Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Water

How the West's Energy Boom Could Threaten Drinking Water for 1 in 12 Americans

By Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica. Posted December 26, 2008.


A rush to develop domestic oil, gas and uranium deposits along the Colorado River and its tributaries is a threat to our children's future
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

 

This story was co-published with the San Diego Union-Tribune and also appears in that newspaper's Dec. 21, 2008 issue.

The Colorado River, the life vein of the Southwestern United States, is in trouble.

The river's water is hoarded the moment it trickles out of the mountains of Wyoming and Colorado and begins its 1,450-mile journey to Mexico's border. It runs south through seven states and the Grand Canyon, delivering water to Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Diego. Along the way, it powers homes for 3 million people, nourishes 15 percent of the nation's crops and provides drinking water to one in 12 Americans.

Now a rush to develop domestic oil, gas and uranium deposits along the river and its tributaries threatens its future.

The region could contain more oil than Alaska's National Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It has the richest natural gas fields in the country. And nuclear energy, viewed as a key solution to the nation's dependence on foreign energy, could use the uranium deposits held there.

But getting those resources would suck up vast quantities of the river's water and could pollute what is left. That's why those most concerned are water managers in places like Los Angeles and San Diego. They have the most to lose.

The river is already so beleaguered by drought and climate change that one environmental study called it the nation's "most endangered" waterway. Researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography warn the river's reservoirs could dry up in 13 years.

The industrial push has already begun.

In the eight years George W. Bush has been in office, the Colorado River watershed has seen more oil and gas drilling than at any time in the past 25 years. Uranium claims have reached a 10-year high. Last week the departing administration auctioned off an additional 148,598 acres of federal land for gas drilling projects outside Moab, Utah.

As still more land is leased for drilling and a last-minute change in federal rules has paved the way for water-intensive oil shale mining, politicians and water managers are now being forced to ask which is more valuable: energy or water.

"The decisions we are making today will be dictating how we will be living the rest of our lives," said Jim Pokrandt, a spokesman with the Colorado River Conservation District, a state-run policy agency. "We may have reached mutually exclusive demands on our water supply."

Some experts and officials say the economic and ecological importance of the Colorado is just as vital to American security as the natural resources that can be extracted from around it.

"Without (the Colorado), there is no Western United States," said Jim Baca, who directed the Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, in the Clinton administration and says the agency's current policy is narrow-sighted. "If it becomes unusable, you move the entire Western United States out of any sort of economic position for growth."

Balancing that risk with the need for energy is complicated, because scientific understanding of the Colorado is limited and no single agency manages the river as a national resource.

The Interior Department, which includes the BLM, oversees where the water goes, but not how it is kept clean. The EPA is charged with maintaining water quality, but it can't control who uses it and doesn't conduct its own research. Furthermore, the EPA delegates much of its authority to the states that the river runs through, and the federal, state and local authorities in charge of separate aspects of the river don't always coordinate or cooperate.

"I don't know that there is, quite honestly, anyone that looks at an entire overview impact statement of the Colorado River," said Robert Walsh, a spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, which governs the allocation and flow of the southern part of the waterway.

Desolation Canyon, Utah. (Ray Bloxham/SUWA)

 

Desolation Canyon, Utah. (Ray Bloxham/SUWA)

Oil and natural gas drilling in Colorado already require so much water that if its annual demand were satisfied all at once, it would be the equivalent of shutting off most of Southern California's water for five days. If Colorado's oil shale is mined, it would turn off the spigot for 79 days.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, water pollution, colorado river, oil drilling, gas drilling

Abrahm Lustgarten is a former staff writer and contributor for Fortune, and has written for Salon, Esquire, the Washington Post and the New York Times since receiving his master's in journalism from Columbia University in 2003.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's Already In Trouble
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 26, 2008 1:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some years the Colorado does not make it to the Gulf of California because so much water has been diverted. The US even has a desalinization plant to reduce the salt content in the overtaxed water recovered from irrigation in order to comply with a water quality treaty with Mexico.

