Raley said long term solutions were needed. "If we don't do something now, we will face these crises by 2025," he said. " Today, the challenge to meet the water supply needs and avoid conflict will take on a national importance", he said.

Critical Water Supple Areas by 2025   Source:U.S. Department of Interior

The regional conferences started in Denver, kicked off by the Secretary herself. Looking at the map, they are being held in the potential critical cities. According to the report, the Southwest is exploding in growth, enhanced by migration from the Far East and especially Mexico and Central America. That explains the increase in demand.

On the supply side - the federal government, from the other comments for panel members, are aware that battle lines are being drawn between water needs for humans and agriculture, against water needs to protect endangered species.

Federal government officials are seeking state input (and solutions) to the problem. At the Las Vegas Conference, Nevada representatives were already taking verbal shots at California. Richard Bunker, Colorado River Commissioner of Nevada spoke up for the rural area in a manner that reminded some to the recent favorable Wayne Hage Vs U.S. ruling. "When water is taken from rural counties, rural counties should be well compensated", Bunker said. "Interim surplus is the solution." Nevada has been strategically storing water reserves in aquifers from the Colorado river. But as supplies get shorter and animals have to be protected, who knows how long that will last.

And by the way, the Mojave Indian Tribe says they get 4% of Nevada's water - and they plan on using every drop. Meaning other states in the West will have to remember their tribes as well.

Solutions ranged from desalination to fixing aging controls, and conservation. Sure, we could all talk about massive pipeline projects to divert waters from other areas, but California and Nevada state governments are teetering on insolvency. Other western states aren't far behind. Between education and road projects, no one thought of investing in a constant supply of a liquid much more necessary for life than oil. Still, Washington insists states handle the problem among themselves, as they have done since 1866.

Without water, even education will take a back seat to the impending crisis.

Westerners who have suffered already from the Water Wars should know full well that no water conference is possible without the environmentalist, the one that thinks federal intervention is a good thing. After all, it's been their favorite weapon. Mike Ford, of the Conservation Fund, conceded that it has been a very effective tool for their efforts at times. Still, he knew he was in hostile territory. "Litigation, lawsuits are not the answer," said Ford. He gave forewarning that some of his views might not sit well with other environmental organizations. "Everyone must be willing to give turf", he said. Ford agrees there should be more continued dialogue.

Giving turf. Fact is, that's what it will boil down to - who's going to 'give turf'. Seems that was the problem in Klamath - both sides refused to give that turf which led to a 15,000+ person rally, Congressional hearings, civil disobedience, and threats of more. That is what it took for those rightfully deemed to use the water to get their water back.

The greens have their war chest and their successes in the courts, but dwindling water sources threatens much of their political power base (major cities), as well as our food supply over the next two decades. When their fellow greens begin to demand what water sources are left should go to those who need it most - humans, else there may be few humans around to even save any other species. Klamath taught both the government and the environmentalists a lesson that they would rather not see repeated:

Despite government rules and questionable science, man cannot survive without water. And history has shown that desperate times make desperate people do desperate things.

To be continued...