"And the moon shines high over TucsonOver waters that were long ago dried
Cause the moon don't care if the water's not there
It's high tide."
Under Tucson is a natural lake, an aquifer, which has sustained life here for thousands of years. That aquifer has been shrunk through the usages of grassy lawns, golf courses, swimming pools, and more and more homes. It is now being partially refilled from the Arizona Canal which flows from the Colorado River.
Tucson has many waterways which are called washes, creeks, or rivers but rarely with water in them by the time they enter the main valley. Those same, innocent looking washes, can be in so much flood that they will push cars off roadways with their force, destroy homes in their wake. Throughout Tucson, in the dips, you will see signs warning against entering when they have water in them. Every year someone doesn't listen, and you either get a funny photo of them sitting on their car, or a tragic story of drownings. There are actually a lot of drownings in the desert mainly due to flash floods, sometimes from rainstorms that are so far off in the distance that you don't know about them until you hear the sound of their thunderous approach.
Even
when dry, washes are not meaningless as they are the conduits for the wild things to move from the mountains down into the valleys and back. As humans find more ways to build in them, the animals will suffer more and more. It's because of a wash near my Tucson house that I have javelina coming through my yard, coyotes yodeling, an occasional bobcat, cougar or even bear coming down to see what's up.Water in the desert is appreciated but also needed. Despite our thinking we are so superior to ea
rlier cultures, in the end, without water, Tucson will shrink back to the old pueblo it originally was.Years ago the Santa Cruz River flowed most of the year and occasionally had enough water to bring down a steamship from Phoenix. When the first white men arrived, the Santa Cruz valley
had tall grass, cottonwoods down along the river, natural springs on the mountain and easily supported the first settlers as it had the Native American tribes who had come earlier. Now its flow comes from rainstorms or as with this little photo from treated water below a sewage plant.The mountains, which are called Sky Islands by many, have both creeks and springs that provide water either sporadically or much of the year. In the Catalinas there are trees that represent life zones as far up as Canada with tall pine and fir on the heights. From the mountains comes water which varies as to how dependably.
When I went looking for the name of the creek where I wade most often, it was nearly impossible to find out for sure exactly what it might be called. Three miles up the canyon there are Romero pools and Romero Canyon; so it has to be Romero Creek, but it isn't marked where I could be sure by the time it gets to me. I also cross Sutherland Wash which this last trip also was flowing. When those two washes come together, they become La Cañada del Oro, which is the wash near my home. By then it only has water when it's in flood and then it closes roads with its torrents.
All of the water that comes from these mountain creeks disappears into the desert but while it flows it's something to be treasured, to be preserved as long as possible. It's like so many things in the desert, savor them while they are here because they don't last.
"Cause the moon don't care if the water's not there
It still tries
It calls to the water and it calls to the land
It calls to the hearts of women and men..."
It still tries
It calls to the water and it calls to the land
It calls to the hearts of women and men..."
(Lyrics from Carrie Newcomer's 'Moon over Tucson' in the album Betty's Diner: The best of Carrie Newcomer, and if you haven't heard this singer and album, it's well worth buying. Her songs are all full of emotion, strong melodies and her wondrous voice.)
15 comments:
It does seem to me that water will eventually limit how many people can be supported in the southwest. Since there is no way to place limits on who can or can not move there I suppose it will become an economic issue where the rich will go south for the winter and the rest of us will stay in the frigid north. Of course, if the climate is really warming and we live long enough, maybe the warmer winters will come to us!
Soon enough the water will become a commodity that wars will be fought over. Just like oil is today. I think there ought to be a law that says you can not live or build within 2 miles of another person or building. ok, maybe 1 mile. And the wild animals should have priority!
If you want to have one or two miles between houses then we will need to build over a lot of those open spaces that the wild animals now occupy. Water is going to continue to be less available in the southwest and we keep letting people pour over the border and move there from the frozen north so it is just going to continue. Also every time a new water project is proposed the environmental movement screams bloody murder so I guess we will just keep going until the wheels fall off and water is like gasoline.
