Monday, March 16, 2020

ESTIMATE YOUR CORONA VIRUS RISK

The key to your risk reduction will be to minimize the number, N, of possibly contagious people you have contact with during this epidemic and choose those less likely to be contagious.

The simplest model: your probability, P, of catching the virus is the multiplication of the fraction, f, of those in your locale who are infective times the number, N,  you have contact with

P = f N

While you can do little about f, you can choose to keep N very small.

This model is not correct for P near or larger than 1, but such an answer indicates you almost certainly will get the virus.

A more sophisticated model gives a more accurate estimate (although f will often be just a guess): it multiplies N successive probabilities that you escape contagion despite contact N times:

Escape = 1-infected = 1 – P’ = (1-f)(1-f)…(1-f) = (1-f)^N,

This is the product of N escapes, (1-f) to the Nth power.
When f N is much smaller than 1, they give almost the same answer:

e.g.,

P = f N = (0.1) (3) = 0.30, a 30% chance of catching the virus.

1 – P’ = (0.9)(0.9)(0.9) = (0.9)^3 = 0.73

P’ = 1-0.73 = 0.27, a 27% chance of catching the virus, virtually the same as the simplest model.

Both models indicate you should avoid contact with others (keep N small), especially those likely to have the virus (keep f small).

Sharing a closed environment with many people clearly raises your risk.

About f: it will change over time, as the virus comes to your locality, infects some, and they will be put out of your reach, hopefully. Swine flu in 2010, H1N1, infected some 62M Americans, about f=0.20 of the population. With thought, you can choose low-f contacts versus high-f ones.

Sunday, March 15, 2020

WATER WARS, Chapter 6, "Riparian Law"

###

I will be serializing here weekly the Microsoft Word transcription of the final galley proof .pdf copy ot WATER WARS, and the book itself  is most conveniently found at amazon.com  https://www.amazon.com/Water-Wars-Sharing-Colorado-River-ebook/dp/B07VGNLSMX/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=water+wars+by+carter+and+cooper&qid=1577030877&sr=8-1

or at DWC's amazon.com author's book title list https://www.amazon.com/s?k=douglas+winslow+cooper&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss

As we have noted, riparian doctrine gives land owners adjacent to a stream the right to an undiminished quantity and quality of water. Another statement of this is, “[its] guiding principle is that the right to draw water from a stream must be shared equitably by all adjacent property owners.” (Owen, 2017) A similar summary is, “riparian law allows one residing on property that borders a waterway to divert as much water as they need with the caveat that they do not injure users downstream.” (Gallagher, 2017)
As it applied to California’s Mono Lake, Anderson and Libecap (2014) summarized the doctrine as, “The landowners held riparian water rights under California law that gives all landowners whose property is adjoining to a body of water the right to make reasonable use of it. If there’s not enough water to satisfy all users, allotments are generally fixed in proportion to frontage on the water source. These rights cannot be sold or transferred other than with the adjoining land, and water normally cannot be transferred out of the watershed because of impairment to downstream rights holders.” They note that there is limited flexibility in transferring this right; it moves with the property.

EXPLANATION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS

A detailed discussion of riparian rights was presented by Ben Gutshall (2009) of the Attorneys’ Title Guarantee Fund, Inc. [https://www.atgf. com/tools-publications/pubs/riparian-rights]:
What Does the Term “Riparian Rights” Mean?
These are the rights to use the water of a flowing river or stream that is adjacent to one’s property and includes withdrawing some of the water and using it for recreation. “Riparian” relates to the water in streams or rivers or lakes the property borders on or are wholly contained within it.
Who Has Riparian Rights?
“Generally, a property owner has riparian rights if the property borders a body of water or water flows through the property.” The property must touch the water. For shared flowing waters, the limits are often midway in the stream, between opposite shores. For lakes, various states have made various definitions. The owners of such rights all have the right to “reasonable use,” without preventing each other’s “reasonable use.”
What Happens If the Body of Water Changes Shape or Recedes?
Generally, the newly exposed land is acquired “by rights of accretion” by the landowner on its border.
What Do Riparian Rights Allow a Property Owner to Do?
Originally, laws allowed the owner to use the water if it was not diverted from its “natural flow.” This has changed to become “reasonable use theory…. Not the guarantee of water volume, but rather that the riparian owner is guaranteed the reasonable use of the water.” One owner’s reasonable use must not interfere with another owner’s. This doctrine is typical of the eastern U.S., but it is in contradistinction to the “prior appropriate” doctrine typical in the West. Disputes over water usage in the East usually center on the definition of “reasonable use.”
What Is a “Reasonable Use” of Water by a Riparian Owner?
In a somewhat circular fashion, “a use is reasonable if it does not interfere with the reasonable use of the water by another riparian owner…. There are few, if any, concrete rules….” (Gutshall goes on to list many of these considerations.) Because of their closed geometry, lakes and ponds, when shared, raise some issues if extending ownership to the “middle” of the body of water.

