20 replies to this topic

[BillinaBus]

Maybe I am the only one watching the lake levels, but according to the CEA the lake has gone down over an inch in the last week... right in the middle of the rainy season. We are almost 3 feet lower than the same date last year. I was under the impression from talks by 'experts' who favor an additional water pipe out of the lake to Guadalajara that our levels on the lake would be kept up because of the agreements made through things like the Living Lake programs and others and up stream dams etc. If the lake is ALREADY being drawn down in August that seems counter to all those claims. It looks like there have been no dam releases up stream at all this year... the level has risen very slowly and apparently we have reached our peak and the draw down has started. Not very encouraging for those of us with dreams of a stable lake and having an ongoing fishery along with recreational boating in our future. Does anyone know if local governments are asking questions yet?

[Jeannie]

Maybe I am the only one watching the lake levels, but according to the CEA the lake has gone down over an inch in the last week... right in the middle of the rainy season. We are almost 3 feet lower than the same date last year. I was under the impression from talks by 'experts' who favor an additional water pipe out of the lake to Guadalajara that our levels on the lake would be kept up because of the agreements made through things like the Living Lake programs and others and up stream dams etc. If the lake is ALREADY being drawn down in August that seems counter to all those claims. It looks like there have been no dam releases up stream at all this year... the level has risen very slowly and apparently we have reached our peak and the draw down has started. Not very encouraging for those of us with dreams of a stable lake and having an ongoing fishery along with recreational boating in our future. Does anyone know if local governments are asking questions yet?

It is what it is. We're having a bad rainy season and nothing gets released from the dams upstream until they reach 100% Their was an article in El Informador a few days ago explaining the whole issue. You should have been here when you could walk out a mile or more and still no water.

[Wheels]

Maybe I am the only one watching the lake levels, but according to the CEA the lake has gone down over an inch in the last week... right in the middle of the rainy season. We are almost 3 feet lower than the same date last year. I was under the impression from talks by 'experts' who favor an additional water pipe out of the lake to Guadalajara that our levels on the lake would be kept up because of the agreements made through things like the Living Lake programs and others and up stream dams etc. If the lake is ALREADY being drawn down in August that seems counter to all those claims. It looks like there have been no dam releases up stream at all this year... the level has risen very slowly and apparently we have reached our peak and the draw down has started. Not very encouraging for those of us with dreams of a stable lake and having an ongoing fishery along with recreational boating in our future. Does anyone know if local governments are asking questions yet?

Definitely not as much rain as last year. This date one year ago we had 32.08 inches of rain compared to 19.67 this year.

[Mainecoons]

Yep, it is not raining. No rain, no lake rise.

This is not good, folks. Almost like we are stuck in a La Nina pattern even though theoretically, we are ENSO neutral or nearly so, hence no La Nina.

It's hot too. A good 5 degrees hotter than normal.

We really are going to find out whether those agreements to maintain the lake level are worth the paper they are written on. I'm not optimistic.

[Atlas]

The principal loss of water from the lake is evaporation. Last year's rainfall was 26% above average, so comparisons to last year are meaningless. As for this year it's too soon to tell. Of course you could avoid the rush and be concerned now. I think that it is simply what it is.

[BillinaBus]

We've been here when it looked like we could walk across the lake to the south side... I just don't want to see that again.

it's the confidence of many that we have 'agreements' that will keep the level up that I am questioning. At the first slow down in rain the lake starts going down in the middle of August which sure indicates water is going somewhere unless we expect to get 3 cm of evaporation a week or a meter and a half a year... and that's on top of the rain and runoff into the lake during the last week as well.

After all the investment in shore development by most every village on the north shore I'd of hoped the local governments would be monitoring what's going on... but apparently not.

[Cheapo]

It goes up, it goes down. It's been doing this since long before I was here, and it will carry on. These discussions remind me of the ones on this board in May: "When's the rain coming? Is it late? Is it early? Oh, I heard a rainbird in February... must be an early season! It's going to be a late one: No rainbirds in my corner!

[carib]

The hurricane season in the golf has been very quiet. Usually September is the high of the season and we may have the extra rain for the lake. About the Lirio, it comes from the rivers feeding the lake. The area has been very aggressive on controlling this plague. It is getting hot. We need the rain to maintain this wonderful ecosystem that is so vital for Mexico.

