The difficulty we find ourselves in is not due to the fact that the present drought is impossible to imagine. It could not be predicted, but its eventual occurrence was assured. We are caught with minimal plans to deal with an event sure to occur. Whereas for earthquakes the occurrence is not susceptible to probability analysis because the causal mechanisms are not random, for climate the hydrologic phenomena of flood and drought may be treated statistically, and good estimates of probability are available to us. The departure from the mean value is expectable, but the particular year or years in which it will occur cannot be forecast. Such is the nature of hydrologic events.
In a management philosophy and plan, it is far more necessary to minimize impact of dry years than to contend with wet ones. Though the risk of a deficient year is always present, seldom are definite plans on hand to cope with the situation when it finally arises. Rather, at the time of crisis there is a tendency toward grandiose plans to eliminate one further increment of risk, but a residual risk remains. The same crisis will occur again, less often but equally sure. Now is the time to lay plans for meeting an assured future event.
– Luna Leopold, address to the Governor’s Conference on the California Drought, Los Angeles, California, March 7, I977, later published as “A reverence for rivers.” Geology 5, no. 7 (1977): 429-430.
Over 40 years ago, I was appointed to our local Energy Commission. Our job was to develop an emergency energy plan to respond to the global shortages we had just experienced. I found we were unwilling to plan for future shortfalls that were as bad as we had just gone thru. (A temporary panic caused ?12% shortfall for a few weeks, and then a 6% for months afterward.)
The reason? If we had planned for that temporary shortfall, we would have had to recommend serious changes in public policy and practice. By ignoring what had just occurred, we didn’t have to propose we change anything important.
My expectation is that the plans we adopt for the Colorado River won’t keep us out of danger, they will just make it less likely.
Wow, I am so glad the quotation from Luna Leopold was here. I had learned of Aldo Leopold in sustainability classes at Colorado Mountain College. (I call it the Cambridge of the Rockies.) I now know that Aldo and his wife and their 5 kids had a huge positive impact on the natural world. That is the use of, and the science of, and the regulation of.
And Tres I came to find out has been a tireless worker on sustainability for decades in Tuscon.
I think the main problem of controlling climate change is tactics. Both authors raise the questions of approaches that generate successful outcomes. The average world temperatures and the CO2 ppb at Mauna Loa continue to rise. We need to see a decline. Tuscon must be a difficult place to reduce GHG emissions.
I’m in Carbondale, CO. Like most areas near resorts we continue to grow. The town’s GHG emissions are holding steady but only because the electricity is made with more renewables.
The local watershed, which is a tributary to the Colorado, is currently at 67% of average. Not good.