4 ms·
I suggest you read up on North American hydrology. Fresh water is being depleted at a rate significantly greater than it is being replenished. It's also a str
by delazeur 10y ago
I suggest you read up on North American hydrology. Fresh water is being depleted at a rate significantly greater than it is being replenished. It's also a stretch to call wastewater injection a "one-time loss of water" when we can expect to be doing it for 30-50 years.
- nickik 10y agoWhile that is true, thats a purly poitical problem. If their were a prober market solution that priced according to sound resource managment priniples it would not be a problem. The price of water woild still be very low and it would not impact standards of living in any siginificant way. Their are tons of easy ways to save water, pertocularly in farming but that will not happen. Its a classical tragety of the commens. They had to solve the same problem when tjey were moving west, frontier society had very soffisticated systems of water managment.
- tremon 10y agoAssuming the wastewater injected into the ground is ocean water (I don't know if it is), it has zero effect on either the fresh water supply or its replenishment rate.
- delazeur 10y agoWell, it's not ocean water. Not sure what your point is.
- jessriedel 10y agoYou misunderstand. It seems clear that iLoch views this as a fundamentally different use of water than, say, watering your lawn, since he emphasizes the gone-ness but doesn't mention the magnitude of the usage. The point is that this use of water is no different than any other one-time use of fresh water. (We'll be farming for 30-50 years too, thereby depleting the ground water.)
- delazeur 10y agoIt is a fundamentally different usage of water. A significant percentage of the water you put on your lawn will return directly to the aquifer.