Groundwater supplies are plunging across the Colorado River Basin: Study
The Colorado River Basin's groundwater supplies are dwindling, thanks to a combination of both natural events and human pumping activities, a new study has found.
The critical Western system has lost about 42 million acre-feet of water storage since 2003 — with 65 percent of those declines, or 28 million acre-feet, attributable to groundwater depletion, according to the study, published on Tuesday in Geophysical Research Letters.
Over the past century alone, the authors noted, the Colorado River's flow has plunged by about 20 percent, with climate models predicting additional reductions of up to 30 percent by mid-century, due to escalating temperatures and diminishing Rocky Mountain snowpack.
'The decline of the river poses a severe threat to both agricultural and municipal water supplies, which are heavily reliant on the river,' the researchers warned.
The Colorado River system, which serves about 40 million people in the U.S. and Mexico, is divided on this side of the border into a Lower Basin and an Upper Basin, which respectively include California, Arizona and Nevada, and Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.
The actual amount of water available in the Colorado River Basin varies every year, based on snowpack, other environmental conditions and usage. But historic treaties allotted annual allocations of 7.5 million acre-feet to each domestic basin, as well as 1.5 million acre-feet to Mexico.
For context, Western U.S. households tend to consume about half an acre-foot of water every year.
Harnessing satellite observations of the region's water storage, the scientists found that groundwater depletion accounted for about 53 percent of the total water supply loss in the Upper Basin and 71 percent in the Lower Basin — far greater than the amounts lost by the system's two largest reservoirs, Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
With much less surface water available, the demand for groundwater is expected to climb — and in the Lower Basin, this resource already accounts for 40 perent of the water supply, the researchers explained.
Yet although groundwater is seen as 'a crucial buffer' in arid environments, it is also 'rapidly disappearing due to excessive extraction one one hand and insufficient recharge and management on the other,' the authors added.
About 80 percent of the basin's water is devoted to irrigation, which bolsters a $1.4 billion agricultural industry in Arizona alone, according to the study.
'This situation places immense pressure on the region's groundwater resources,' the scientists stressed.
Looking forward, the scientists emphasized a need to identify factors that contribute to the system's groundwater loss — with the goal of creating 'sustainable water management strategies that can help secure water resources for the region's future.'
These considerations may prove particularly important in the current moment, as the region's states negotiate long-term operational and conservation guidelines for the 1,450-mile artery. The current interim rules, set in 2007, will expire at the end of 2026.
'As climate change intensifies and demands on the Colorado River continue to grow, the inclusion of groundwater in interstate [Colorado River Basin] water discussions has become a national imperative,' the researchers concluded.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 hours ago
- New York Post
Failing on every front, is higher education still sustainable today?
A professor specializing in honesty, Francesca Gino — fired for dishonesty. This latest headline from trouble-plagued Harvard puts higher education's problems in a nutshell. Not only do many Americans believe higher education is elitist, but increasingly they're concluding it's also not very good at its job, or even harmful. Advertisement And with reason. Gino, a Harvard Business School behavioral scientist who studied (of all things) honesty, was stripped of tenure and fired because of academic dishonesty, the first Harvard professor so treated since the 1940s. Investigators found problems with several of her more famous studies were the result of research misconduct. Advertisement Nor is she Harvard's only problem child: Claudine Gay had to step down as the school's president amid her own plagiarism scandal. And these problems are rife throughout the academy. A Smith College commencement speaker this year even had to surrender her honorary degree when it turned out her speech had been stolen. It's not just about copying. There's also a widely acknowledged 'replication crisis': Scientists publish papers reporting results, but it's increasingly impossible for others to reproduce those results, leading to what some have called an existential crisis for research. Advertisement We're told cuts to federal spending on higher education will imperil research, but such claims would be more troubling if the 'research' were of more reliably high quality. It's an open secret that the pressure to produce a constant flood of papers that are publishable and, better yet, interesting enough to spark headlines leads to corner-cutting, 'data torture' and overclaiming — or, sometimes, outright fraud. The result is an expensive self-licking ice cream cone of grant applications and publications, but the actual contribution to human knowledge is often lacking. Of course, research isn't the only justification for higher education; we had colleges and universities long before professors saw academic publication as the major goal of their jobs. Advertisement Higher education was long justified as a way to promote our society's values and instill knowledge. College grads were supposed to understand philosophy, government, literature and human nature in ways that people without