In a message dated 5/19/2004 5:12:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hansjurgent16@hotmail.com writes:
the
day after memorial day isn't it a ghost town?<<<<
Las Vegas is NEVER a ghost town!!
Karen
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want to see something scary on your next LV trip ... visit
Hoover (Boulder?) Dam. I took my two "out of town" sisters to see it
yesterday and WOW is the water low!!! We drove by a "marina" that is
at least a mile from the lake shore. If this keeps up then LV may
indeed become a ghost town. I hope this is an exaggeration ... but
it looked pretty worrisome to me.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, krallison416@a... wrote:
Las Vegas is NEVER a ghost town!!
Karen
--
If you want to see something scary on your next LV trip ... visit
Hoover (Boulder?) Dam. I took my two "out of town" sisters to see it
yesterday and WOW is the water low!!! We drove by a "marina" that is
at least a mile from the lake shore. If this keeps up then LV may
indeed become a ghost town. I hope this is an exaggeration ... but
it looked pretty worrisome to me.
We ain't scared in Vegas. We get our water FIRST (see the Colorado
River Compact of 1920) THEN California and Arizona get theirs. We
actually don't use all of our allocation anyway; we resell it to the
downstream states. Lake Merde may be affected as far as recreational
use is concerned but Vegas residents don't use it much anyway (it's
not all that much fun out there amidst the trsh, diesel oil, and
115-degree heat).
The places you should be worried for are Phoenix, LA, and San Diego.
It's because of their demand, and the five-year drought in the
Rockies, that the lake is drawn down so far (as is Lake Powell). Soon,
those cities' residents may actually be forced to pay the TRUE COST of
the water they consume (horrors!). For decades, those costs have been
absorbed by the U.S. taxpayer at large via Laurel & Hardy-style
accounting (amortizing the costs of the dams and water projects).
So be prepared to see "Water, $1.75, no refills" on your menus real soon.
In the gambling mecca of the country, Nevada is creeping closer to
needing its full share.
"We use a little more each year," said David Donnelly, deputy general
manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority that serves Las
Vegas. "We'll be using our full entitlement by 2007."
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
From: http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/CoRiverWaterDeal.html
We ain't scared in Vegas. We get our water FIRST (see the Colorado
River Compact of 1920) THEN California and Arizona get theirs. We
actually don't use all of our allocation anyway; we resell it to the
downstream states.
Where is Lake Merde?
rockofjello333 wrote:
We ain't scared in Vegas. We get our water FIRST (see the Colorado
River Compact of 1920) THEN California and Arizona get theirs. We
actually don't use all of our allocation anyway; we resell it to the
downstream states. Lake Merde may be affected as far as recreational
use is concerned but Vegas residents don't use it much anyway (it's
not all that much fun out there amidst the trsh, diesel oil, and
115-degree heat).
Hate to burst your water balloon....
But it looks like you get only 300,000 acre feet of water!
Dennis
vp-connoisseur
Central Arizona Project
Story <http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/cap.html#story>/ Websites
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/cap.html#Websites>/ Books
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/cap.html#Books/Manuscripts>/ Manuscript
Collections
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/cap.html#Manuscripts%20Collections>The realization of Arizona's need for water began in the 1940s. The
Central Arizona Project Association was born in 1946 to lobby congress
for money for the project's creation. Arizona Senators Carl Hayden
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/hayden.html> and Ernest McFarland
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/mcfarland.html> as well as
Representative John Rhodes <http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/rhodes.html>
forsaw the need of water for the growing state and began legislation
to create a system for Arizona to receive more of its share of
Colorado River water.In 1947 the first version of the Central Arizona Project was
written. The legislation would easily pass the senate with the clout
of Arizona's Senators (58-28). However, it would have considerable
difficulty in the House of Representatives due to the fact that
California's representatives, a considerable majority compared to
Arizona's representatives, always opposed taking water away from its
state. The House Committee on Public Lands constantly stopped the
legislation from coming to the floor of the House.Suits were constantly filed by Arizona proclaiming its rights to
the river water, but were always dismissed because Arizona had not
signed the Colorado River Compact
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/crcompact.html> (It was not signed until
1944). Arizona's complaint was finally heard by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1953. They assigned a special consul to help decide the case.
