Why I hate “Drought Contingency Plan” (the name, not the plan)

“We really need to call [what we’re experiencing] aridification — the drying out of the Colorado River Basin because of climate change, we can’t just call it ‘drought’ anymore,” Fleck said. “It appears to be this permanent phenomenon that’s lowering the lake levels. You should not expect it to return to high lake levels over long periods of time. That’s just not something we can expect to happen.”

Via Lexi Peery, KUER


  1. Let us assume that “climate change” has occurred ever since Earth retained by its gravity an almost permanent gaseous envelope. Climate change has been recognized by our ancestors–after all, the Ice Age is now exampled mostly by remnants such as ice-caps and receding continental glaciers. Since the onset of scientific investigation the informed public has fully realized that such change can be measured and recorded and has been so recognized by many voters. Merely because some water-supply administrators, “stale-ist” academics and pop-journalism practitioners does not mean there is any need to ban the use of “Drought Contingency Plan”! Quite simply, hydraulic droughts happen as blips atop the long-term generalized trend in increasingly well documented climate change. (Studies of the Sahara have revealed that fact quite clearly too.) Eliminating the malleable “Drought Contingency Plan” language and concept makes more difficult the conveyance of data and information to the tax-paying public. Is this, therefore, just another gimmick by politicized persons to induce uncertainty and confusion to increase their own personal value to society? (Probably, YES.)

  2. Aridificatiom is the next step before desertification, correct? So if there is still the ability to conserve water in the system or utilize this stem I don’t believe that it’s quite there just yet.

Comments are closed.