Second Aquaduct Postponed - at least 5 years

Lots of happy folks in town today -

http://www.informador.com.mx/primera/2012/417339/6/postergan-segundo-acueducto-el-siapa-apuesta-por-rio-verde.htm


-It's official: the Chapala-Guadalajara aqueduct, operating since 1991, will not have a second conductive line to direct water from Lake Chapala to Guadalajara Metropolitan Area (GMA). Intermunicipal Water System and Wastewater (SIAPA) confirmed that as of now, and during the next six years, the aim will be to build Green River water and channel it to the city, through dams The Zapotillo and Purgatory.

Well they might be happy but mistrust will cause the current Aquaduct to
leak 40% of its water before it every gets to Guad. What a waste because
people can't trust each other. No science or common sense here just those
evil Guad people trying to steal our water. So wasting it is better than
building the second aqueduct and saving most of the 40%. How can anyone
feel good about a 40% waste rate and now nothing will be done about it.

Z

Zedinmexico wrote:Well they might be happy but mistrust will cause the current Aquaduct to
leak 40% of its water before it every gets to Guad. What a waste because
people can't trust each other. No science or common sense here just those
evil Guad people trying to steal our water. So wasting it is better than
building the second aqueduct and saving most of the 40%. How can anyone
feel good about a 40% waste rate and now nothing will be done about it.

Z

Z - I was under the impression that building the acqueduct would only take more from our lake. There were many people against it. I was also under the impression that they weren't going to redo the water lines leading from Lake Chapala to GDL. They should rebuild the water lines before thinking of a new acqueduct, don't ya think.

joec wrote:

Zedinmexico wrote:Well they might be happy but mistrust will cause the current Aquaduct to
leak 40% of its water before it every gets to Guad. What a waste because
people can't trust each other. No science or common sense here just those
evil Guad people trying to steal our water. So wasting it is better than
building the second aqueduct and saving most of the 40%. How can anyone
feel good about a 40% waste rate and now nothing will be done about it.

Z

Z - I was under the impression that building the acqueduct would only take more from our lake. There were many people against it. I was also under the impression that they weren't going to redo the water lines leading from Lake Chapala to GDL. They should rebuild the water lines before thinking of a new acqueduct, don't ya think.

See that is the problem they can't rebuild it without shutting it down and they can't
shut it down as they very much need the water. If we cut the loss from 40% to 10%
which is doable it is a net gain for Guad with no loss from the lake. Water in high
level situation should be allowed to go to Guad and water should be shut when the
lake is very low. This way the lawyers in Guad have a reason to get the dam owners
to open up the dams and keep the level in the lake high. There is a way for everyone
to benefit other than the dam owners. I admit they would lose but whose water is
it in Mexico? I have no idea. This lake is suppose to be a world treasure. Time for new
ideas the do nothing but let the water leak is not acceptable but is the only politically
acceptable thing to do right now. We need some trust lakeside which I don't feel is
coming for many reasons some valid some not.

Z

Sounds like you really are not familiar with the many issues. Meanwhile the community is celebrating -

from Facebook:

I hope today Tuesday at 5 pm at the entrance of Faro in the Malecon in Chapala. That the Citizens Movement fix its position on this news.
If you supported the movement you see, if you saw it from afar see, if you do not you supported, also see. it is everyone's story.

I think if anyone is in denial about where the water is going, it is you. You've been provided a reference on the other board and even minimal investigation will back that up. If you think that sticking GDL with its leaky water line is going to keep Lake Chapala from drying up, you are kidding yourself.

The fact is and remains, as discussed on this and the other board exhaustively a year ago, the great majority of the water is lost to upstream irrigators and their many dams, and the high surface evaporation of Lake Chapala because it is a very shallow lake with a very large surface area. Nothing can be done about evaporation but a whole lot can be done about the wasteful irrigation practices in the river basin.

Go enjoy your "demonstration" with your fellow know-nothings. :)

Mainecoons wrote:I think if anyone is in denial about where the water is going, it is you. You've been provided a reference on the other board and even minimal investigation will back that up. If you think that sticking GDL with its leaky water line is going to keep Lake Chapala from drying up, you are kidding yourself.

Go enjoy your "demonstration" with your fellow know-nothings. :)

Mainecoons, go back to watching fox news. I asked you for a credible source for the figures you fling around - and you have none. Dr Stong does some good work here - but he too flings figures around. do some research yourself - I did. Dr Stong is not perfect - just as you aren't.

And - I did not say the 70% was wrong. Just seems like your only reaction is to insult. And, it is easier to insult than to provide facts.