Recreational Use of Water

The various states have tried to encourage recreational use of their water by giving non-owners of riparian rights some access and limiting the owners’ liability lawsuits due to accidents during such use.
Are Riparian Rights Transferable?
Generally, such rights are transferable, but some states have enacted some limitations. In one instance a developer created many four-byfive-by-six-inch “lock boxes” with keys that ostensibly entitled the owners thereof to full use of the Lake Geneva water. The court found this abusive of the concept of riparian rights.

RIPARIAN LAW

Gutshall (2009) sums it up as follows: the cure for violations of these rights is generally an injunction to stop the use, and sometimes a requirement to fix any damage. The law requires determining who are the riparian owners and then whether their use is reasonable. “State legislators are starting to pass statutes that encourage pubic use of water, always with the underlying goal tha

CORONA VIRUS LIMITING CASES

If the virus is in a location, and there is no human migration in an out of there, it will infect most or all and then die out in a few weeks. Thus, limit human movement.

If it is going to spread throughout the country, it is best that it spread slowly, so that the various locations can adapt to a slowly developing hazard. Again, limit human movement.

A simple model predicts a time dependence of -2At + B, with a final duration of t = B//2A.

From my prior blog:

A century ago John Brownlee showed that Farr's law gives an exponential function:

I(t) = exp[-At^2 + Bt + C] = exp(C) exp[-At^2 + Bt]

this is a constant term times an exponential term of growth (Bt) and one of decrease (-At^2).

From the beginning, t near zero, to the end, t >> 1  or -At^2+Bt << -1, I(t) looks somewhat like the bell-shaped curve of the Normal, Gaussian, statistical distribution, exp(-a(t-b)^2).

Setting  -At^2+Bt << -1 lets one predict the effective end of the epidemic, given A and B from fitting the curve function  to the data.

This link shows the Wuhan corona virus incidence data, pretty much a bell-shaped curve with the exception of one day, and it shows a duration of about 40 days:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases

This blog post is based on an excellent article by Santillana et al.  from the journal, Infectious Disease Modeling, in 2018. It describes and analyzes the growth of the number of newly infected over time, I(t), in an epidemic, relying on a relationship, Farr's Law, found by an epidemiologist, Dr. William Farr, about a century and a half ago. I will explain part of the research. Here is he link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042718300101

Tuesday, March 10, 2020

JANET SCHLIFF'S BRAIN INJURY TALKS SCHEDULE

FROM THE DESK OF… AUTHOR JANET JOHNSON SCHLIFF, M.S.ED.

What Ever Happened to My White Picket Fence?
My Brain Injury from My Massive Brain Tumor

BOOK TALKS AND SIGNINGS
Where Janet’s been in 2018:

Janet Johnson Schliff spoke at the Oblong Books Bookstore in Rhinebeck, NY, on Tuesday, February 6 at 6 p.m.

Janet was on WKNY Radio 1490 in Kingston, NY, on Thursday, March 1 at 9:10 a.m.

Janet spoke at Barnes & Noble in Kingston, NY, on Saturday, March 3 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Starr Library in Rhinebeck, NY, on March 6 at 7 p.m.

Janet was interviewed by John DeSanto for the Middletown, NY, Times Herald-Record 845 LIFE Feature,  https://www.recordonline.com/news/20180311/845-life-brain-tumor-teaches-retired-teacher-about-life, which appeared on March 11.