Special Master Simon Rifkind gathered evidence from June 14, 1956 to
August 28, 1958. The decision divided the river among the three states
involved, California received 44/75ths, Arizona 28/75ths, and Nevada
3/75ths. The Supreme Court agreed to the report and decided on June 3,
1963 to proceed with the solution to the controversy.After a few plans of creating a system were scrapped and
California threatened once again decided it was not getting enough
water, a final decision on the allocation of the water was made.
California would receive 4.4 million acre feet
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/water.html#acrefeet> of water, Arizona
would recieve 2.8 million acre feet
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/water.html#acrefeet>, and Nevada would
recieve 300,000 acre feet
<http://jeff.scott.tripod.com/water.html#acrefeet> of water from the
Colorado. President Lyndon Johnson authorized the construction of the
Central Arizona Project on September 30, 1968. Arizona's long
struggle for water was over. Water from the Central Arizona Project
feeds the most vital parts of the population of the state from Phoenix
to Tucson water is pumped in to help those cities survive in the
Sonoran Desert.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
deuceswild1000 wrote:
Where is Lake Merde?
I suspect, from Rock's description, that it's where you end up when
you travel up a certain creek (with or without a paddle).
- H.
It was a doing a damn good impression of a ghost town, then, during
the first three months or so following 9/11. ML and I generally fly
out once a month. We had a flight booked for the week following the
disaster. On the ATL/LAS leg on a DL 757-200, there were a total of
twenty-three passengers. On our arrival at McCarran baggage claim,
ours was the only baggage carousel in operation.
We were booked into BC that first day. The next morning about 10:00
am ML and I strolled catty-corner, for no reason other than to say
we did, across the intersection of the Strip and Flamingo from BC
to Bellagio and prompted nary a horn beep. The Strip was nearly
devoid of traffic most of that entire week.
The next several months weren't much better. It was eerie --
reminded us of those bad 50's movies when the heroes would awaken to
empty cities. Pretty much a ghost town in my recollection.
Pete
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, krallison416@a... wrote:
In a message dated 5/19/2004 5:12:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hansjurgent16@h... writes:
the
day after memorial day isn't it a ghost town?<<<<Las Vegas is NEVER a ghost town!!
Karen
--[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
We ain't scared in Vegas. We get our water FIRST (see the Colorado
River Compact of 1920) THEN California and Arizona get theirs. We
actually don't use all of our allocation anyway; we resell it to the
downstream states.
Some very informed responses on this low water situation. It's looks
like LV is OK for the time being water-wise. But I'm wondering about
the power generating situation too. Are those "towers" just behind
the dam where the water flows into the turbines? Won't there be a
point where the water is so low it won't flow into the towers? If
that happened it would affect LV (no electricity)! Right now, there
appears to be a normal volume of water flowing past Laughlin.
Some very informed responses on this low water situation. It's looks
like LV is OK for the time being water-wise. But I'm wondering about
the power generating situation too. Are those "towers" just behind
the dam where the water flows into the turbines? Won't there be a
point where the water is so low it won't flow into the towers? If
that happened it would affect LV (no electricity)! Right now, there
appears to be a normal volume of water flowing past Laughlin.
First of all, the lake would have to get quite a bit lower before
power generation was affected the way you describe. Because of seventy
years of siltation, the lake at the dam face (where the towers are) is
already quite a bit shallower than it used to be. So the intakes are
functionally closer to the "bottom" of the lake than they were
designed to be in the first place.
Second, even if Hoover Dam went offline, it wouldn't result in any
real crisis. Production would be stepped up at the giant coal-fired
powerplants at Page and Four Corners, Arizona, which plants dwarf the
elctricity production of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. In fact,
hydroelectric power plays a surprisingly small role in energy
production in the Southwest, simply because there's a dearth of
flowing water.