I don't usually comment on things that have to do with the "north" but in this instance I feel I have to. I know for a fact that we have been providing water for several U.S. states for a few years now, so..I'm not sure Ing. where you are getting your info from? Not to mention sand and gravel which is fairly new to our area, it is called Orca Sand and Gravel and the first shipload went out this pats week.
mmm, should read past week
Please, be more specific about what water projects you are talking about, Ingineer. I am not familiar with the ones you mean as what i see when in California are canals going everywhere taking water from the Shasta area as well as probably the Sacramento River. The entire center of California has gone to irrigated fields of many crops. So what is being banned???
And Sandy, I am even less familiar with Canada. I didn't know that any rivers up there were being diverted in some way but maybe it's because in the part of the country where I live, it's not happening. I did read something about a Great Lakes controversy but I would have thought they belong to both nations.
The problem is that the United States is a major grower of food for not just us but the world. It's one of our few large exports. Land that I have never seen being farmed is right now due to Arizona and California canals. I am edgy about that because they do all depend on replenishing sources of water which if we are heading into global climate change, might just not happen. The Southwest is still in the middle of a long drought which could impact a lot and yet there go more golf courses, more huge developments which all make me remember the Hohokam, Sinagua and the Anasazi who did likewise and most probably ended up having to leave when their own drought lasted long enough that they could no longer sustain the level of life they had had.
Sandy I just heard about the gravel mining export the other day from my buddy that has a place in Port Alice. He was telling me they are taking gravel and putting it on ships and sending it the US. I cannot believe that it is cheaper to go up there and get it and ship it down here than it is to deal with all the environmental and obstructionist rules here. Seems crazy to me.
As for water projects, I was referring to California. The main one is the Sites Reservoir. It is a very environmentally friendly Off-stream storage reservoir that they have been trying to build for years. It looks like Arnold may actually get this one through. There is also the Auburn Dam on the American River which actually had construction started on it by the Feds in the 1970's but Jerry Brown and his crew got it stopped. In addition to water supply it would have provided flood protection to the Sacramento Area (see New Orleans on the need for this).
There is another one down near Fresno that has been on the books for 30 years or so that has been a fight with the environmentalists. Also they want to remove the Hetch-Hetchy Dam near Yosemite which provides most of SF and the bay area with drinking water. No answer as to what they would drink if they actually did remove the dam.
There are more water projects that have been proposed, but these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Ingineer, you act as though only environementalists oppose new dams. I would question whether the dams you want are economically beneficial to the tax payers or only benefit a small group. I don't know the specifics there but in many areas dams to block flooding end up hurting the environment in terms of it no longer rejuvenating itself and are only beneficial to homebuilders who want to put houses where they should never be. Up my way, some of the early dams have become hazards, some are no longer of benefit. You look at Glen Canyon which environmentalists didn't want. Now with the drought, with sitl filling it up, the whole expensive project may end up being even more epensive. It's always interesting to me how those who are so much against taxes love the projects that they would pay for-- the local pork.
Sure I would like to see some new lakes for recreation. But I am not in it for local pork. I just think Californians are going to get very thirsty if the population keeps doubling and we are using a water delivery system from the 1960s. Especially if global warming is true, then we are going to have even less water. As for a dam being expensive, I would rather pay a billion dollars for Auburn Dam than to have to pay 10 or 12 Billion when Sacramento floods.
As for people not building houses where they shouldnt, I guess by your logic we should not rebuild New Orleans. If that is the case then we need to tear down about 100,000 houses in the greater Sacramento area and probably 1 million in California. Oh then we should not let people build houses in areas that are prone to earthquakes or forest fires or tornados or hurricanes. Personally I would rather use technology to keep them where they are because I dont want 100 million people living in my town which is safe from all of the things I listed above.
PS we have environmentalist here that are against everything. Now we cant run the wind turbines to generate electricity because they kill birds.
So all this talk about wanting smaller government, of not wanting high taxes only relates to when it's projects from which you can't benefit? A lake you can boat on is a good use of government money? As for flood control, doesn't Shasta Dam already do that? With New Orleans, if somebody hadn't wanted those low areas to flood to make the property accessible to the developers, likely the dikes would have been repaired.