Janet spoke at the Golden Notebook Bookstore in Woodstock, NY, on March 17 at 2 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Morton Library in Rhinecliff, NY, on March 28 at 6:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at RCAL in Kingston, NY, on April 3 at 4 p.m. [They gave her an impromptu book-launch party.]

Janet spoke at the Parkinson's Support Group at the Starr Library in Rhinebeck, NY, on April 4 at 2:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Stone Ridge Library in Stone Ridge, NY, on April 27 at 5:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Hurley Library in Hurley, NY, on May 4 at 6 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Kingston Library in Kingston, NY, on May 9 at 6 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Staatsburg Library in Staatsburg, NY, on May 14 at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Clinton Community Library in Rhinebeck, NY, on May 31 at 6:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Mountain Top Library in Tannersville, NY, on June 9 at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Gardiner Library in Gardiner, NY, on June 11 at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Marbletown Community Center in Stone Ridge, NY, on June 20 at 6 p.m.

Janet was interviewed on radio station WTBQ-FM (93.5) on June 29 at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Esopus Library in Port Ewen, NY, on July 13 at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Pine Plains Library in Pine Plains, NY, on July 20 at 6 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Ulster Library in Kingston, NY, on July 23 at 5:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Northern Dutchess Bible Church in Red Hook, NY, on August 11 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at a writers' group in Rosendale, NY, on August 30 at 2 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Inquiring Minds Bookstore in New Paltz, NY, on September 6 at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Adriance Library in Poughkeepsie, NY, on September 15 at 2:30 p.m.

Janet was interviewed on radio station WRIP-FM (97.9) on September 21 at 8 a.m.

Janet again spoke at the Mountain Top Library in Tannersville, NY, on September 22 at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Enchanted Cafe in Red Hook, NY, on September 28 at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Hyde Park Library in Hyde Park, NY, on October 4 at 7 p.m.

Janet participated in an Author Weekend at the Barnes & Noble in Poughkeepsie, NY, on October 14 from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Tivoli Library in Tivoli, NY, on October 22 at 5:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Germantown Library in Germantown, NY, on November 7 at 6 p.m.

Janet’s interview for the TV program Wake Up with Marci on the You Too America Channel aired on Monday, November 5, and Friday, November 9. It is now available on the Internet.

Janet participated in the Red Hook Middle School’s College and Career Cafe in Red Hook, NY,  on December 19 at 10:30 a.m.

BOOK TALKS AND SIGNINGS
Where Janet’s been in 2019

Janet spoke at the Poughkeepsie Brain Injury Support Group at the Poughkeepsie Galleria Mall in Poughkeepsie, NY, Saturday, February 23 at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Stanford Library in Stanfordville, NY, Saturday, March 9 at 10 a.m.

Janet spoke at the Howland Library in Beacon, NY, Wednesday, March 20 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the W. Hurley Library in West Hurley, NY, Saturday, March 23 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the East Fishkill Library in Hopewell Junction, NY, Monday, March 25 at 6:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Grinnell Library in Wappingers Falls, NY, Saturday, March 30 at 10:30 a.m.

Janet spoke at the Dover Plains Library in Wingdale, NY, Friday, April 5 at 6 p.m.

Janet participated in an Author Talk at the Saugerties Library in Saugerties, NY, Saturday, April 13 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Red Hook Community Center in Red Hook, NY, Wednesday, April 24 at 5 p.m.

Janet participated in the Authors’ Event at the New Creations Gift Shop in Fishkill, NY, Saturday, May 4 at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at St. Timothy's Church in Hyde Park, NY, Sunday, May 5 at 11 a.m.

Janet spoke at the Moffat Library in Washingtonville, NY, Saturday, May 11 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Beekman Library in Hopewell Junction, NY, Saturday, May 18 at 10:30 a.m.

Janet spoke at the Pleasant Valley Library in Pleasant Valley, NY, Tuesday, May 28 at 6 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Blodgett Library in Fishkill, NY, on Saturday, June 8 at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Westchester Medical Center's "Lunch and Learn" in Valhalla, NY, on Friday, June 14 at 12 p.m. (She has been invited to speak at two more hospitals.)

