Fwd: cubic gallons

[Barnhart]

>From my canoe-racing days, I recall that the NYC Water Supply used
gallons/minute (or was it second) to calculate the volume of water
released into the Esopus River.

David Barnhart (out-of-shape river runner)

barnhart at highlands.com

American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> on Monday, September 26,
2005 at 1:19 PM -0500 wrote:
>---------------------- Information from the mail header
>-----------------------
>Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
>Poster:       James Smith <jsmithjamessmith at YAHOO.COM>
>Subject:      Re: Fwd: cubic gallons
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I work as a hydrogeologist with the State of Utah, and
>I’ve never encountered cubic gallons or cubic acres,
>in any context.  I’ll consult with hydrologists in
>other divisions as to whether they have come across
>these terms.
>
>As already pointed out by Chris Waigl, acre-foot is a
>very common measure of water volume.  I suspect
>acre-foot is the unit that is supposed to be used in
>these excerpts that refer to cubic-acres.  The more of
>these examples I read, the more certain I am that
>people are simply conflating cubic-feet with acre-feet
>to come up with cubic acres (and cubic feet with
>gallons to come up with cubic gallons).
>
>e.g., the average flow (1896 to 1921) of the Colorado
>River was approx. 17 million acre-feet.  Based on that
>flow, CA is allocated 4.4 million acre-feet from the
>Colorado River, not 4.4 million cubic acres.  5.2
>million cubic acres, the amount CA is supposedly
>taking, would be 1,085 million acre-feet.
>http://www.water.utah.gov/Interstate/TheColoradoRiverart.pdf
>
>>From C Waigl’s posting----
>*In southern California's Imperial Valley, farmers who
>buy taxpayer-provided irrigation water for $15.50 a
>cubic acre have turned into speculators. Soon they
>will net a profit of $384.50 a cubic acre in a massive
>water sale to a thirsty San Diego.
>http://www.southernenvironment.org/Cases/Water_Resources/AJCop-ed_Nov13.shtml*
>
>Potable (or is that potable?) water in Utah sells for
>an average of $380 acre-ft ($700 acre-ft in Park
>City).  *Reused* water sells for $300 to $350 acre-ft
>in Texas, Arizona and California, with *unused* water
>going for $600 to $700 per acre-ft in those states.
>http://www.water.utah.gov/WaterReuse/WaterReuseAA.pdf
>
>Irrigation water in Utah sells for up to $75 per
>acre-foot – selling water for $15 per cubic acre would
>be economically unsustainable: even $15 per acre-foot
>is a giveaway.
>
>
>Again from Chris, as he points out references to cubic
>acre-feet:
>*North Dakota is asking for a preliminary injunction
>against the corps, requiring the agency to maintain
>800,000 *cubic acre* feet in the lake to support its
>fishery.
><http://shorl.com/hividepyvifro>*
>
>This reservoir would be required to retain roughly the
>equivalent of the annual flow of the Columbia River if
>these were cubic acre-feet.
>
>
>James D. SMITH                 |If history teaches anything
>South SLC, UT                  |it is that we will be sued
>jsmithjamessmith at yahoo.com     |whether we act quickly and decisively
>                               |or slowly and cautiously.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>http://mail.yahoo.com