[Mad_Max]

It is what it is. We're having a bad rainy season and nothing gets released from the dams upstream until they reach 100% Their was an article in El Informador a few days ago explaining the whole issue. You should have been here when you could walk out a mile or more and still no water.

Here is the article from the Informador - Using Google Translate - garbled but still understandable . The last paragraph is pretty clear - year to date rainfall is 46.6% of average annual rainfall. (Rainfall will vary from place to place - so who knows how they arrived at this figure - but it 46.6% doesn't sound unreasonable)

http://www.informado...no-temporal.htm

Chapala, Jalisco (17/AGO72011) .- For Lake Chapala , 2011 is a "dry" year, since the lack of rain has affected you lose three centimeters in the storm. The lake is at 65.83% of capacity, only 21 centimeters gained from the lowest level of 2010 (95.01). In contrast, on 16 August last year recorded a level of 76.4 percent.
In general, the behavior of the lake has remained linear, there is even a period of six days (from 4 to 9 August) in which remained unaltered, until it began to reduce.


In Jalisco, have fallen only 394.2 liters per square meter (l/m2), 46.6% of the average annual rainfall, which is 846.5. Only in Lake Chapala, the accumulated precipitation from January 1 to August 16 2010 was 794.3 l/m2, while during the same period this year recorded only 431.7, ie 54% less in comparison.


The dams of the Lerma-Chapala Basin have also received great benefits of the hydrological cycle, as in general are at 59.14% the previous year when the average was 84.36 percent. The requirements for reservoirs in the basin water intended Chapala is that these are at 100% capacity, which is not meets any of the 11 major dams, located in the states of Guanajuato and Michoacan.


Some have even maintained their last days by the lack of rain.


Conagua reports that it is not a landmark case, because in 1997, 2000 and 2009, for example, the status has been more or less "linear" with minimal increases in their level.


TO KNOW: In Jalisco, the average annual rainfall is 846.5 liters per square meter (l/m2). In 2010 it was the 702, but this year hardly 394.2, ie, only 46.6% of the estimate.

[Mad_Max]

Maybe I am the only one watching the lake levels, but according to the CEA the lake has gone down over an inch in the last week... right in the middle of the rainy season. We are almost 3 feet lower than the same date last year. I was under the impression from talks by 'experts' who favor an additional water pipe out of the lake to Guadalajara that our levels on the lake would be kept up because of the agreements made through things like the Living Lake programs and others and up stream dams etc. If the lake is ALREADY being drawn down in August that seems counter to all those claims. It looks like there have been no dam releases up stream at all this year... the level has risen very slowly and apparently we have reached our peak and the draw down has started. Not very encouraging for those of us with dreams of a stable lake and having an ongoing fishery along with recreational boating in our future. Does anyone know if local governments are asking questions yet?

Living Lakes had nothing to do with agreements - However, they were instrumental in having the Lake named a Ramsar site - but I am not aware of any benefits that designation has brought - (which doesn't mean there hasn't been benefits - just that I haven't heard of any)

For information on the agreements - here is a good article - http://www.informado...-de-chapala.htm

As far as expert claims about no harm to Lake Chapala, it is my opinion that if you look at the second aqueduct from a "technical" aspect, it is the best solution. Regretfully there are more than technical elements that need to be taken into consideration - to include not trusting politicians and their ability to keep agreements - and last I heard all of the Lakeside mayors were against the aqueduct - as well as Amigos del Lago - which has a relationship with Living Lakes, There have been protest marches in Guadalajara which have been covered by the Spanish newspapers - There have also been some local demonstrations on the Chapala Malecon - again covered by the Spanish newspapers.

As for your last question - Does anyone know if local governments are asking questions yet?

Even the church has weighed in -

July 11 - http://www.mapder.lunasexta.org/?p=720 Guadalajara Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iniguez gave his support to the voices of those opposed to the construction of a second pipeline to take water from Lake Chapala to the supply of the Metropolitan Area Guadalajara, as stated by the Intermunicipal Water System Supply and Sewerage ( SIAPA ).


May 24 http://cronicadesoci...te-al-congreso/ Around 5000 inhabitants of the shores of Lake Chapala Guadalajara yesterday demonstrated against the construction of the pipeline 2 which will provide water for four years in the metropolitan area. "We are willing to give their lives for our lake.Not building the new aqueduct! Lake Chapala Yes! "Said Carlos Rosales, an activist and resident of the banks outside the State Capitol building.A dozen mayors, PRI, PAN and PRD municipalities that make up the shores of Chapala, led by local PAN deputy Hector Alvarez Contreras said to the media their disagreement with the aqueduct 2 of Chapala, the cost reach two billion pesos.