Third, the Hoover Dam electricity doesn't go to Vegas--it goes south
to CA/AZ. We buy our electricity wholesale from California via the
Pacific Intertie.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
Second, even if Hoover Dam went offline, it wouldn't result in any
real crisis. Production would be stepped up at the giant coal-fired
powerplants at Page and Four Corners, Arizona, which plants dwarf
the
elctricity production of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. In fact,
hydroelectric power plays a surprisingly small role in energy
production in the Southwest, simply because there's a dearth of
flowing water.Third, the Hoover Dam electricity doesn't go to Vegas--it goes south
to CA/AZ. We buy our electricity wholesale from California via the
Pacific Intertie.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for the info. Power-wise I guess we're OK for now. I didn't
realize LV gets its power from California (not Hoover Dam).
rockofjello333 wrote:
> Some very informed responses on this low water situation. It's looks
> like LV is OK for the time being water-wise. But I'm wondering about
> the power generating situation too. Are those "towers" just behind
> the dam where the water flows into the turbines? Won't there be a
> point where the water is so low it won't flow into the towers? If
> that happened it would affect LV (no electricity)! Right now, there
> appears to be a normal volume of water flowing past Laughlin.First of all, the lake would have to get quite a bit lower before
power generation was affected the way you describe. Because of seventy
years of siltation, the lake at the dam face (where the towers are) is
already quite a bit shallower than it used to be. So the intakes are
functionally closer to the "bottom" of the lake than they were
designed to be in the first place.
I don't see how that makes any difference at all. It doesn't matter how
deep the lake is; it could be 3 feet deep. What matters is how far the
water falls from the intake to the turbines.
Bill Velek
I live in Washington state and can atest to the lack of VP here. I
am coming to Vegas over the MD Weekend, bought and paid for 15 weeks
ago. If Vegas is full, make room for me cause I have a VP itch that
needs scratchin' bad. The more the merrier. Viva!!!
It was a doing a damn good impression of a ghost town, then,
during
the first three months or so following 9/11. ML and I generally
fly
out once a month. We had a flight booked for the week following
the
disaster. On the ATL/LAS leg on a DL 757-200, there were a total
of
twenty-three passengers. On our arrival at McCarran baggage
claim,
ours was the only baggage carousel in operation.
We were booked into BC that first day. The next morning about
10:00
am ML and I strolled catty-corner, for no reason other than to say
we did, across the intersection of the Strip and Flamingo from BC
to Bellagio and prompted nary a horn beep. The Strip was nearly
devoid of traffic most of that entire week.The next several months weren't much better. It was eerie --
reminded us of those bad 50's movies when the heroes would awaken
to
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "paisonvp" <paison@i...> wrote:
empty cities. Pretty much a ghost town in my recollection.
Pete
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, krallison416@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 5/19/2004 5:12:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> hansjurgent16@h... writes:
> the
> day after memorial day isn't it a ghost town?<<<<
>
> Las Vegas is NEVER a ghost town!!
>
> Karen
> --
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1)Hoover Dam provides generation of low-cost hydroelectric power for
use in Nevada, Arizona, and California. Hoover Dam alone generates
more than 4 billion kilowatt-hours a year - enough to serve 1.3
million people. From 1939 to 1949, Hoover Powerplant was the world's
largest hydroelectric installation; with an installed capacity of
2.08 million kilowatts, it is still one of the country's largest.
2)Today, the Four Corners station's five coal-fired units can
generate a combined output of 2.23 million kilowatts of electricity.
3)Today Page has 6,800 citizens and sits on Manson Mesa between two
of the largest electrical generation units in the West. Glen Canyon
Dam has a 1,288,000 kilowatts capacity when fully online. The other
power plant to the South is the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-
fired steam plant with an output capability of 2,250,000 kilowatts.