Dams don't always help a region. If you pay attention to what flooding accomplishes, you find that when you stop it, particularly in desert regions, you end the usefulness of the land for many other things. The flood actually cleans and helps. People should not build in areas that frequently flood, nor should they build right on an ocean that with the right storms tears down their homes. In some countries that is not an option, they have to build in such sites but I see it happening for instance in Tucson and when the flood comes that takes everything out, there will be wails. I live right at the edge of a hundred year flood plain from a small creek-- normally. Today likely this house could not even be built where it is-- because taxpayers get tired of paying to redo what should never have gone a certain place to begin with. I think you have the idea technology can fix anything. I don't have that idea. I have the idea that commonsense should be used with where we settle. An example is Tucson, where it's growing to a level way bigger than the natural aquifer can handle, and is living a lifestyle appropriate to an area with a lot of water because of that canal-- an artificial canal system (started by Carter btw) which if the Colorado River does not have enough water, will fail.
Everybody says the next big issue, beyond oil will be water and the United States has many areas without enough of it. If we are going into major climate change, there will be a lot more such areas. You could find those expensive dams you want, the ones you want the whole nation to pay for through federal taxes, they would end up without enough water to keep a dingy afloat...
I dont think technology can solve everything. Beleive me, I have great respect for what mother nature can dish out. I have repaired many highways that were damaged by mother nature in various ways. And I do know that dams have an environmental impact. I am saying that in some places they are the Best Available technology for the application.
As for smaller government, I do not have a problem with my government providing infrastructure. What I do not want my government to do is tell whether I can spank my child or smoke a ciggarette in my house or what kind of car I can buy. All of those things are either pending or passed in the California Legislature. I dont want a nanny government. I want my government to provide defense, police, fire, infrastructure and education. And not much else. But here they pass 5000 new feel good laws a year.
And Shasta dam provides protection on the Sacramento River. But not the American River which is what flows into the Sacramento at the city of Sacramento and causes flooding. In 1986 they were about 8 more hours of rain from having a New Orleans type flood and in 1997 they had a lot of flooding but not as scary as 86. But now there are a lot more houses. The area has nearly doubled in population since 86.
Oh and as for expecting the taxpayers nationwide to pay for anything in California. We have been a donor state paying out more to the Feds than we get back for a long time, probably since 1850. Gold was the reason we became a state. And the rest of the country and world have no problem eating the food grown here.
Water is going to continue to be an issue and only get worse and the crowd that thinks conservation is the only thing we need are wrong. I dont want to stick my head in the sand, I want to see leadership.
I am not much interested in paying money to build dams to let developers build homes in areas they never should have to begin. Basically as i recall the problem in Sacramento, it's that they haven't been repairing the dikes there either. So have they taken what money they do get and used it other ways as did New Orleans?
As for how it works for states getting back less than they put out, for anyone interested in understanding how that works, here is a site that explained it when figures were still there-- which means mostly this info will not take into account what the Iraqi war has done to the balance. Tax Foundation.
The states paying the most for what they get back are those most prosperous and in 2000, that was like Connecticut and New Jersey. States with large bases get back more for what they put out and likewise those who are poor. So if you want to go where the state comes out ahead, head for the South.
The justification you just used though is why pork exists and the more powerful senators are, often the more they get back. The more your senators go after pork, the more you will see yourself getting back everything you put out-- except in a group such as yourself that favors the Iraqi war and high military spending, you can't expect to get the money back to your state and still fight those wars. This will likely all be rebalanced when they look at again as the corporations that have war profiteered (those that didn't move their headquarters overseas anyway) will be bringing home more money to their own states.
If the federal government gave all states back exactly what they put out, why would we need it? It would mean we had no cost of DC.
Interesting article on the donor states. I remember when one of the Federal Transportation Funding bills was passed back a few years. Every state in the unions share went up except Massachusetts because they had got so much money in the previous bill for the Big Dig that they had to pay the piper afterwards. If I remember correct they have spent over $20billion on that project so far. I think we should do the same thing in San Francisco. Put an underground freeway from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Bay Bridge. They have been talking about building a freeway to do that for years but they don't like freeways or cars in SF so put it where no one can see it.
Post a Comment