Janet spoke at the Fishkill Ability Center in Fishkill, NY, on Thursday, July 11, at 11 a.m.

Janet spoke at the Marlboro Library in Marlboro, NY, on Tuesday, July 16, at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Plattekill Library in Modena, NY, on Saturday, July 20, at 1 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Rosendale Senior Center in Rosendale, NY, on Wednesday, July 24, at 2 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Newburgh Library in Newburgh, NY, on Monday, July 29, at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the LaGrange Association Library in LaGrange, NY, on Wednesday, September 11, at 6 p.m.

Janet participated in the New Creations Gift Shop Authors’ Event in Fishkill, NY, on Saturday, September 21, at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Sport and Physical Medicine Center’s “Lunch and Learn” in Kingston, NY, on Tuesday, September 24, at 12 p.m. [Continuing Education Units (CEUs) were earned by attendees.]

Janet spoke to the Red Hook High School health classes in Red Hook, NY, on Friday, October 4, throughout the day.

Janet spoke at the Pawling Rec Center for Seniors in Pawling, NY, on Wednesday, October 9, at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Chestertown Library in Chestertown, NY, on Saturday, October 12, at 11 a.m.

Janet spoke at the Bolton Free Library in Bolton Landing , NY, on Tuesday, October 15, at 7 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Office for the Aging in Kingston, NY, on Wednesday, October 23, at 1:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Sarah Hull Hallock / Milton Library’s Tea and Talk in Milton, NY, on Friday, November 1, at 3:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Northern Dutchess Hospital Acute Rehabilitation Unit in Rhinebeck, NY, on Friday, November 8, at 12 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Journey Support Services in Poughkeepsie, NY, on Monday, November 18, at 12:30 p.m.

Janet spoke at the Woodland Pond Health Center in New Paltz, NY, on Wednesday, December 11 at 2:30 p.m.

BOOK TALKS AND SIGNINGS

Where Janet’s been in 2020

Janet spoke at the Sawkill Seniors’ Meeting in Kingston, NY, on Wednesday, February 12 at 1:00 p.m. STANDING OVATION!

Janet will spoke to the Red Hook High School health classes in Red Hook, NY, on Tuesday, February 25 throughout the day.

Where Janet’s headed in 2020

Janet will speak at a SUNY New Paltz class, "Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms"  in New Paltz, NY, on Monday, March 30 at 5:00 p.m.

Janet will speak at the New Paltz/Gardiner Senior Club in New Paltz, NY, on Wednesday, April 8 at 1:30 p.m.

Janet will speak at the Esopus Seniors’ Meeting in Esopus, NY, on Monday, April 20 at 1:00 p.m.

Janet has been invited to speak at more high school health classes, hospitals, sports centers, senior centers, colleges, libraries, and bookstores.

More talks are being planned for 2020… contact her at 845.336.7506 (h) or 845.399.1500 (c).

CORONA VIRUS EPIDEMIC AND FARR'S LAW

This blog post is based on an excellent article by Santillana et al.  from the journal, Infectious Disease Modeling, in 2018. It describes and analyzes the growth of the number of newly infected over time, I(t), in an epidemic, relying on a relationship, Farr's Law, found by an epidemiologist, Dr. William Farr, about a century and a half ago. I will explain part of the research. Here is he link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468042718300101

Farr defined a series of time increments, t=0, 1, 2, 3...etc., for which we have the number of persons newly infected, I(t). He found as time goes on, the tendency to infect an individual slowly decreases, by a factor 1/(1+d), where d>0 and depends on the time interval chosen. So, I(t+1)/I(t)= 1/(1+d).

Farr used ratios of numbers infected at the time intervals t to express his "law":

[I(t+3)/I(t+2)] / [I(t+1)/I(t)]  = K = [1/(1+d)]^4.

The symbols ^4 mean "to the 4th power."

A century ago John Brownlee showed that Farr's law gives an exponential function:

I(t) = exp[-At^2 + Bt + C] = exp(C) exp[-At^2 + Bt]

this is a constant term times an exponential term of growth (Bt) and one of decrease (-At^2).