The coal is mined at the Kayenta Mine on Black Mesa by the Peabody
Coal
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333" <rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
First of all, the lake would have to get quite a bit lower before
power generation was affected the way you describe. Because of
seventy
years of siltation, the lake at the dam face (where the towers are)
is
already quite a bit shallower than it used to be. So the intakes are
functionally closer to the "bottom" of the lake than they were
designed to be in the first place.Second, even if Hoover Dam went offline, it wouldn't result in any
real crisis. Production would be stepped up at the giant coal-fired
powerplants at Page and Four Corners, Arizona, which plants dwarf
the
elctricity production of Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. In fact,
hydroelectric power plays a surprisingly small role in energy
production in the Southwest, simply because there's a dearth of
flowing water.Third, the Hoover Dam electricity doesn't go to Vegas--it goes south
to CA/AZ. We buy our electricity wholesale from California via the
Pacific Intertie.
I can't believe that people sit around and actually think that suddenly one day they will run out of electricity and turn out all the lights on the strip.
ADR
Won't there be a
> > point where the water is so low it won't flow into the towers?
> First of all, the lake would have to get quite a bit lower before
> power generation was affected the way you describe. Because of seventy
> years of siltation, the lake at the dam face (where the towers are) is
> already quite a bit shallower than it used to be. So the intakes are
> functionally closer to the "bottom" of the lake than they were
> designed to be in the first place.I don't see how that makes any difference at all. It doesn't matter how
deep the lake is; it could be 3 feet deep.
At that depth, the lake would no longer enter the intakes.
What matters is how far the
water falls from the intake to the turbines.
That is a constant and is unrelated to lake depth, assuming the lake
depth is sufficient to let water enter the intake towers.
Bill,
I think the situation the poster described was where the lake level
fell so low that the water would no longer enter the intakes. I
mentioned that because silt has built up against the inner face of the
dam (as well as the first few miles upstream) the lake is shallower
than it might otherwise be, given "x" amount of water. So it takes a
lesser amount of water in the lake for the level at the dam face to be
high enough to reach the intakes. The lower third of the intake towers
is buried in mud. If this wasn't the case, the Bureau of Reclamation
might already be emptying Lake Powell to ensure continued power
generation at Lake Mead.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
rockofjello333 wrote:
Won't there be a
> > > point where the water is so low it won't flow into the towers?> First of all, the lake would have to get quite a bit lower before
> > power generation was affected the way you describe. Because of seventy
> > years of siltation, the lake at the dam face (where the towers are) is
> > already quite a bit shallower than it used to be. So the intakes are
> > functionally closer to the "bottom" of the lake than they were
> > designed to be in the first place.> I don't see how that makes any difference at all. It doesn't matter how
> deep the lake is; it could be 3 feet deep.At that depth, the lake would no longer enter the intakes.
The other poster was speaking about the depth of the lake being affected by siltation; no matter how shallow the dam site becomes as a result of siltation, the 'head' for the turbines remains the same.
What matters is how far the
> water falls from the intake to the turbines.That is a constant and is unrelated to lake depth, assuming the lake
depth is sufficient to let water enter the intake towers.
Exactly my point; that's why I said that the lake depth -- only in the context of how it is affected by siltation -- doesn't matter. I should have said: it doesn't matter if the distance from the bottom of the lake to the intakes is reduced down to just 3 feet. Whatever; back to VP, okay.
Cheers.
Bill
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, Bill Velek <billvelek@a...> wrote:
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "rockofjello333"
<rockofjello333@y...>
wrote:
> We ain't scared in Vegas. We get our water FIRST (see the Colorado
> River Compact of 1920) THEN California and Arizona get theirs. We
> actually don't use all of our allocation anyway; we resell it to
the
> downstream states.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Some very informed responses on this low water situation. It's
looks
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "brumar_lv" <brumar_lv@y...> wrote:
like LV is OK for the time being water-wise.
===================
Low water in Lake Merde? Where is Lake Merde?
With all the superstars and top magicians in vegas, there is nothing
to worry about. Could it be that you just saw Lance Burton
performing his usual great magic show on making the water in Hoover
dam appear and disappear!?:>