Kevin Land Patrick's Blog, page 3

BLOWING OFF STEAM Water & Climate Change

Water issues and climate change are inescapably linked. Unlike other natural resources, water can be present in all three forms: a liquid (fluid water), a solid (ice), and a gas (vapor).

Think back to your high school science class (back when science was taught). Remember British Therma Units (BTU)? Stay with me for two sentences. It may sound boring but stick with me. Boring Sentence One: A BTU is the unit of energy used to measure heat. Boring Sentence Two: Inextricably, it is tied to water as one BTU is the amount of energy needed to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit. 

Yawn, what does this have to do with water and climate change, you ask?  

Heat is energy. Heat flows in one direction, from a warm object to a cooler one. So, when the oceans and land masses warm, the atmosphere warms. The result is water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) increases. Stronger and more frequent storms. More violent weather patterns, and this can occur in two directions, more frequent and longer droughts. 

Hey, you say, what’s one degree to anyone? For every one degree Celsius rise, the atmosphere stores an additional 7% more water, heat, and energy. 

The impact to agriculture is dramatic, but also to municipal water supplies, industrial output, water pollution, and your pocketbook. Think, storm damage, insurance rates, availability of mortgages, and increased taxes to harden water and wastewater infrastructure. 

So, the next time you hear someone describe climate change as a hoax, ask whether they believe water scarcity and severe weather events are also hoaxes. Those involved with agriculture, municipal finance, insurance risk, utility planning, or just live in the state of Florida (yes, hurricanes have become more frequent and severe there in the last forty years) likely won’t use the term hoax.

 

WATER WARS Part 1: India & Pakistan

I write thrillers that weave in nature concepts like climate, the environment and water. I have spent my life dealing with one subject, water. My first attempt at a thriller exposed conflict over water between Turkey  and Iraq. Nations have been close to war over water. With climate change, looming conflicts are when not if.

This week’s skirmish between two hostile nuclear powers, India and Pakistan was ostensibly over control over Kashmir, but embedded in that conflict is the resource of water. The Indus River originates in China, flows into India and then into Pakistan. It’s six primary tributaries are he subject of a transboundary treaty (the 1960 Indus Water Treaty (IWT)), that generally allocates the three Eastern tributaries (Ravis River, Beas River, and Sutlej River to India) and the three Western tributaries (Indus River, Jhelum River, and Chenab River) are split 80% to Pakistan and 20% to India.

 

Well, the old water saying is, “I’d rather be upstream with a shovel than downstream with a water right.” India has been making overt rumblings that it wants to renegotiate the ITW, citing climate change impacts to the watersheds and its demands. Pakistan is not eager; 80% of its agriculture and a third of its hydropower is reliant on its share of the ITW.

 

So, when India blamed Pakistan for targeting Hindu tourists in a deadly attack in Kashmir, it “suspended” the ITW. Pakistan denied involvement in the attack and despite the ceasefire between the parties, the ITW remains suspended with Pakistan threatening legal recourse under the treaty. India really can’t stop the flow into Pakistan, it’s that pesky thing called gravity. Without infrastructure, to divert water the water, it will continue to flow…for now. But there is little doubt that this is a conflict that will intensify as demands increase and the effects of climate change reduce the supply side of the equation.

 

Stay tuned, there are at least seven other simmering transboundary water conflicts. I see another novel brewing.

 

 

WATER VARIABILITY, OR, IT’S THE DAMN CLIMATE

I write thrillers that weave in nature concepts like climate, the environment and water. I have spent my life dealing with one subject, water. As a water attorney fortunate enough to represent some of the nation’s most prominent companies, people, and water providers, I’m constantly amazed at how little water, an element that makes up 60% of our body, and defines our planet’s existence, is understood.

Climate change impacts are most dramatically apparent when it comes to water.

When I hear people (mostly politicians and pundits) decry climate change as a hoax on the basis that last winter was cold or snowy, I know they’re really faking it for a good sound bite. Weather is the short term atmospheric condition at a given time. In contrast, climate is the long-term average of that weather. What the weather might be today or last month is not a representative picture of climate.

It's equally egregious (in my opinion) to call it global warming. The impacts of climate change may make some regions colder, wetter, and others warmer, drier. While the earth is warming, it is the effect of that warming that caused climate variability or climate change.

