Parts of California and Nevada will have very serious water shortages in the near future. Using some of Lake Tahoe’s water during drought years could be the panacea for both states. Nevada does use some of that water now. But California does not.
Due to the lake’s elevation, many reservoirs could be created and much energy can be derived via hydroelectric plants. The only down side that I can see is that the lake level will only drop about 5 feet during a drought period.
2007-04-13 09:57:26 · 6 answers · asked by bob P11 3 in Environment
The amount of water in Lake Tahoe is several times more than all of the storage capacities in all reservoirs in California. Drawing down Lake Tahoe’s water level about 5 feet below its normal level could supply all of California’s present water needs, with conservation means, for at least two years. Much longer if inflow to reservoirs are at least 20% of normal inflow. It is a relatively easy engineers task. Sounds good to me. And it would be good for the Salmon.
2007-04-13 15:05:56 · update #1
The water in Lake Tahoe is not for "using". Someone owns the "water rights". If California wants it bad enough they'll buy them.
The problem is global warming will cause water shortages everywhere in the Western US. Water will be very expensive. Kentucky Bluegrass lawns in the desert may finally be seen as the idiocy they are.
There's no "free" water in the West. Someone owns every drop. Often two people own water rights in a lake. The person who owns "senior" rights, gets their amount of water first; "junior" rights are good for some of the extra water in wet years. Junior rights aren't going to be worth much in the future,
2007-04-13 11:07:29 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This state is always bi$%^ing about water usage/conservation and I am certainly for conservation. But next time on your way to work look at all the water going down the drains of commercial properties from landscaping over spray, yet nobody does anything about it up and down the Stat, It drives me nuts. This is by itself millions of gallons of water that is wasted. Water cost is already outrages in most parts of the state if this were to happen I'm sure it would go up again for everybody.
2007-04-13 10:08:43 · answer #2 · answered by unofornaio 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its intensity is a million,645 ft (501 m) making it usa's 2nd-inner maximum, (Crater Lake, in Oregon, being the internal maximum at 1945 ft (594 m) deep).that's the sixteenth inner maximum lake interior the international.
2016-12-16 05:02:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Leave Tahoe alone...people have no business living in a waterless desert in the first place.
2007-04-13 10:00:11 · answer #4 · answered by alanc_59 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I oppose using lake Tahoe. It is worth saving as it is. You can use any of the natural outflow, but that isn't technically using the lake, it is using the stream.
2007-04-13 10:21:00 · answer #5 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Recap from a different post...
bob P11,
Your quote:
"...but I am afraid of God." end quote.
The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. All you need now is to pray for faith in Jesus Christ's name and YOU are on your way to miracles! :^) XOXO
Thanks,
Golden
2007-04-17 09:40:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