[Mainecoons]

There continues to be an amazing amount of ignorance and emotionalism surrounding the second GDL pipeline. The facts are that GDL would consume only a very few inches of the lake level and the second pipeline would allow for repairs of the first, which loses nearly 40 percent of the water because of leaks which cannot be repaired due to lack of backup, which the new pipe would provide. The vast majority of the water from the river that feeds the lake is consumed by very wasteful upstream irrigation, something on the order fo 75 percent.

The other major loss is due to natural causes, namely evaporation. Lake Chapala is like a huge, shallow evaporating pan. Over those long months when the humidity is very low here and the sun shines all day, a lot of water is lost in this way. There is nothing that can be done about that.

One would hope that rational people would recognize two things about this proposal: First, it is important to provide redundancy so that the pipelines can be properly maintained and the large current loss reduced greatly, to technical norms for such a facility.

Second, and given that the city is not the big consumer here, the wasteful irrigators are, one would hope that cooler heads would see the benefit of having Mexico's second largest and powerful city on their side in dealing with the real cause of continued water shortage at the lake: The irrigators. On their own, the lakeside communities have little clout to compel the by far the largest users to implement conservation. Having the clout of 6 million people added to the equation could certainly make a major difference in addressing the real reason it is difficult to maintain the lake level.

At the same time, now is the perfect opportunity to extract firm requirements from the city for this cooperation, mainly the implementation of a serious program of water conservation in the GDL metro area and a guarantee that the existing line will be immediately shut down and repaired upon completion of the new one.

And, BTW, this should include us as well. There's a lot of water waste right here along the lake.

Or we can just keep running around like a bunch of fact-challenged, emotion driven and thereby ineffectual folks that aren't going to be taken seriously.

[BillinaBus]

The amount of rain is beyond control... but I guess I just misunderstood what all the proponents of adding more diversion of Chapala water to Guadalajara had said in the past. I thought I understood that agreements were made with up stream users so that on bad rain years the releases up stream would increase keeping the lake at levels agreed to by international commitments. My point in posting isn't that we are having a bad rain year (although not all that bad locally, according to Steve's site we are maybe an inch or two down from normal for this date), my point is obviously on this, the first occasion of low input into the Lerma Basin we have been virtually cut off from releases just like in the past. Trusting 'agreements' to keep the lake up and increasing the outflow possibilities seems ill advised to me given this years example.

[Mad_Max]

There continues to be an amazing amount of ignorance and emotionalism surrounding the second GDL pipeline. The facts are that GDL would consume only a very few inches of the lake level ..................
At the same time, now is the perfect opportunity to extract firm requirements from the city for this cooperation, mainly the implementation of a serious program of water conservation in the GDL metro area and a guarantee that the existing line will be immediately shut down and repaired upon completion of the new one.

And, BTW, this should include us as well. There's a lot of water waste right here along the lake.

Or we can just keep running around like a bunch of fact-challenged, emotion driven and thereby ineffectual folks that aren't going to be taken seriously.

As far as the facts go........... seems to be as a person that is fairly ignorant about the whole matter - is that taking only a few inches of the lake level is based on a series of unpublished assumptions. So we have someone in a backroom with a calculator - and that becomes fact. It would be nice to see some of those assumptions on which the "few inches" are based - to include the average high temperature which is going to influence the evaporation level. And what years were used to arrive at the average high temperature - those seem to be missing facts.

And yes - an agreement on water conservation would be a great start - but what about water usage? Somehow, having breweries inside the city that deplete one of the sources of groundwaters doesn't make sense to me. The citizens conserve, the breweries deplete. Water usage as to come into play.

As for fact-challenged, emotion driven and thereby ineffectual folks. Maybe you should change the word "folks" to "visitors". It is the locals, the natives, the people that have lived here all their lives that have seen agreements come and go that are saying no.

My take personally, is that they need a water usage policy before they attempt conservation - and they need to be transparent with the figures - instead of "take my word for it, it is only a few inches".

Like you say - technically it is a good idea. No one disputes that. So why the fact-challenged sarcasm. Its the politics that no one trusts.