Remember that science class you struggled through in high school? You put water in a glass beaker, lightly put a stopper in the beaker and then put the beaker over a bunsen burner’s flame? Steam formed in the beaker above the boiling water and the black rubber top popped off (usually before the beaker shattered, sending deadly shards of glass across the classroom, as it did in my experiment).

That’s the impact of climate change. Heat equals energy. Volatility. Stronger storms, more severe droughts, more extreme precipitation events. Hence, why I use the term climate variability.

Let’s look at the current drought conditions in the Colorado River basin. 

And look at the same time last year (April 16, 2024):

If you were to develop an average of the last ten or twenty years (minimum), you would have a picture of the climate by precipitation averages. Looking at the weather or water content of an area for a single season can be useful to judge actions for that season, but not the future. As Will Rogers said, “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.” In contrast, man can take actions to do something about climate.

WHO’S USING MY WATER? ...

WHO’S USING MY WATER?

I always cringe when I hear those two words together: MY WATER. Why, you ask. First, a bit about my perspective. I have spent my life dealing with one subject, water. As a water attorney fortunate enough to represent some of the nation’s most prominent companies, people, and water providers, I’ve heard those two words together too many times.

It's a NIMBY term usually uttered by those that don’t understand where water comes from, how it is used, who has rights to it, and how fragile and treasured water is. There’s a saying: If you have water, you don’t understand it; if you don’t have water, you know water well. In other words, if you’re from the East, you likely don’t give water much thought, just turn on the tap. In the west, water is precious, coveted, fought over.

With that backdrop, let’s get some statistics out of the way.

First, how is water used? Nationally, municipal and domestic use accounts for about 13% of all water use, agriculture 32%, power generation 45% and 10% miscellaneous uses. In the western united states, where water is scarcer, the figures are much different. There, 72% of water used is in agriculture, 22% municipal and domestic, and the balance is a mix.

That may come as a surprise to many that believe urban sprawl and development are the evil users of water. Not really. Not only is the share of water use surprisingly low, most, upwards of 90% of that water returns to the hydrograph in the form of treated wastewater discharge to be used again. In Colorado, my home state, we say “flush, California needs the water.”

In fact, as a result of education and conservation, the nation’s municipal water utilities use approximately the same amount of water now that it did in 1970, despite the population increasing by 40% in that same. Some good news.

The next question is where does the water come from? It depends on who’s using the water and where they reside. The vast majority of water use for domestic, industrial, and municipal uses comes from surface water. For agriculture, nearly 30% comes from groundwater. In some states, this figure is dramatically higher.

Despite far too many states failing to understand the interconnection between surface and groundwater (another reason politicians shouldn’t be left to their own when it comes to science), most groundwater withdrawals tap water connected with a surface stream (tributary water). The exceptions are confined aquifers such as the Ogallala in the great plains, that stretches from South Dakota to Texas. But that is a whole other post.

So, back to my original point. MY WATER. Water knows no geographical or political boundaries. It is a resource to be used wisely and once used available to others. Like energy, water can never be consumed to extinction. All the water that once was at the time of the dinosaurs remains today. Its wise use and recognition as a precious resource will ensure that future generations have an ample supply. How that is done is for the next couple of posts. Stay hydrated and stay tuned.

 

From Water to Air: Will the Next Two Years Override the Last 50?

Positives & Negatives in the Air We Breathe

The Positive: In a handful of years from 1969 to 1972, Congress overwhelming show of bipartisan support passed the National Environmental Policy Act (1969), the Clean Air Act (1970), and the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972). While there were prior enactments to study and investigate pollution and effects on the environment, this series of legislation implemented means, methods, and controls.

Since then, water quality and air quality has dramatically improved, saved, and prolonged the lives of Americans and those beyond our borders. For example, in just the past 40 years sulfur dioxide (SO2), that contributes to acid rain, lung disease, and a host of other illnesses, have been reduced by 94%.

The Negative and Positive: The past few weeks have seen four executive orders signed to bring back and boost coal production and coal fired power generation. Coal now supplies around 16% of all electrical generation, natural gas is around 43%, nuclear is around 19%, and the balance of around 22% are clean renewables (wind, hydro, solar, biomass --- in that order).

