Don’t count on Lake Mead going dry
To the editor:
Having performed research as a hydrologist and water resource engineer on the Colorado River for the past 15 years, I was disappointed to see that simplistic research was being presented as possible climate change scenarios in the Colorado River basin (“Study gives 50-50 odds Lake Mead will dry up by 2021,” Wednesday Review-Journal).
I agree that climate change will have dramatic effects in the Southwest. There is, however, a large amount of research that still highlights the large amount of uncertainty in the precipitation estimates for the Colorado River basin from climate change models. The notation that Lake Mead has a 50 percent chance of being dry by year 2021 is based on gross assumptions that are unlikely to occur in the next 15 years and assume that society will not adapt to climate change.
First, an assumption was made that no shortages would be declared on the Colorado River under low reservoir conditions. This is in opposition to the shortage criteria that the basin states recently established in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement: Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.”
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, in conjunction with the basin states, developed detailed criteria that will prevent Lake Mead from being dry in the near future.
These criteria were ignored in the results that had Lake Mead dry in 2021.
Second, the complexity of how Lake Powell and Lake Mead are operated was ignored, and the two reservoirs were modeled as a single reservoir. There are coordinated operating rules between these two reservoirs that satisfy “Law of the River” requirements and optimal operation of the system.
These rules also lessen the chances that either reservoir will become dry.
We are all aware that water is a tremendous challenge for the Southwest and sustainable solutions will need to be developed. These solutions will be developed through cooperation among the stakeholders and the use of the latest scientific information that reflects the complexity of the Colorado River basin.
Thomas Piechota
LAS VEGAS
THE WRITER IS AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN UNLV’S DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING.
It’s science
To the editor:
I want to thank the Review-Journal for putting my mind at ease. Your Thursday editorial “Lake Mead dry as a bone?” made me realize that all our fears about a possible severe water shortage in coming years are just a myth. I now feel so relieved that I can trust the unbiased R-J editorial board over a group of trained scientists and experts who warn us that Lake Mead could dry up as a water source in 15 years.
I guess we can all ignore that 70-feet deep white ring around the lake and get back to watering our lawns seven days a week. After reading your editorial, I feel so much better.
Nolan Dalla
LAS VEGAS
Speech limits
To the editor:
In response to your Tuesday editorial, “Campaign finance follies”:
The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is a blatant violation of the right to free speech.
The right to free speech means the right to express one’s ideas. This necessarily includes the right to financially support and publicly endorse — or oppose — candidates for political office. Political advertisements — like campaign contributions — are a means of disseminating one’s ideas and values. Prohibitions limiting the content or timing of political ads, like prohibitions on campaign funding, are an assault on free speech.
David Holcberg
IRVINE, CALIF.
THE WRITER IS WITH THE AYN RAND INSTITUTE.
Universal care
To the editor:
Another knock on universal health care by G. Marsh, in his letter of Feb. 8.
I suppose you can find isolated examples of waiting time for non-life-threatening procedures and treatment, but I would like to see the percentage data on such happenings. I keep repeating over and over again that if the situation was that bad in England and Canada the citizens of these countries would, as both countries are democracies, vote the system out and go back to the American-style, private system. Or they could just call for improvement in their own system through higher taxes but, surprisingly, they haven’t done either, and polls taken in both countries show a huge preference of their “government-run systems” over any private system.
By the way, why is it you don’t have Medicare patients on waiting lists? Maybe it is because we know more about running government care than they do in England.
The big difference between our Medicare and England’s system is that England’s is completely government run and operated whereas Medicare is administered and funded by the government but operated by the private sector. So it would seem there is a model for the United States to follow when it comes to achieving universal health care — and it isn’t in England or Canada, but right here under our noses in the form of Medicare.
Dan Olivier
BULLHEAD CITY, ARIZ.