From the beginning, t near zero, to the end, t >> 1  or -At^2+Bt << -1, I(t) looks somewhat like the bell-shaped curve of the Normal, Gaussian, statistical distribution, exp(-a(t-b)^2).

Setting  -At^2+Bt << -1 lets one predict the effective end of the epidemic, given A and B from fitting the curve function  to the data.

The maximum of the infection curve is when the derivative of the argument of the exponential
(d/dt) [-At^2 + Bt]= 0.

2 At = B,  at time
t* = B/2A

Thus, I(t, max) = exp(C) exp[B^2/4A].

The duration of the epidemic can be approximated from t*,
being 2 t* if the curve were symmetric and somewhat
longer due to being skewed with the long tail toward
larger t.

B can be estimated from the initial slope of I(t).

A might be obtained from curve-fitting, perhaps
made more convenient by taking the logarithm of I(t).

The logarithm of I(t)  is -At^2 + Bt + C and this
quadratic can be solved readily, given the value for log I(t)
at the particular t.

These mathematical approaches should enable epidemiologists to give reliable predictions about the course of our corona virus epidemic.

This link shows the Wuhan incidence data, pretty much a bell-shaped curve with the exception of one day, and it shows a duration of about 40 days:

https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/geographical-distribution-2019-ncov-cases

The Santillana et al. (2018) article has this figure from Farr's analysis of a smallpox epidemic, and we see that the fit is excellent:

Thursday, March 5, 2020

Face Masks for Respiratory Protection

Research I did decades ago:

https://oeh.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15298668391405634#.XmEvsahKjyQ

Abstract
In areas where respirators are not routinely used, emergencies (such as fires) may occur in which protection from airborne particles is necessary. The following readily available materials were tested on a manikin connected to a breathing simulator to determine the fraction of an approximately 2-Âµm diameter aerosol that would leak around the seal between the materials and the manikin's face: cotton/polyester shirt material, cotton handkerchief material, toweling (a wash cloth), a surgical mask (Johnson & Johnson Co., Model HRI 8137), and a NIOSH-approved disposable face mask (3M Corp., Model #8710). The leakage tests were done to supplement the measurements of penetration through the materials reported previously. Leakage fractions were determined by comparing the penetration of the same aerosol for the materials held to the face versus being fully taped to the face. At a breathing rate of 37 liters per minute, mean leakages for the materials ranged from 0.0 percent to 63 percent, depending on the material. Mean penetrations exclusive of leakage ranged from 0.6 percent to 39 percent. Use of nylon hosiery material (“panty hose”) to hold the handkerchief material or the disposable face mask to the face was found to be very effective in preventing leakage. Such a combination could be expected to reduce leakage around the handkerchief to about 10 percent or less in practice, and around the mask to less than one percent, which suggests the adaptation and use of such an approach for industrial hygiene.
·

Monday, March 2, 2020

REVIEW of DOMINATE THE CLIQUE

DOMINATE THE CLIQUE: An Unconventional Guide to Connecting with Anyone & Effective Communication Skills

Author Vincent Kapoor knows how to communicate well, and he can help us to succeed at doing it, too.

"Connecting with anyone" is a worthwhile goal. Kapoor emphasizes spoken communication, supplemented with body language, to gain and keep the attention of others, then to persuade them to your point of view, or at least to have a positive feeling about you.

Kapoor calls to our attention eight particularly effective communicators: Hitler; Martin Luther King, Jr., Fred Rogers (Mr. Rogers to us), Gary Vaynerchuk, Sally Hogshead, Nelson Mandela, Barack Obama, and the Iron Man's  Tony Stark. He then describes some facets (not all shared equally) that made them particularly effective: voice, body language, symbolism, moral authority, writing excellence, direct speech,  simplicity, focus, precision, tone, cadence, first impressions, self-esteem, communication seriousness, ability to surprise the audience, story-telling, being relatable, passion, powerful message, consistency, smiles, humor, gestures, "the rule of three," determination, connecting with listeners' anxieties, alliance with complementary persons, and being the same on-stage and off-stage. Clearly different speakers emphasized different strengths.

"Communication is not a 'one size fits all'" idea.  Audiences vary greatly. Kapoor recommends we read, as I have, Shelle Rose Charvet's book "Words that Change Minds: Mastering the Language of Influence," which he summarizes in depth. for about 10% of this concise book.