Some fear (or actually believe) these executive orders mean a reset. They don’t. An executive order lacks the power or authority to roll back regulations and acts of congress. Rulemaking, a laborious and time consuming process is required…years. And Congress is, well, a fairly ineffective stalemate these days. But most of all, businesses and utilities are the ones that drive and determine what power generation sources will be selected, not government. And these two hate uncertainties, do not gamble on short term politics, and focus on the bottom line. The odds of new coal fired power plants being approved during this administration are as about as good as me getting a Pulitzer.

I doubt anyone needs to ask why the title referenced two years.

 

Let's Talk ALBEDO (Not to be Confused with Libido)

Like many, I find the news feed (pretty much the whole spectrum) far too biased, sensationalist, dumbed down, and depressing. There’s a positive story for every negative one, it just never makes the headline. With the advent of false narratives and misinformation, important subjects are being overlooked or obscured. My focus revolves around writing thriller with elements of the environment and natural resources, particularly water, the later I have spent my whole life working with. Water is fraught with myths, mysteries, and politics, most of which can make wonderful literature, particularly thrillers. I invite you to read, share, and comment (respectfully please).

Today’s Post: Positives & Negatives deals with Albedo. The term is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as: The amount of light reflected from a surface. Or, why it makes more sense to rent a white car when traveling to Arizona than a black one during the summer.

 

POSITIVE:

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC or North Atlantic Current) has in recent years been the subject of increasing concern. The current acts as a conveyor belt bringing warm water from the equatorial region to the North Atlantic. Its role in distributing heat, nutrients, and salt that are essential to marine life and regulating northern hemisphere temperatures. With increased freshwater flows entering the ocean from ice melt, salinity differentials have threatened the current, slowing it down. If it were to collapse, Western Europe and North America would see catastrophic impacts including far colder and longer winters in Europe disrupting agriculture and food security and increased sea level rise in North America, coastal damage, and extreme precipitation swings from rainfall events to drought.

Experts of predicted the AMOC is at a tipping point but a new study, conducted by the University of Bern, Switzerland, has concluded that the current could be far more resilient than originally thought. Scientists studied the transition from the last ice age and found that the current weakened less acutely than previously assumed. While not an “all-clear” moment, it does give some optimism that nature is more resilient to man than originally feared.

NEGATIVE:

Back to Albedo and that hot black rental car. With a loss of sea ice in the Arctic region, darker ocean surfaces absorb more solar radiation resulting in the compounding of effects and an amplified warming cycle. The result is a polar amplification of warming of the Arctic.

To some, this means new open ice-free trade routes, but to the more serious, it is a clear and present danger. Permafrost covers about a quarter of the land mass in the Northern hemisphere and entraps about half of all carbon stored in our planet’s soil. It has long served as the carbon sink of the planet. But, once thawed, carbon dioxide and methane are released intensifying and accelerating the warming of our planet.

The Arctic is warming at a rate of two to three times the rate of the Earth as a whole. If all  permafrost were to thaw, it would release four times the amount of carbon and greenhouse gases emitted by humans since the Industrial Revolution. Game Over. The solution, tackle climate change. Circular, right? Banning the words in books, pretending it’s a hoax, or simply throwing up your arms isn’t going to make the issue go away. Science and nature don’t bend to  politics. They are immutable and unforgiving.

By the way, Albedo is the name of a new thriller novel I just completed and sent to my agent. What could possibly go wrong?

Smart & Stupid Water Use

Today’s Post: Positives & Negatives

 

 

PRO

SDI. No this is not Reagan’s Space Defense Initiative, it’s the latest in water conservation in agriculture. Subsurface Drip Irrigation allows less water to be applied to a row crop, without evaporative losses. A field is leveled, and drip lines are installed at a depth of 6-24” below grade every other row. Water can be applied to accommodate natural precipitation and crop demands. The result is dramatic savings in water application rates and crop yields.

While initially a bit more expensive than irrigation guns, the technology is on a financial par with center pivot and fixed sprinkler irrigation system but without evaporative losses and with reduced labor costs. Evaporative losses from surface sprinkler irrigation can exceed 30% and with flood irrigation, the rate of deep percolation and evaporation can reach 50%. SDI slashes that to nearly zero.