[Mainecoons]

That's how engineering analyses are done, Max, not on emotion. The surface area of the lake is a known fact. The amount of water that GDL uses and would use is a known fact. The computation as to usage is a quite simple and straightforward volumetric calculation.

I've looked at the figures as an engineer and I think they are valid. The records are there that show that most of the water usage is for irrigation. The line loss in the current GDL aqueduct is so large that fixing it will alone account for most of the additional water that GDL will take.

That the original line is badly in need of repair but cannot be shut down because of lack of backup is also a fact.

I see no valid technical arguments being made against the proposal, it seems to be all about emotion and distrust.

Do you really think this little community down here is going to prevail against the second largest city in the nation? Or does it make more sense on the basis of FACT to ally ourselves with them and go after the real source of the problem, the extremely wasteful irrigation practices upstream? Does it make more sense on the basis of FACT to make it possible to repair the existing line?

IMO, the current approach taken by the opponents to this project seems mainly destined to squander whatever influence they could have on a real solution to this problem.

A little rain dance wouldn't hurt either.

[gringohombre]

As one who walks his dog 2 times a day along the waterfront in San Antonio, I can tell you the the water level has remained remarkably constant since the rainy season began. By siting tree stumps, posts, etc. there has not been one cm. of change since the few gushers we had early on. In the past 4 years here at this time of year the area we walk would be covered with a few feet of water. There are fishing camps at the end of 2 adjacent roads leading to the lake here that have been basically deserted for a couple of years now, so i assume that fishing is still not a viable lively-hood here.

[Mad_Max]

That's how engineering analyses are done, Max, not on emotion. The surface area of the lake is a known fact. The amount of water that GDL uses and would use is a known fact. The computation as to usage is a quite simple and straightforward volumetric calculation.

I've looked at the figures as an engineer and I think they are valid. The records are there that show that most of the water usage is for irrigation. The line loss in the current GDL aqueduct is so large that fixing it will alone account for most of the additional water that GDL will take.

That the original line is badly in need of repair but cannot be shut down because of lack of backup is also a fact.

I see no valid technical arguments being made against the proposal, it seems to be all about emotion and distrust.

Do you really think this little community down here is going to prevail against the second largest city in the nation? Or does it make more sense on the basis of FACT to ally ourselves with them and go after the real source of the problem, the extremely wasteful irrigation practices upstream? Does it make more sense on the basis of FACT to make it possible to repair the existing line?

IMO, the current approach taken by the opponents to this project seems mainly destined to squander whatever influence they could have on a real solution to this problem.

A little rain dance wouldn't hurt either.

My take is that the mayors in the area are saying no to the aqueduct, not because they think it is a good or bad idea, but because they want something in return. Who knows what that is.

As far as the water that Guad uses, I do not think it is a known fact. But hey, I haven't seen the data and if I did see it, I am not an engineer. However, I seriously doubt that Guad is taking aquifer depletion into account when they deal with water usage. Correct me if I am wrong - and I realize I could be - but I don't think they are that sophisticated - and I strongly believe that aquifer depletion/recharge has to be part of their water usage strategy.

[conejorapido]

There continues to be an amazing amount of ignorance and emotionalism surrounding the second GDL pipeline. The facts are that GDL would consume only a very few inches of the lake level and the second pipeline would allow for repairs of the first, which loses nearly 40 percent of the water because of leaks which cannot be repaired due to lack of backup, which the new pipe would provide. The vast majority of the water from the river that feeds the lake is consumed by very wasteful upstream irrigation, something on the order fo 75 percent.

The other major loss is due to natural causes, namely evaporation. Lake Chapala is like a huge, shallow evaporating pan. Over those long months when the humidity is very low here and the sun shines all day, a lot of water is lost in this way. There is nothing that can be done about that.

One would hope that rational people would recognize two things about this proposal: First, it is important to provide redundancy so that the pipelines can be properly maintained and the large current loss reduced greatly, to technical norms for such a facility.

Second, and given that the city is not the big consumer here, the wasteful irrigators are, one would hope that cooler heads would see the benefit of having Mexico's second largest and powerful city on their side in dealing with the real cause of continued water shortage at the lake: The irrigators. On their own, the lakeside communities have little clout to compel the by far the largest users to implement conservation. Having the clout of 6 million people added to the equation could certainly make a major difference in addressing the real reason it is difficult to maintain the lake level.