Next, he presents different advice for introverts and extroverts to improve their communication skills. Introvert Keanu Reeves, who does the following effectively:
- redirects praise or replies with humor
- projects a state of Zen
- his hand gestures are enthusiastic
- accepts his NLP (neuro-linguistic programming)
- lives generously

You can be a cool introvert, too, if not quite a Keanu Reeves:
- listen
- have empathy
- be observant
- know yourself
- avoid offending others
-  be thought-provoking
- make deep connections
- be shrewd

Extroverts, on the other hand
- enjoy communicating with others
- see the positive side of things
- are expressive
- are more likely to become leaders
- easily accomplish tasks
- can be offensive
- tend to exclude some people
- may lack self-awareness
- are sometimes impulsive
- should listen more
- should try not to dominate conversations
- must heed their words carefully
- should invite others to speak
- must be able to ask for help
- should play to their strengths
- should slow down
All of these comments are accompanied by examples and explanations.

What kills a conversation? Gossiping. Analyzing. Supplicating. Judging. Disqualifying.
Insincerity. Closed questions. Patronizing. Changing the subject. Slow responses.
Complaining. Being too funny. One-upping.  Over-sharing (TMI). Religion and politics.
Vincent Kapoor describes and discusses these communication-dampeners.

Be sure to watch your audience carefully to make sure they are still paying attention.
There ways to tell, and there are ways to re-engage them.

To communicate better, listen better, Kapoor advises and shows how.

More good advice:
- "Treat everyone with kindness and respect."
- "Live in the moment."
- "Be open-minded."
- "Do not attack character."

A section of this valuable book tells us how to become better listeners,
which will help us become better communicators.

He ends with giving his readers more resources for improving their listening, thinking,
and communication skills.

As you can tell, I highly recommend this book.

Available at amazon.com:

Sunday, March 1, 2020

WATER WARS, Ch. 5, Law of the (Colorado) River

The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation has presented a summary sheet concerning eleven of the formal laws governing the Colorado River: [https://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g1000/lawofrvr. html]. As we note next, much of these have as their basis the historical application of the principle of “prior appropriation.”
At another valuable site, the Colorado River Water Users Association (CRWUA) details the history of water usage rules and regulations, the Law of the River [https://www.crwua.org/colorado-river/uses/ law-of-the-river].

WATER LAW

An article by the National Agricultural Law Center (NALC, 1997; http://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/water-law/) presents three approaches to determining the allocation/ownership of surface waters: riparian law, prior apportionment, and hybrid.

Riparianism

Riparianism limits the use of water to the owners of the land in contact with it, and the use must be “reasonable.” Significantly, non-use does not extinguish the right. Most states now use a permit system to allow riparian uses that consume water, and the quantities and timing of the withdrawal may be limited, as well as the duration of the permit.
In the U.S. West, miners needed water for processing in their mining operations, often well removed from a source of water, from which they would withdraw as much as they needed on a “first in time, first in right,” prior appropriation, basis. It was first come, first served, and later arrivals got the left-overs. In times of shortages, the riparian users reduced their withdrawals proportionally, but the prior appropriation users required only the late-comers reduce their use. To have legal standing, the appropriator must intend a beneficial use, divert the water, and pursue that beneficial use. “Even if a better use of the water arises later, the senior appropriator still has the right to use his original right, no matter how wasteful that may seem.” California and Oklahoma are two states among several that have adopted hybrid versions of these two approaches.

Colorado River and Prior Appropriation (Owen, 2017)