such a higher education couldn't. They were supposed to gain a deeper appreciation of our society's roots and purposes, and an ability to think critically, and to re-examine their views in the face of new evidence. This is one reason for the requirement that military officers have college degrees — a requirement that probably should be rethought: Does anyone seriously believe this is what colleges and universities teach now? An overriding theme at elite colleges — and by no means limited to them — is that Western culture is uniquely evil, white people are uniquely awful, and pretty much any crime is justifiable so long as the hands committing it are suitably brown and 'oppressed.' Meanwhile, numerous universities face federal civil-rights investigations for allowing and in some cases promoting antisemitism and violence against Jewish students. We've seen riots, violence, Jewish students surrounded and attacked on campus or forced to hide out in attics as mobs rampage through buildings. The notion that our colleges and universities are encouraging students to follow their better instincts seems unsustainable. Advertisement And how are schools doing at inculcating actual, you know, knowledge? Not so well. In a recent study, Richard Arum and Josipa Aroksa found there's not a lot of learning going on: 45% of students 'did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning' over the first two years of college; 36% failed to show any improvement over four years. The reason: Courses aren't very rigorous, and not much is required of students. Then we see things like UCLA Medical School's notorious dumbing down of admissions in the name of 'diversity.' Advertisement Though racial preferences are outlawed in California, UCLA has made its minimum requirements much less demanding in order to promote minority admissions. The result: Up to half of UCLA medical students fail basic tests of competence. The public has noticed, which is why higher education, whose position seemed unassailable not long ago, is facing successful assaults from both the Trump administration and the market. Advertisement As one wag put it on X: 'Harvard is quickly realizing that nobody outside of Harvard cares about Harvard.' Or, if they do care, they want to see it turned upside down and shaken hard. As evolutionary biologist Thomas Ray observed, 'Every successful system accumulates parasites.' American higher ed has been extraordinarily successful, and it has been parasitized by grifters, political hacks and outright terrorist sympathizers. Advertisement Now that it's lost public sympathy, it can expect a stiff dose of the salts. Good. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the blog.
New York Post
2 days ago
- New York Post
Phew — this much simpler habit is better at fixing your gut health than a poop transplant, say scientists
Turns out that fecal transplants are No. 2. It's hard to imagine, but these transplants are really hot right now. Clinical trials have shown promising results for treating cancer, reversing the effects of aging and healing the gut. Luckily, a new study suggests there's a much simpler and more appetizing way to optimize gut health. Advertisement 3 A new study suggests there's a much simpler and more appetizing way to optimize gut health than fecal transplants. Vadym – The research — recently published in the journal Nature — found that a healthy diet does a better job of restoring gut health than transferring someone else's poop into your body. 'There's a big emphasis on treating a depleted microbiome with things like fecal transplants right now, but our study shows that this will not be successful without a healthy diet, and in fact, a healthy diet alone still outperforms it,' Joy Bergelson, executive vice president of the Simons Foundation's Life Sciences division, said in a statement. Advertisement An international team of researchers set out to investigate how diet influences gut recovery after a round of antibiotics, which often nuke the good bacteria along with the bad. They hopped up some mice on a model of the Western diet — which tends to be high in fat and low in fiber — while the rest of the mice were bequeathed the joys of clean eating. The results were stark. 3 Eating a diet rich in fiber is better for your gut health than a poop transplant, according to science. aamulya – Advertisement 'In the mice that were on the healthy diet, within a week after antibiotic treatment, they recovered to almost their normal state,' said study co-author Megan Kennedy of the University of Chicago. 'By comparison, the microbiomes of the mice on the Western diet remained completely obliterated. They only had one type of bacteria left, and it dominated for weeks. They never really got back to the place they began.' Attempts to fix things with fecal microbiota transplants (FMTs) didn't help much unless the recipient mice were already eating well. 3 Meanwhile, ultra-processed food is likely to wreck your gut microbiome. Drobot Dean – Advertisement 'The idea of an FMT is that you can take the good microbes from somebody who is healthy, plop them in, and that will fix them,' said Kennedy. 'It has gotten a lot of enthusiasm, but we weren't sure how it would interact with a Western-style diet.' Turns out — not great. Without the right fuel — like dietary fiber — good bacteria simply couldn't flourish. 'It totally doesn't stick,' Kennedy said. 'On a healthy diet, the transplant works, but on the unhealthy one, the mice show basically no signs of recovery.' The researchers believe their discovery could shed some light on why some fecal transplants work better than others. And, for the rest of us, it's a good reminder that eating foods rich in fiber — such as berries, beans, nuts, seeds, oatmeal, lentils and avocado — will keep your gut happy.
