Thursday, October 8. 2020

 Today's classes are: 

9:15 - 11:50 D Block Social and Environmental Science

12:30 - 3:05 A Block Criminology 

D Block Social and Environmental Sciences -  First portion of the class in the library/learning commons for your roundtable research. Should Lake Mead fall to 1,075 ft above sea level, the federal government would cut the water to seven states that depend on the Colorado River, according to an agreement they all signed in 2007. If that happens, the states would likely renegotiate the 1922 pact that establishes how the water is to be allocated. The current lake level is 1099 feet.

Your final assignment is to prepare for a round table discussion about what a renegotiated water compact should include. Instead of states you will be representing "user groups" (agriculture, municipalities, power generation, recreation, environmental organizations, Indigenous governments)

Consider all of the following for the round table discussion...

1. How much will groups have to share? 
2. For what purpose should the water be used? Will it be sustainable in the face of growing populations and uncertain climate? 
3. How can we make our water use sustainable? Are there any conditions that need to be met before different user groups can use the water? 
4. The original pact for the river was made in 1922. What changes have occurred that would support changes in the pact today? 
5. Are all the many uses of the Colorado River compatible? If not, what should the priorities be and why? 
6. Are there fair ways to move water from one use to another? 
7. Which stakeholders have the power to make these changes?

Remember that the river is a system where all the water is allocated and there is less water available as a whole. Giving more water to any one area or user group means less water available for everyone else. You know your groups. Today research the heck out of it, keep the questions above in mind and come prepared tomorrow to participate in the discussion and come up with solutions. FYI...

Allocation Regime (USBRUC 2005)  

Water quantity 

Colorado River water was apportioned by the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Boulder Canyon Project Act of 1928, the Water Treaty of 1944, the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948, and the United States Supreme Court (Arizona v. California et al. 1963). The Colorado River Compact divided the Colorado River Basin between the Upper and Lower Basins at Lees Ferry (just below the confluence of the Paria River), apportioning to each use of 7.5 maf annually. In addition to this apportionment, the Lower Basin was given the right to increase its beneficial consumptive use by one maf per year. The compact also contains provisions governing exportation of Colorado River water. The Water Treaty of 1944 obligates the United States to deliver to Mexico 1.5 maf of Colorado River water annually, absent treaty surplus or shortage conditions.  

Upper Colorado use  

The Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 divided and apportioned the water apportioned to the Upper Colorado River Basin by the Colorado River Compact, allocating to Arizona 50,000 acre-feet annually, with the remaining water allocated to Upper Colorado River Basin States as follows:  

• Colorado 51.75%  
• New Mexico 11.25%  
• Utah 23%  
• Wyoming 14%  

Lower Colorado use  

States of the Lower Colorado River Basin did not agree to a compact for the apportionment of waters in the Lower Colorado River Basin; in the absence of such a compact Congress, through Secretarial contracts authorized by the Boulder Canyon Project Act, allocated water from the mainstem of the Colorado River below Lees Ferry among California, Nevada, and Arizona, and the Gila River between Arizona and New Mexico. This apportionment was upheld by the Supreme Court, in 1963, in the case of Arizona v. California. As confirmed by the US Supreme Court in 1963, from the mainstem of the Colorado River (i.e., The Lower Basin):  

• Nevada was apportioned 300,000 acre-feet annually and 4% of surplus water available 
• Arizona was apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet annually and 46% of surplus water available; and  
• California was apportioned 4,400,000 acre-feet annually and 50% of surplus water available.  

Mexico  

The Water Treaty of 1944 obligates the United States to deliver to Mexico 1.5 maf of Colorado River water annually, absent treaty surplus or shortage conditions.

User priority on the Colorado River is determined by the first "useful purposing" of the water. For example, the irrigated agriculture in California has priority over some municipal water supplies for Phoenix, Ariz. You'll look at hydrograph analysis and calculations around volume loss in reservoirs. Before the advent of Bureau of Reclamation dams - Hoover and Glen Canyon - the Colorado River flowed freely to the Gulf of California (Sea of Cortez). In 1920, a stream gage near Yuma, Arizona recorded ~129,000 cubic feet per second (~3,600 cubic meters per second). After Hoover Dam was constructed, flow near Yuma fell below ~ 500 cms. Maximum flow declined further after Glen Canyon Dam came on line, to below ~ 100 cms. The units of this historical hydrograph are cubic meters per second on the y-axis and years on the x-axis. These data show that annual floods on the Colorado River are a pale shadow of the pre-dam period.

https://azgs.arizona.edu/photo/taming-colorado-river-20th-century

Colorado River Supply and Use

 After, with Young (in room 115), we are going to take a look at the population changes that have occurred in the US Southwest over the last 80 years (since the completion of the Hoover Dam in 1936). We'll try to discuss the role of water in America's expansion during the 18th and 19th centuries by looking particularly at the geography of major cities, specifically we are going to look at Phoenix, Arizona, and Las Vegas, Nevada (just the cities and not the metropolitan areas). Phoenix (city) has a 2018 population of  1,660,272 people but the metropolitan Phoenix population is 4,857,962 people. Las Vegas (city) has a 2018 population of 644,644 people but the metropolitan Las Vegas population is 2,227,053 people. I'll have you graph the populations of these two cities for ten year intervals starting in 1930 up to last year (2018).