Owen (2017) quotes a Colorado lawyer about water rights, “water law in Colorado and most states in the West is based on the doctrine of ‘prior appropriation.’” The first person to make use of water gets the right to continue to use that amount for that purpose forever, unrelated to how far the user is from the stream. This philosophy was enshrined during the 1848 gold rush, where water was used to separate gold from surrounding soil.
Contrast this with the rule in the American East, derived from English common law of riparian rights, “whose guiding principle is that the right to draw water from a stream must be shared equitably by all adjacent property owners.” (Owen, 2017)
In the West, especially for sluicing to separate gold from dirt, dividing a stream soon made it useless. Instead, they have a rule of “first came has first rights.” By law, one could move one’s water across land belonging to another, even move water out of one drainage basin for use in another, the deciding factor in disputes being the date of the first use of the water by a particular user. A neighbor who has earlier rights can withdraw as much water as he wishes even if it means your water is reduced to zero. Whenever the river was low, some with property along its banks would be prohibited from withdrawing water.
Colorado has a special court system just to handle water rights claims. A typical decree states the date of first use, the user, the amount, and the purpose for which it can be used. The prior-appropriation system (the “Colorado Doctrine”) means that during water shortages, sacrifices are made from those on the bottom of the list rather than being shared by all. Sometimes, rights owners work out other arrangements among themselves.
The water in the Colorado River mostly comes from snowpack in the mountains in the north and is mostly used by population centers in the south, primarily in California. In 1922, the seven states most affected by the issues met in Santa Fe to work out a water-sharing agreement but found it difficult to agree on what principles other than priorappropriation should control how much water each state can take from the river. Herbert Hoover, who was to become president, chaired the meetings. They split the watershed into two “basins,” a northern (“Upper”) and a southern (“Lower”) basin and had the states in their

THE LAW OF THE RIVER (COLORADO RIVER)

respective sections work out the details of sharing. This was called the “Colorado River Compact.”
The Compact glossed over many issues, including the rights of Native Americans and the need for environmental conservation. At the time of the Compact, there was a feeling that there was plenty of water for everyone. The years on which that water-supply assessment was based have turned out to be unusually wet ones. While the Lower Basin states are often short of water, the Upper Basin states still use less than their entitlement, about 60% of it. Some of the shortage of water in the Lower Basin has been handled by withdrawal of water from Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Some estimates are that what is being used currently is roughly twice the average inflow of water to the river.
In 1944, it was agreed to allow enough flow diversion for Mexico to withdraw up to 1.5 million acre-feet.
One significant element of the Colorado River is the Hoover Dam, completed in 1936, primarily to prevent floods, although the generation of electricity was a valuable side effect of it. Hydroelectric power is the nation’s largest renewable energy source that does not involve combustion. Hydroelectric plants have the advantage that they do not actually reduce the volume flow downstream, though a dam will reduce it between its intake and outlet.
Since the 1920s, sometimes there have been many years when the flow of the Colorado River was less than a third of what it had been during the years when its flow was originally estimated for the Compact. Until recently, the fact that the real flow was often less than the hypothetical flow did not have significant consequences. One recent study indicated, however, that the current utilization is not sustainable over the long run.

Colorado River Compact (Owen, 2017)

[https://wrrc.arizona.edu/publications/arroyo-newsletter/sharing- colorado-river-water-history-public-policy-and-colorado-river]
1997 was the 75th anniversary of the Colorado River Compact, which divided the authority over the river to two regions, the Upper Basin and the Lower Basin. The Colorado is often called “the River of the West,” underscoring its importance to the region. The Compact states got together partly to try to offset California’s political influence in the apportioning of the river’s water. A 1922 Supreme Court decision opened the way for California to use the prior-appropriation doctrine to get the lion’s share of the river waters.
Initially, the attempt was made to apportion the water based on irrigable land in each state, but this proved difficult and contentious. The Upper and Lower Basins were divided at Lee’s Ferry near the Utah border. Upper Basin states were Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico. The Lower Basin states were California, Arizona, and Nevada. The usage of the flow was split evenly between the two basins on the optimistic assumption of 15 million acre-feet (maf) per year, with the Upper Basin committed to provide, on average, 7.5 maf to the Lower. [Arizona fought for and eventually got another 1 maf per year from tributaries draining into the Lower Basin.] The variability of the flow and the fact that it averages less than 15 maf per year meant that scarcity was the norm, around which was developed the Law of the River.
An 11-year Supreme Court case, Arizona v. California, was ended in 1964 with a decision apportioning 4.4 maf/yr to California, 2.8 maf/yr to Arizona, and 0.3 maf/yr to Nevada; the decision was seen as a major win for Arizona. The decision was interpreted as giving the Federal government extensive authority to apportion water usage. The Lower Basin states in 1948 settled on a division of water flow among themselves, as percentages. Currently, the Upper Basin states have enough