Los Angeles Times
3 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘Mountainhead' is a lock for an Emmy nod. Its actors, not so much
'Mountainhead,' a satirical skewering of tech oligarchs from 'Succession' showrunner Jesse Armstrong, arrived this weekend, dropping on the final day of this year's Emmy eligibility window. I'm Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. While we're pondering the timeline to upload a human consciousness, let's consider 'Mountainhead' and its Emmy chances. Early on in 'Mountainhead,' tech bro and Elon Musk stand-in Venis Parish (Cory Michael Smith) uses film history to put the glitches of his company's latest AI rollout into perspective. 'The first time people saw a movie, everybody ran screaming because they thought they were gonna get hit by a train,' Venis relates, shouting out the Lumiere brothers' 1895 film, 'Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station.' 'The answer to that was not stop the movies. The answer was: Show more movies. We're gonna show users as much s— as possible, until everyone realizes nothing's that f— serious. Nothing means anything, and everything's funny and cool.' In the meantime, though, Venis' social media platform has given users the tools to create deepfakes so realistic they can't be identified as bogus. Immediately, people all over the world are uploading videos of their enemies committing atrocities, inflaming centuries-old animosities. Reality has collapsed and, with it, global stability. But for 'Mountainhead's' quartet of tech magnates, played by Smith, Steve Carell, Ramy Youssef and Jason Schwartzman, everything is just fine. As venture capitalist Randall Garrett (Carell) notes, 'We have plenty of calories stockpiled. Western countries have strategic commodity reserves, canola oil, lard, frozen orange juice.' Later, Randall asks: 'Are we the Bolsheviks of a new techno world order that starts tonight?' 'Mountainhead' is in many ways scarier than the zombie apocalypse of 'The Last of Us' because it feels like its premise is lurking right around the corner. Armstrong came up with the idea for the two-hour movie in November, after immersing himself in podcasts and books about Silicon Valley. He shot it in March, edited it in April and delivered it in May. It captures the DOGE era, specifically in the casual cruelty expressed by its entitled characters. 'Do you believe in other people?' Venis asks Randall. 'Eight billion people as real as us?' Randall's reply: 'Well, obviously not.' 'Mountainhead' aspires more directly to comedy, but because we don't have a history with these four deplorable men, it's often difficult to find the humor. 'Like 'Fountainhead' Mountainhead?' Youssef jokes to Schwartzman about the estate's title. 'Was your interior decorator Ayn Bland?' There's a procession of put-downs like that. When they're not roasting each other, they're trying to boost their own agendas — in the case of the cancer-stricken Randall, it's the quest to live forever as a disembodied consciousness. For all its Shakespearean drama, 'Succession' was wildly entertaining, more of a comedy than, yes, 'The Bear.' Kendall Roy performing the rap 'L to the OG' at a party honoring his father's half-century running Waystar Royco will be the funniest two minutes of television probably forever. But half the fun came from the characters' reactions to this transcendent moment of cringe. We were deeply invested in this world. For all their money and power, the 'Mountainhead' moguls are, like the Roy children in 'Succession,' not serious people. But beyond that, 'Mountainhead' doesn't have much of anything novel to say about its subjects. As good as Smith is at channeling Musk's alien, empathy-deficient otherness, you can come away with the same level of insight — and entertainment — by spending a few minutes watching Mike Myers on 'Saturday Night Live.' I don't need to watch a movie to know that a guy sitting on a gold toilet isn't prioritizing anyone's interests but his own. 'Mountainhead,' as mentioned, arrives on the last day of 2024-25 Emmy eligibility, less by design than from necessity. The paint's still wet on this film. But this does mark the third straight season that HBO has dropped a TV movie right before the deadline. Last year, it was 'The Great Lillian Hall,' starring Jessica Lange as fading Broadway legend. Two years ago, it was the excellent whistleblower thriller 'Reality,' featuring a star turn from Sydney Sweeney. Both movies were blanked at the Emmys, though Kathy Bates did manage a Screen Actors Guild Awards nod for 'Lillian Hall.' Did the movies land too late for enough people see them? Perhaps. The late arrival time should mean they'd be fresh in voters' minds when they fill out their ballots. But you have to be aware of them for that to happen. Awareness shouldn't be an issue with 'Mountainhead.' Enough people will want to watch the new offering from the creator of 'Succession,' and there's not much else on television vying for attention right now. 'Mountainhead' should score a nomination for television movie, even with the category being stronger than usual this year with audience favorites 'Rebel Ridge,' the latest 'Bridget Jones' movie and Scott Derrickson's enjoyable, genre-bending 'The Gorge' competing. But actors in these TV movies are at competitive disadvantage as the Emmys lump them together with their counterparts in limited series, performers who are onscreen for a much longer time. This decade, only two TV movie actors have been nominated — Hugh Jackman ('Bad Education') and Daniel Radcliffe ('Weird: The Al Yankovic Story'). The lead actress category, meanwhile, has been completely dominated by limited series. Not that there are any women starring in 'Mountainhead' because ... tech bros. As for the men, Carell, Schwartzman, Smith and Youssef are very good at conveying delusional arrogance. I despised each and every one of their characters. If hate-voting were a thing, they'd all be nominated.
