7 replies to this topic

[bdmowers]

First - I know this subject can generate a lot of emotion and gut responses. I'm not really interested in those here. I'm interested in real scientific or experiential information about both aqueducts, about water quality issues in the wider area and about how the current aqueduct and the proposed aqueduct affect/could affect life quality issues in the lake area.

Here are my questions:
How can the new aqueduct help the lake? Can it be a catalyst to improve the water situation in the wider area (for Guad and for Chapala)? How could the new 2nd aqueduct cause a deterioration in Lake Chapala water quality and/or life quality issues around the lake?

[Mad_Max]

Interesting questions - and you will get lots of opinions. So here is mine.

Removing water from the Lake is obviously not coming to help the lake. The question is - how much would be removed. Some say a minimal amount - so that the impact would be very minor.

The issue here, from my perspective, is the integrity of SIAPA. And it appears not very many people trust them.

You asked if it can be a catalyst to improve the water situation............ From my perspective, to improve the water situation, you need a competent government group to come up with a competent and comprehensive strategy. And the players are not in place to do that. Right now, Guadalajara doesn't even manage groundwater/aquifers - and that usage needs to be a significant part of any plan to improve the water situation.

You asked how that would cause a deterioration in the lake. The lake is about 45 miles long - and subject to the polices and practices of two states and multiple municipalities. Those interests are usually self serving - and not necessarily for the health of the lake. And you need to define what constitutes a healthy lake - as for me it includes a healthy ecosystem, and for water quality, you need to define exactly what you mean by water quality. From my perspective, those answers are best found in peer reviewed scientific documents - and there are many - mostly in spanish. One credible one indicates that there are a number of toxic chemicals in the sediment. I don't know that anyone has really researched everything that has been published. Other local studies have been initiated - but so far I don't think any have been peer reviewed.

And I guess my final comments are - is there any reason for SIAPA to change its practices. I can't think of any. So sooner or later the second aqueduct will be built. There will not be any strategy so this will be a short term solution. And there is no clear cut answer on water quality - again - a 45 mile lake managed by multiple political environments that probably have more immediate priorities.

[punxsyjim]

The only good reason for the 2nd pipeline, from my view, is the backup security. The existing system is quite old. Even by US/Canada standards it must have a great deal of leakage. And if a major rupture occurs, water is lost and GDL is dry. As the consumption is monitored - and theoretically controlled - it really should have no impact on consumption.

Given, of course, the integrity and values of the regulators, authorities, etc.

Nuff said??

[borderreiver]

The old pipeline is old and leaking. Probably beyond repair. This, the authorities get. So, you need a new pipeline. They get this and it will happen, hopefully before the old pipeline implodes. In a perfect world, the new pipeline will be twice or more larger in diameter, and will be installed using the latest technology, and will last for one hundred years. Unless all parties get there water usage acts together I don't see improving higher lake levels.

[rufus]

Water is never "used up." It is merely dirtied up and sent on its way. The real challenge is to clean it up and to use it again in an appropriate manner.

Rufus

[BillinaBus]

The old pipeline is small and leaks... when they build the new larger and hopefully more efficient one they will just use them both to take more water from the lake. They wouldn't be so insistent about leaving the old one in place if they don't intend on using it. The lake is just a settling pond in the water system supplying a very large metropolis and not going to be managed as a natural resource unless the people of both states stand up and demand it.

Seems to me discouraging citizens from protesting the current management system of the lake is counter to what every resident wants and needs in the long run. This lake won't be managed as anything but a water source for agriculture and cities unless the citizens demand government conserve it for future generations...

[Atlas]

Guad gets only a small percentage of it's water from Lake Chapala.

[bdmowers]

Guad gets only a small percentage of it's water from Lake Chapala.

Atlas, most information sources I have seen say that Guadalajara gets between 60-70% of its water from the lake. What are your sources?