Warming.

How about you?

HELLS YES!!!

9:26 A.M.

TWENTY ONE DEGREES - FAHRENHEIT!!!!

[boutons_deux]

HELLS YES!!!

9:26 A.M.

TWENTY ONE DEGREES - FAHRENHEIT!!!!

Late spring frigidty is instability of the usual seasonal temperature patterns of the past several 100 years.

[BobaFett1]

Late spring frigidty is instability of the usual seasonal temperature patterns of the past several 100 years.



Man give it up.

[boutons_deux]

Rainfall barely can slow decline of Medina Lake

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/environment/article/Rainfall-barely-can-slow-decline-of-Medina-Lake-4410912.php

Amazing slide show. Pretty much the same for Lake Travis, and Lake Mead.

http://science.time.com/2010/10/18/water-lake-mead-is-at-record-low-levels-is-the-southwest-drying-up/