CON

SWU. No that’s not a real term, it’s what I made up for “stupid water use.” While techies like Elon and not so techies like our President are clamoring over the benefits of AI and Bitcoin, here’s a not so fun-fact: A single Bitcoin transaction can use a swimming pool’s worth of water. That’s 6.2 million times more water used than a credit card swipe.

Bitcoin mining requires vast quantities of energy and with that I mean super-computers that must be cooled with water and coal-fired power plants that, again, must use vast quantities of water (for those who think nuclear energy is clean energy, think again, besides the waste, the cooling water requirements for nuclear plants is staggering). The average data center uses 300,000 gallons a day, enough to supply 100,000 homes. ChatGP and Google AI’s water footprint have increased dramatically as their usage increases.

Education is always the key as most people do not consider the environmental and resource impact of siting data centers (over a hundred data centers are locate in and around Phoenix and over two dozen in the Las Vegas area). More never associate energy and water consumption with Bitcoin. So how do you feel about the lure of Bitcoin?

 

Water Mistakes of the Week (Part II)

PRO

The Clean Water Act as it is called is an amalgamation of prior acts that were extensively overhauled and amended in 1972. Then President Nixon’s attempted veto of the Act was overridden by an overwhelming bipartisan majority. It was time. Scenes of the Cuyahoga River on fire, the stench of the Delaware River, and the condition of the Potomac (where doctors recommended tetanus shots for anyone coming into contact with the river), prompted a national response.

Fast forward a generation. The Cuyahoga now boasts over sixty species of fish and is safe for “primary contact,” the Delaware hosts fishing and boating, and fish and wildlife have rebounded on the Potomac with the appearance of dolphins in its lower reaches.

Bipartisan action and common sense prevailed. Today, we see cuts to Clean Water but I have confidence clean water and clean air are positives for most people.

CONS

Last week, I talked about the Columbia River and the current administration’s unprovoked fight with Canada demonstrated how politics and politicians can really muck up effective water planning. Well, the current political climate isn’t the only time smart water usage and common sense were replaced by political dogma.

Take the Red River, that originates in the arid Texas panhandle, serves as the boundary between Oklahoma and Texas, and then flows through Arkansas and Louisiana to the Mississippi River. Its name is derived from the geology it flows through picking up a heavy load of sodium chloride (salt). By the time it reached the Oklahoma/Texas border, its usefulness as a source of freshwater is compromised.

In contrast, the rivers in southeast Oklahoma contribute vast quantities of clean freshwater diluting much of the salt load by the time the river enters Arkansas and Louisiana. No harm no foul, unless you’re Texas, whose border lies entirely within this impaired section of the river known as Reach II of the Red River Compact, an agreement between the four states that share the river. In Reach II, five subbasins are defined, each with different rights to access and use water. Two of the five subbasins are entirely within Texas and two are in Oklahoma (and a small area of Arkansas. Between them is the mainstem area known as Subbasin 5, in which Oklahoma and Texas have equal rights to.   

Curiously, Oklahoma has abundant water in the Southeast corner of the state with annual precipitation double to triple of what Texas and western Oklahoma receives. On average 32 million acre feet of water flow unused out of Oklahoma a year. For perspective, the Colorado River that supplies the seven western states including the cities of Denver, Phoenix, Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, and the country of Mexico averages 13 million acre feet, or about a third of what flows unused out of Oklahoma. Unless someone thinks Oklahoma will somehow gain a dozen cities the size of Los Angeles, the state would never use that amount. And, would Oklahoman’s want all those city people?

Enter North Texas, Dallas Fort Worth. A dozen years ago, they wished to tap Texas’ portion of the Red River just before the freshwater rivers in Oklahoma dump into the impaired Red River, after and below all uses in Oklahoma. And to boot, they would pay Oklahoma (and the local tribes) handsomely for that right. Seems like a no-brainer, right?

Wrong. Enter politics and football. Oklahoman politicians confided that they knew it made perfect sense to sell an unused asset to defray massive state budget shortfalls, but they could not be seen to “give away Oklahoma water to Texans” else they would not be re-elected. Why the reluctance? Two reasons repeatedly resounded: 1) “we need the water for the future”; and 2) “they take our quarterbacks and best players and now want our water.”