Check out this super sweet interactive map of Las Vegas' population growth and water use. Also
this awesome interactive How much longer can the Colorado River sustain us? or this one that asks how long Las Vegas can keep growing with the water it gets from the Colorado River Also, check out this great article, In Era of Drought, Phoenix Prepares for a Future Without Colorado River Water

You'll have some questions to answer for me:

• What do these two cities have in common?
• Why do you think these cities were so populated and were able to grow so quickly?
• Why is access to water important economically?
• What role do you think access to waterways and fresh water plays in the expansion of the population in the Colorado Basin throughout 1900s?
• How are these cities surviving where water is not easily accessible? From where does their water come?
• What are some of the new technologies that allow for water to be transported long distances? Are these really "new" or are they carried over from the ancient cultures?
• Is a high quality of life sustainable in harsh climates?
• What is the cost of this life population shift on both the environment and on the demand for fresh water?

A Block Criminology - Today we'll look at terrorism.

The 2016 GTI (Global Terrorism Index) report reinforces the fact terrorism is a highly concentrated form of violence, mostly committed in a small number of countries and by a small number of groups. The five countries suffering the highest impact from terrorism as measured by the GTI; Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria, accounted for 72 per cent of all deaths from terrorism in 2015. Similarly, only four groups were responsible for 74 per cent of all these deaths; ISIL, Boko Haram, the Taliban and al-Qa’ida. While terrorism as a form of violence has a major psychological impact on the societies it touches, there are other forms of violence which are more devastating. Major armed conflicts resulted in more deaths in 2015 as well as the wholesale destruction of economies. The global homicide rate is 15 times the death rate from terrorism.

The 2019 GTI indicates the total number of deaths from terrorism declined for the fourth consecutive year in 2018, falling by 15.2 per cent to 15,952 deaths. This represents a 53 per cent reduction since its peak in 2014 when 33,555 people were killed in terrorist attacks. The primary driver of this reduction in the number of deaths from terrorism has been a fall in the intensity of conflict in the Middle East, and the subsequent decline of ISIL. The year-on-year fall in deaths mirrors a fall in the number of attacks, which dropped from 8,629 to 7,551, a 12.5 per cent decrease. Preliminary data for 2019 suggests that the decrease in both incidents and deaths from terrorism has continued, and that 2019 will have the lowest level of terrorist activity since 2011.

Fact-Check: Terrorism from Wolfram Friele on Vimeo.

Global Terrorism Index 2014 from Vision of Humanity on Vimeo.


Statistical analysis of the drivers of terrorist activity show there are two distinct sets of factors associated with terrorism, depending on whether the country is developed or developing.

The first set of factors which are closely linked to terrorist activity are political violence committed by the state and the presence of a conflict. The research finds that 93 per cent of all terrorist attacks between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries with high levels of state sponsored terror, involving extrajudicial killing, torture, and imprisonment without trial. Similarly, over 90 per cent of all terrorist deaths occurred in countries already engaged in some form of conflict whether internal or international. This means only 0.5 per cent of terrorist attacks occurred in countries that did not suffer from conflict or political terror. This underlines the close link between existing conflicts, grievances and political violence with terrorist activity.

When analyzing the correlates of terrorism there are different factors that are statistically significant depending on the level of development. In the OECD countries, socio-economic factors such as youth unemployment, militarization, levels of criminality, access to weapons and distrust in the electoral process are the most statistically significant factors correlating with terrorism. This reinforces some of the well-known drivers of radicalization and extremism. In developing countries, the history of conflict, levels of corruption, acceptance of the rights of others and group based inequalities are more significantly related to terrorist activity. Some stuff to help with your questions:
What Motivates Terrorists?
Public Safety Canada Counter Terrorism
Terrorism threatens Canada
It’s time to talk about terror in Canada


I'll have you work on the following questions:

1. Despite cultural awareness and various initiatives in schools and in the media, hate crimes continue to happen in significant numbers in Canada. Discuss the types of hate crimes most prevalent in Canada and the current responses to them. 
2. Governments have tried numerous responses to terrorism. Discuss some of these responses. 
3. It is unlikely that the threat of punishment can deter robbery; most robbers refuse to think about apprehension and punishment. Wright and Decker suggest that eliminating cash and relying on debit and credit cards may be the most productive method to reduce the incidence of robbery. Although this seems far-fetched, society is becoming progressively more cashless; it is now possible to buy both gas and groceries with credit cards. Would a cashless society end the threat of robbery, or would innovative robbers find new targets?
4. Based on what you know about how robbers target victims, how can you better protect yourself from robbery?