At the same time, now is the perfect opportunity to extract firm requirements from the city for this cooperation, mainly the implementation of a serious program of water conservation in the GDL metro area and a guarantee that the existing line will be immediately shut down and repaired upon completion of the new one.

And, BTW, this should include us as well. There's a lot of water waste right here along the lake.

Or we can just keep running around like a bunch of fact-challenged, emotion driven and thereby ineffectual folks that aren't going to be taken seriously.

Your analysis and comments are well put. However, it only holds true if one believes that the City of Guadalajara won't simply use both aquaducts, after the old one is repaired, to ameliorate it's chronic water shortage. That would have a more significant effect on lake levels. I know they say they won't but, like a lot things, what's true today doesn't necessarily hold for tomorrow. I think that may be a major source of concern for those opposed to the new pipe.

[Mainecoons]

And I think that is a fair concern. You have to make sure they are strictly limited as to final capacity. That's not the conversation I see going on here, but that is the one that needs to happen IMO. And even more importantly, the deal must include a funded, operation program of water conservation both by the city and the irrigators.

Stopping the pipe doesn't solve that latter problem and that is the big one, those irrigators who are using most of the water. Particularly if this rainy season doesn't return and catch up. Not looking too good at the moment on that score.

Recognize though, that if you could reduce the leakage to a more normal 10 percent from the current 40, you would have over half the extra water they want without pumping another drop from the lake.

One of the other technical factors here is the buildup of TDS (total dissoved solids) and nutrients in this lake, which is basically an undrained catchment. No water runs out of it other than what GDL uses plus what lakeside irrigators use. So there is a benefit in increasing the inflow by cutting irrigation losses, and letting more outflow, which helps to limit the increase in TDS. Theoretically, if there is insufficient outflow, at some point the TDS can build up to the point of making the lake brackish. Evaporation is a compounding factor as it takes the water molecules but leaves the dissolved solids.

This lake is so important to this country, it warrants a single engineering/scientific/protective agency to manage inflow/outflow and issues like the Lirio, nutrients, silt/sediment and TDS. Let's hope that things evolve in that direction.

[Mad_Max]

No water runs out of it other than what GDL uses plus what lakeside irrigators use.

Not quite - it is not exactly a closed system. (But agree that not much flows out:)

http://www.aguaenmex...a%20aquifer.pdf

Abstract: Lake Chapala is a large shallow lake, with a very slow hydraulic continuity with its surroundings due to fine grained soil texture. Remson et al. (1971), Frezee (1969), Cooley (1974), Winter (1976), Anderson and Munter (1981) and Brown and Bradley (1995) have discussed lake-groundwater interaction systems.

In this study we describe the mechanisms of hydraulic communication between Lake Chapala and the adjacent marshland because of the possibility that groundwater might be polluted with lake water. The wetland groundwater is being used in domestic and agricultural activities. Phosphates (total phosphorus) chlorides, temperature, electrical conductivity and piezometric tendencies are considered as indicators of pollution.

.....................Domenico and Schwartz (1990) have classified the majority of lakes according to their mechanism of interaction with groundwater. These mechanisms are determined basically by the relative position of the potentiometric level (Figure 1):

a. Discharging lakes, which receive groundwater flows supplied by an aquifer system.

b, Recharging lakes, which contribute water to the aquifer.

c, Direct flow lakes. These types of lakes combine both features; they receive and provide water to the underground flow.

(d) Isolated lakes, which do not maintain any hydraulic relation with aquifer systems in their geologic surroundings.

We propose a functional mixed model of direct flow corresponding to case c above, based on recharge of precipitation on the Cojumatlan hills and on the piezomety of the Wetland. This agrees with the geologic regional framework (Figure 2).

From the Conclusion: The piezometrical gradient of aquifers located in and around Lake Chapala suggests an hypothesis about preferential flows from lake to the aquifer.

Comment - for those that wish to pursue more information on this and related topics, there actually has been a lot of scientific studies completed related to Lake Chapala in Jalisco and Michoacán. However, to find, you usually have to search in Spanish and subsequently translate.

[Mainecoons]

Good point, however it must not amount to much as the TDS of the lake has been rising. Ground water tends to be higher in TDS as well, hence most well water tends to the "hard" side including the well water around here.

Given how the rain is concentrated in a few months, I wonder if the ground water gradients shift with the seasons.

Nice find, Max. You really know how to get an old engineer excited.