You can’t save water of that magnitude for future years. There’s that pesky concept of gravity. The water is going to flow out of state. And, as for football, well that at least has a little logic. Just a little.

More than a dozen years later, water and those unused dollars continue to flow wasted to the Gulf of Mexico, or America, or whatever it’s called beyond the twelve-mile limit.

Again, wise water management is best left to the professionals, not politicians.

In fairness, please forgive my slant. I was counsel for the Texas interests on this project and case from its inception through the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

Water Mistakes of the Week

PRO

The Aral Sea is one of the worst examples of water management that led to an environmental crisis in Kazakhstan. The third largest lake in the world at one time, it began shrinking in the 1960’s due to upstream Soviet irrigation projects. Forty years later not only was the Soviet Union gone, but 90% of the lake as well. Concentrations of salt, pesticides, industrial waste, and toxic chemicals from weapon testing soon brought an ecological collapse. Windborne dust spread this toxic brew to neighboring population centers with horrific results.

I know, by now you’re asking why I put this in the “PRO” section. Wait, it will get better. Through wise water management by the Kazakhstan authorities, the lake is rebounding. Salinity has declined four-fold and water volume has increased dramatically. All this in a few years.

Just like when we saw Covid’s positive effect on the environment, when man takes positive action, nature can recover.

CONS

Now for an example of negative action, once again extreme politics defy common sense and good water management. Here’s an example.

The Columbia River is the largest River in the Northwest. The river is the lifeblood of Washington and Oregon supplying agriculture, a booming economy, Native American culture, and hydropower. With over 150 large scale hydropower projects, including Grand Coulee dam, the fifth largest hydroelectric plant in the world, it supplies clean energy to a wide swath of the western United States.

The river originates in Canada flowing into the State of Washington and then along the Oregon/Washington border to the Pacific. In 1964, Canada and the United States entered into a Treaty for its shared use. Set to expire in 2024, the Biden administration worked with Canada for a temporary extension and development of a new agreement that would result in continued guaranteed flows to the US, shared hydro revenues, and some direct payments. As a part of the Trump Administration’s economic war with Canada, the US paused negotiations this month, interjecting trade war dialogue into wise water management. A word of caution to the self-labeled master of the deal. There’s an age-old water saying every water lawyer knows to be true: I’d rather be upstream with a shovel than downstream with a water right.

Wise water management is best left to the professionals, not politicians.

In the next installment, I’ll continue this theme with another example of how politics (and football) threw an incomplete pass to wise management and economics on the border of Texas and Oklahoma.

Water Myths

Today’s Post: Positives & Negatives

Today’s P&N observations focus on advances in science (the Positive), and Political Fabrications (the Negative). It’s been a tough week to find positives. Not so tough to find the negatives. 

·       The POSITIVE: Scientists in Japan announced the development of a new clear plastic substitute that breaks down in ten days in soil and in even less time in seawater, which could help stem the proliferation of microplastics and plastic pollution.

 

The NEGATIVE: Whatever happened to geography, cartography, topography (all those “raphy” sciences)? Donald Trump blamed California’s wildfires on the state not allowing “all this fresh water coming down from Canada and the Pacific Northwest from flowing into California.” News flash: North on a map does not mean uphill. With the exception of the Klamath, which flows to the sea in the far northwest corner of California, no rivers flow “into” California (the Colorado flows along the border of the state). Misinformation obscures real problems. Best to leave water to those that understand it.

 

Second, no, California politics wasn’t responsible for fire hydrants having low water pressures. While there are lots of examples of any state’s failings (and maybe California has more than its share), this rumor was fabricated by partisan pundits and perpetuated by politicians (apologies for the alliteration). Nearly every community of a certain size in the country designs fire safety water flows and infrastructure the same. Municipal water systems, mains, and hydrants are designed by civil engineers to strict uniform national codes and standards (International Fire Code, California Fire Code, National Fire Protection Association standards), whether the water utility is located in Texas, Kansas, or California. With less than an inch of rain in eight months and 80-100mph winds carrying embers for miles, no municipal water system could have withstood the onslaught. Best to leave water to those that understand it.