My fellow know-nothings? I feel sorry for you if that is your opinion of the community you live in. The ones that will be celebrating are the Mexican, mainecoons. But i guess you didn't realize it. I also am not mexican. I am also neutral on the aqueduct. What I am not neutral about is jerks like you that throw figures around like they are facts - and back up with you say with sarcasm and insults.

Mad Max only Guad has the political clout to deal with the upstream issues.
All we have done is insure that 40% of the water from the lake will be lost
for the future as no one can come up with a solution that is best for the
lake. You have a temporary victory for the status quo which is deadly for
the lake. We need a big solution long term and if Guad doesn't get water
why should they defend the lake?? So both sides can't find a third party
they both trust to watch the lake?? Do you really think Lakeside
has the political and financial clout to defend the lake?? The lake needs
a pit bull for a parter and in my opinion Guadalajara is that pit bull.

Z

Seems to me that the 2nd largest city in Mexico is going to get their water from wherever they have to,,think LA vs Owens Valley.
Hopefully they'll do it efficiently,40% leakage from the current line from Chapala is unacceptable and should be fixed.

MC:

I too would like to know about the 70% figure that you throw out there. I read the daily papers out of Guadalajara virtually every day and haven't spotted any such figure in any reports that I have read on the proposed aqueduct.

I just hope sincerely that the powers that be figure out something BEFORE the current aqueduct springs a serious leak and Guadalajara is without a significant water source. And I admit I an pretty environmentally conscience, but even I am not so naive as to think Guad can get their water from parking lot runoff.

Guadalajara gets only about 10% of its water from the lake. What is sent to the city is pumped there, so the old leaky line isn't going to drain the lake.

CheenaGringo wrote:MC:

I too would like to know about the 70% figure that you throw out there. I read the daily papers out of Guadalajara virtually every day and haven't spotted any such figure in any reports that I have read on the proposed aqueduct.

He got the number from one of Dr Stong's documents. A problem is - Dr Stong does not provide sources for the figures he includes in his documents. I did ask Dr Stong one time about providing sources - and he was not inclined - as the documents were not the type that needed sources provided. From my perspective, you have issues when you start to use a figure of 70% towards something dynamic not static - and the lake level is dynamic not static - so 70% of the lake volume in 2009 is not the same as 70% of the lake volume in 2003.

I have also found that there are a lot of documents published about the Lake - in Spanish - by credible sources - from the University of Guadalajara and others - so lots of information out there - from Mexican sources. The trick is knowing what to search on - and I have unintentionally stumbled across some very interesting documents on the Lake.

So right now, the 70% can only be attributed to Dr Stong. But where he got the figure from is not known - so the 70% cannot be validated - or the year referenced that it was 70% if indeed it was.

That's Dr. Strong. Believe what you like, you've solved nothing and probably lost an ally when it comes to dealing with the real, big and wasteful water users, the irrigators.

MC:

It doesn't seem unreasonable that when you use absolute figures without qualifiers like: appromimately, about, rumored, I have been told or such terms - to expect that you would provide a linkable source. Sorry but as much as we all desire to be correct and accurate all the time, things don't always work that way.

Zedinmexico wrote:Well they might be happy but mistrust will cause the current Aquaduct to
leak 40% of its water before it every gets to Guad. What a waste because
people can't trust each other. No science or common sense here just those
evil Guad people trying to steal our water. So wasting it is better than
building the second aqueduct and saving most of the 40%. How can anyone
feel good about a 40% waste rate and now nothing will be done about it.

Z

Zed, I believe that building a second Aquaduct may be the easiest way to replace the leaky pipes, but not the ONLY way. In many places in the US, ten to twenty percent leakage is considered "normal" depending on the size and age of the system, and 30 percent may require an action plan to reduce leakage. The source of some leakage can never be found or ameliorated. So the 40% may be reduced to 20, but there will still be leakage.

The problem with building the Aquaduct to solve the leakage problem is that once the original problem is solved, of course it will be used to transport additional water.

Merry

merry wrote:

Zedinmexico wrote:Well they might be happy but mistrust will cause the current Aquaduct to
leak 40% of its water before it every gets to Guad. What a waste because
people can't trust each other. No science or common sense here just those
evil Guad people trying to steal our water. So wasting it is better than
building the second aqueduct and saving most of the 40%. How can anyone
feel good about a 40% waste rate and now nothing will be done about it.

Z

Zed, I believe that building a second Aquaduct may be the easiest way to replace the leaky pipes, but not the ONLY way. In many places in the US, ten to twenty percent leakage is considered "normal" depending on the size and age of the system, and 30 percent may require an action plan to reduce leakage. The source of some leakage can never be found or ameliorated. So the 40% may be reduced to 20, but there will still be leakage.

