BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Self-Serving Bias, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 164 hits. Analysis detected 983 faulty-reasoning hits from 856 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.4% and a BS Rank of 67% (7,360 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.40% of the article peer group.

A major Southern California water agency has struck a deal with federal officials to boost water levels in Lake Mead, part of a broader effort to keep the country’s largest reservoir from reaching critically low levels  at least for a while longer. 
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s board of directors approved an agreement in which the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation will pay the agency to leave up to 200,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River in the reservoir, or enough to serve about 600,000 households. 
It’s one of several partnerships in California, Arizona and Nevada that will conserve close to 700,000 acre-feet in the artificial lake near Las Vegas, said Bill Hasencamp, manager of Colorado River resources for MWD. 
Some see the effort as a stopgap as longer-term solutions are worked out. 
Following an exceedingly warm year that has left the Colorado River’s headwaters in the Rocky Mountains largely snowless, Lake Mead is nearing a record-low level. 
If the water level drops too low, it could slash hydropower generation by 70% at Hoover Dam, a key electricity supplier to the Southwest, according to MWD. 
“Protecting Lake Mead’s water levels and mitigating the loss of hydropower generation at Hoover Dam requires timely, collaborative action and we value the proactive partnership we have with Metropolitan Water District,” said Genevieve Johnson, acting regional director for the Reclamation Bureau’s Lower Colorado Region, in a statement. 
By December, MWD’s deal will add three feet of water to the reservoir, according to Hasencamp. 
Per the terms, the federal agency will pay MWD up to $65 million for the water, or $325 per acre-foot. 
Each acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons. 
“It’ll buy us time,” Hasencamp said. 
“Three feet is not a drought buster  it’s not going to refill the reservoir  but it will mean Lake Mead stays above critical levels for a bit longer.” 
Consensus among weather experts is that an El Niño climate pattern is brewing, with a high chance of being very strong. 
That might bring an infusion of rain and snow this winter, replenishing Lake Mead. 
“Mother Nature might come to the rescue here,” Hasencamp said. 
MWD also approved agreements that will allow federal officials to pay the Quechan Tribe and Bard Water District to send up to 19,000 acre-feet of conserved agricultural water to the lake in 2027 and 2028. 
That’s expected to add around another foot to the lake, with all deals across the three states projected to eventually boost it by about 10 feet, Hasencamp said. 
Federal officials are compensating partners using funds from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, he said. 
Yet those contributions might end up just slowing the decrease in water levels, he added. 
As of Wednesday, the lake sat at close to 1,043 feet above sea level, or only two feet above the record low set in 2022. 
While a subsequent wet winter brought it back up 20 feet, it’s been dwindling since. 
This year the decline has been fast, and Hasencamp believes it will reach a new record low by the end of the month or early next month. 
According to Hasencamp, the billions of gallons his agency is leaving in Lake Mead this year won’t mean less water for the 19 million people it serves. 
MWD receives water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento River, and a May snowstorm in the Sierra Nevada bumped up its overall supplies, he said. 
“We could either store it in one of our systems for later use or sell it to the feds to help out Lake Mead,” he said of the 200,000 acre-feet. 
“And we decided it was more prudent to do the latter and add the water to Lake Mead to benefit the whole Southwest.” 
In a news release, MWD Board Chair Adán Ortega Jr. said the action greenlit Tuesday was made possible by “investing in diverse water supplies, incentivizing conservation and capturing and storing water whenever it’s available.” 
Yet MWD general manager Shivaji Deshmukh described it as a temporary solution. 
“[W]hile these agreements provide important near-term support, lasting progress will require long-term solutions,” he said in a statement. 
“If we all commit to reducing our use, we can avoid deeper cuts and create lasting change that will benefit future generations who rely on the Colorado River Basin.” 
The Reclamation Bureau’s Johnson similarly suggested the work is ongoing: “Long-term stability for the Colorado River depends on continued conservation, thoughtful planning and ongoing cooperation across the basin.” 
Seven states rely on water from the Colorado River, and guidelines that include how they operate Lake Mead will expire at the end of September, Hasencamp said. 
California, Nevada and Arizona have committed to reduce how much they take from the river by 1.25 million acre-feet next year, but an agreement among all states has not been reached  and is not expected to be by the time the guidelines expire, he said. 
Instead, he said, the federal government is preparing its own two-year plan for the states, which is likely to arrive in the coming weeks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 1.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Confirmation Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 1.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 2.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Availability Heuristic2.5%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 9.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias19.2%This article: 4.4%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 5.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.3%Framing Effect4.4%This article: 3.2%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 2.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 1.5%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Status Quo Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 4.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Optimism Bias6.2%This article: 15.7%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 8.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Pessimism Bias15.7%This article: 7.2%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 3.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 8.6%Negativity Bias7.2%This article: 11.3%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 9.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 1.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.2%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 7.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority15.2%This article: 3.5%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 2.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 3.4%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 1.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Slippery Slope3.4%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.9%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 2.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion3.9%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.7%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 1.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.4%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.6%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 1.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 6.7%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 5.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Indoctrination6.7%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lila Seidman Los Angeles Times: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

856 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers77%attributed speech196writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageMetropolitan Water District of Southern California • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBureau of Reclamation • 29 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMetropolitan Water District of Southern California • 27 words • 0.0% coverageGenevieve Johnson • 47 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMetropolitan Water District of Southern California • 35 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 28 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 27 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 27 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 26 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 30 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAdán Ortega Jr. • 34 words • 0.0% coverageShivaji Deshmukh • 12 words • 0.0% coverageShivaji Deshmukh • 18 words • 0.0% coverageShivaji Deshmukh • 29 words • 100.0% coverageGenevieve Johnson • 28 words • 100.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 27 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 46 words • 0.0% coverageBill Hasencamp • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Genevieve Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
75 attributed words11% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Indoctrination+37.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Genevieve Johnson: 37.3%37.3%Quote-first Misdirection-7.1 ptsWriter: 7.1%Genevieve Johnson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.