THE LAW OF THE RIVER (COLORADO RIVER)

water, and the Lower Basin states are often in need of more. Arizona, however, through its Central Arizona Project (CAP) has water to sell. California in the past has benefited by using the excess.
Indian water rights remain an issue. The Arizona v. California decision gave five tribes in the Lower Basin states the rights to almost 1 maf/yr. Other interpretations of the Arizona v. California decision indicate that the tribes may have a claim to as much as 5 maf/yr, which they could use or sell, and which would make a major difference in the Lower Basin distribution.
The 1922 Compact did not address environmental issues, which have gained prominence in recent years. The 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) provided explicit protections for certain species, protections that had grave consequences for water availability. Recent users are being regulated more strictly than those who preceded them. Economic downturns or droughts could change the priorities of river users, too.

###

I will be serializing here weekly the Microsoft Word transcription of the final galley proof .pdf copy ot WATER WARS, and the book itself  is most conveniently found at amazon.com  https://www.amazon.com/Water-Wars-Sharing-Colorado-River-ebook/dp/B07VGNLSMX/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=water+wars+by+carter+and+cooper&qid=1577030877&sr=8-1

or at DWC's amazon.com author's book title list https://www.amazon.com/s?k=douglas+winslow+cooper&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss

UNDERSTANDING SASSIE, Ch. 30, Questions Answered

DONALD, RUTH, AND JANE

 T
he next day was a busy one at the Riverview Animal Shelter. A large truck of dog food and supplies had arrived, and several new animals
had been surrendered.

Everyone was busy. Ruth and Donald usually met to compare schedules and prioritize the work for the day.

Today, it was noon before anyone could consider taking a break. Jane, Ruth, and Donald decided to meet in the break room, grab a quick lunch and analyze the day’s accomplishments.

Ruth wanted to ask for some personal advice before they got down to the shelter’s concerns. “I’ve discovered a problem with my mom and I’d like your advice on what I should do,” Ruth began. As she repeated Valerie’s story, she was surprised to see Donald start crying.

“Oh, Ruth, I am so sorry!” Donald kept saying. “Will you ever forgive me?”

Concerned, both Ruth and Jane got up to hug him. “Whatever it is,” Ruth began, “you know how much I respect and care for you. I can never be angry with you!”

Donald looked up at Ruth and began to cry even harder. “I was angry and felt like a bag of garbage.”

As he talked, Ruth began to listen closely to what he was saying. She asked, “You were raised in New York City. Were you adopted as a baby?”

When Donald replied, “Yes,” he continued to say, “I never should have meant to hurt Valerie. When I believed she didn’t want me and that she had thrown me away because she did not care about me, I wanted to hurt her. Now that I know the truth, I am ashamed of how I have acted!”

Ruth cradled Donald in her arms. He leaned toward her, and Ruth began to caress his hair. She wiped away his tears. “I am proud to call you my brother! Though we’ve only worked together a short time I’ve felt like I have known you forever. I have always wished for a brother, especially a brother like you. When I first met you, I believed that you are someone special. Now I know why,” Ruth announced. “You need to come home with me and meet your family!”

That night, Sassie gave her happy dance and recognized that the tears of all the humans were happy tears.

She decided she wanted to give everyone lots of kisses.

The End

###

With her permission, I serialized a chapter a week, on this blog, near-final material from this instructive novel by dog trainer Helen A. Bemis, published by Outskirts Press and available through amazon.com:  UNDERSTANDING SASSIE

Connect with all Helen A. Bemis books on Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=helen+a.+bemis&ref=nb_sb_noss

I coached and edited for Helen through my Write Your Book with Me endeavor.

A LOVING RESPONSE FROM OUR PATIENT PATIENT

A touching thing happened last night, during a visit from younger son, Phil. Tina was up with us in the kitchen in her wheelchair, quiet as usual. When it seemed time to put her back to bed, I apologized that maybe she had been a bit bored (the TV was off and Phil and I were conversing with each other.) She replied, saying more than she usually ventures, "No, I love hearing you talk." Such a sweetheart!