The problem with building the Aquaduct to solve the leakage problem is that once the original problem is solved, of course it will be used to transport additional water.

Merry

If you have two pipes you can shut one down and fix it while taking water through the other pipe.
Normal leakage is about 10% for a old water pipeline in one piece. Our pipeline needs to be shut
down and rebuilt. Now your last statement is part of the problem. Nobody trusts anybody. If Guad
can get more water to come in the lake because they have political and monetary clout the lake will
still do better with more water in the lake and Guad can still take more water. All of this can be monitored.
We have no solution that is any good for the lake. We need powerful partners to get more water released
down into the lake. I mean no offense by this but do you really think we can get a long term solution
by demonstrating and people writting letters? I want a perm. solution something with the lake in mind
as first priority. If I have to shake hands with the Devil to get it I would. Maybe I am blind to other
solutions but I don't see any discussed anywhere.

Z

Question: Is the pipe to Guad a pipe or a covered or open Aquaduct? If it is an Aquaduct would the 40%
waste rate include evaporation? Trying to understand the 40% number. Anybody know?

Question: Lets assume the 70% number is correct. Does anybody know if you could save 10% for the lake
how much that would raise the lake over time?? Even if the correct number is 50% can you save the lake
with 10% more water? What would we have to change to save the lake and put its height back up to where
it belongs?

Zed, what's we the "we" and "ours"? Since when are you Mexican?

seisdedos wrote:Zed, what's we the "we" and "ours"? Since when are you Mexican?

Oh stop it. I am a legal resident of mexico not a tourist. How about answering with something
constructive instead of your old person grumpy comments. I sure would hate to be you!!!
Do you have a solution for the lake?? No I thought so. Leave me be I don't bother you.
Z

Go back and read the thread on this board. This is just a rehash of the same BS on this topic from last year. It should be moved to the Octagon.

As good as you are with searching, I've no doubt that you will have no trouble finding the many stories and pdfs of studies on this from 2008 on.

Zedinmexico wrote:What would we have to change to save the lake and put its height back up to where
it belongs?

Are you familiar with the 5 state agreement? I just did a search and found this document - which i don't think I have read - and don't have time now....... As I recall, someone is in violation of the agreement and the government hasn't been able to do much...

but understanding the 5 state agreement is a start on understanding some of the issues........

http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/files_new/research_projects/River_Basin_development_and_management/brief_LermaChapala.pdf

Here we go again! MC, the mod trying to dictate where topics belong. Memo to MC: you can dictate over on TOB.

To much yak without enough facts. First there is the 5 State Agreement of which Guadalajara is a party. Second, the irrigators don't control the dams and water is not "lost" to them, it's their right. Third, the whole process, including the dams, is controlled by CONAGUA. I don't know why the project was put off, never the less it will get done eventually.

Here is the info about the water no released......... using google translate so not perfect

GUADALAJARA, JALISCO (12/SEP/2012.) - The rainy season is the hope for the recovery of Chapala, for Yuriria Dam, located in Guanajuato, not get even a drop of water to Jalisco.
Although Yuriria is at full capacity and must vent liquid when it reaches 80% storage, water will not run for Jalisco, confirmed the director general of the Pacific Lerma Santiago, Antonio Iglesias Raul Benitez. Yuriria
He denied that water is staying with him would touch Chapala, in an interview, said that repairs on valves Solís Dam is what has caused the saturation of the lagoon and, for this reason, water is of Guanajuato.
Faced claims Jalisco, insisted that the distribution agreement Lerma River water is not being violated. "Only took the volume, which is extremely small, for Lake Chapala, half a centimeter of the 10 million cubic meters is not violated the agreement."
He said the decision was taken institutionally by the National Water (Conagua) and not by the state governments.
He noted, dams that depend on the Rio Lerma are almost at 50% capacity. said that, by the distance between Yuriria and Chapala, releasing the liquid barely reach five million cubic meters-half-inch of the 10 million sobrealmacenamiento's Dam in Guanajuato for more http://www.informador.com.mx/jalisco/2012/404015/6/pese-a-los-reclamos-de-jalisco-yuriria-no-enviara-agua-a-chapala.htm

Mad_Max wrote:

Zedinmexico wrote:What would we have to change to save the lake and put its height back up to where
it belongs?

Are you familiar with the 5 state agreement? I just did a search and found this document - which i don't think I have read - and don't have time now....... As I recall, someone is in violation of the agreement and the government hasn't been able to do much...

but understanding the 5 state agreement is a start on understanding some of the issues........

http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/files_new/research_projects/River_Basin_development_and_management/brief_LermaChapala.pdf

Good info thanks

Z