Wholesale energy development in the Colorado Plateau will turn the area that inspired Abbey's Desert Solitaire into a dead zone and pollute the Colorado and tributaries for longer than any of us will ever live. The water used in gas extraction from coal beds is toxic and will eventually destroy the aquifers used by locals and eventually seep into the Colorado itself- where much of southern Nevada, Arizona and Southern California get a significant amount of their drinking water.

This water also feeds the Imperial Valley, source of many of our winter vegetables and other agriculture in the region that is not easily replicated elsewhere within the US.

There is no gas, oil, coal or uranium supply worth the destruction of so much and there is no clean way to extract much of it. It is largely better left alone.

There is a way to live with the earth and nature and against the earth and nature. One leads to abundance and the other to unsustainable boom followed by destruction. I'll let you figure out which is which.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lazy Environmentalists
Posted by: ranger1 on Dec 26, 2008 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many folks out there who buy into the idea that we have to use extractive energy sources at an ever spiraling upward rate to have a great economy. I was in Moab during the 1970's and saw that the regulators were taken over by industry (An end result of Corporate Personhood - which needs to be abolished. Google it- and don't stop till you get the 42,000+ lobbyists out of our federal government and do the same thing all the way down to local/state government).

The Amax Superfund site shown in the article even when operating was in violation for failing to keep it's tailing pile pond filled with water resulting on windy days (many)that the toxic dust spread all over Moab. Complaints to the Atomic Energy Commission resulted in no action. Ore trucks would run thru town at night with no covers on leaving a thin film of uranium ore dust all over town. Complaints to the Utah State government resulted in no action. I vowed not to support this industry and when my utility bought into nuclear I refused to pay monthy my share of the bill.

So what to do radically.

First, refocus our world society on the need to get our food clothing shelter and fuel in an environmentally sound and sustainable way. This will require a multigenerational approach to prevent new unsustainable economic bubbles from being created.

Recognize that we have to find best practices for each bioregion of the country for each of those necessaries.

Recognize independent invention. We need to remove patent protections for processes and materials (patent libraries should be a repository of human ideas, ideas that get to be gestated as needed by the human family) ...
(I've often wondered what I would have done if I had to pay for the use of the idea of a solar hot air collector because some utility held the world patent.)

I've made it this year to December 21st before crying uncle when my house temperature fell to 50 degrees at night having me turn on the natural gas furnace. The 8'x24' vertical solar hot air collector I installed in 1982 might have infringed on someone's patent but so what? I put the labor and energy into making a value added product whereas the idea is just an idea without someone making it into reality. It may not be fully carbon or water neutral in it's implementation or use but I'll bet with a full systems review (retread the weapons systems/number crunching folks into this realm) it will be much much better than Cheney's Haliburton working the gas fields of NW New Mexico and it's associated infrastructure and cleanup costs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Instead of drilling oil, we should get beyond Ron Paul's HEMP FARMING ACT and
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 26, 2008 8:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
push for legalizing the growth, cultivation, and manufacturing of hemp. What does this have to do with the environment? EVERYTHING. HEMP can replace petroleum 100% and requires none of it to grow or use. Altogether, this means that instead of drilling for oil, we can leave that alone and grow our own hempseed oil for fuel. Do you people want more big gubbmint pimping Big Oil against the lives of you, your children, grandchildren, etc ... ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is almost like deja vu back to the 60's
Posted by: Alenna on Jan 3, 2009 2:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
except then the BLM was trying to build dams everywhere - on most big western rivers. I remember they wanted to flood parts of the Grand Canyon effectively turning it into a lake. Thank goodness for environmentalists like David Brower at the time.

They also wanted to sell off most of the Redwood areas to lumber companies and kill off most of the wild mustangs in the western states. Apparently their old ghosts have returned in a new form. Where is David Brower when we need him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two birds with one stone
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 6, 2009 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When you set a nuclear reactor on a shore, and use seawater to cool the steam, you get drinking water is a side effect.

The US Navy has been doing this for about half a century. If we recycle spent nuclear fuel (instead of storing it), and do this we can carbon-free electicity and drinking water, helping two crisises at once.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]