5 ms·

Have you ever been to the Midwest? They aren’t running out of land. Las Vegas could expand into the desert for an extremely long time. There won’t be the same s

Have you ever been to the Midwest? They aren’t running out of land. Las Vegas could expand into the desert for an extremely long time. There won’t be the same struggles that you have in coastal cities or exotic expat hot spots.

foota 6y ago
They are running out of water though.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  Plenty of water. The problem is its being used to grow food for export.
  - dwhit 6y ago
    I don’t want to starve
    - devmunchies 6y ago
      Then we should grow food in more places.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        Where is there even marginally arable land and not food production? Well, I mean, except when there is suburban sprawl sitting on it, instead, which seems to be what you are proposing, rather ironically?
        3131s 6y ago
        We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all.
        webmaven 6y ago
        l> We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all. I'm with you on subsidies, but it's worth noting that historically, cattle, sheep, etc. were often raised and grazed on land that wasn't (and mostly still isn't) suitable for growing crops, usually because of some combination of elevation, slope[0], soil, or lack of rainfall. Animals are mobile, so you can move them around on a larger area with relatively sparse vegetation that humans don't consider palatable[1], or even migrate them seasonally on an even larger territory. So, within some limits, animal husbandry in areas otherwise marginal for agriculture can convert poor ground cover to high quality protein (and other animal products). As long as overgrazing is avoided, this seems to me to be a decent and sustainable arrangement. [0] Terraces can deal with slopes to an extent and slows erosion, but don't always conveniently lend themselves to large scale mechanized agriculture. Solutions to the other challenges also don't work everywhere. [1] It's worth noting that the domesticated animal least picky about what plants they'll eat is the goat, many varieties of which, when not moved frequently enough, can completely denude an area by eating plants and bushes down to the ground, climb trees to eat all the leaves they can reach and even stripping the bark, which kills the tree. Which makes goatherding a likely driver of desertification in already stressed ecosystems.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    growing food in fertile areas and then exporting it to places that need more food seems like a better use of resources than using it for the English gardens of suburban zoom tech workers
    - devmunchies 6y ago
      So... it sounds like other places have a fertility problem. And no, the soil is being depleted of all minerals and life. It’s better to spread farming out.
      - Barrin92 6y ago
        yes indeed which is why markets have allocated resources in such a way that the regions that are very fertile make a lot of food and then sell it to places that aren't, rather than filling them with more terrible low density housing of which the US has already too much
- DoreenMichele 6y ago
  We could do a lot to make water usage more sustainable. Most places in the US get at least ten inches of precipitation annually. Very few get less than that. With that much rainfall, a lot of homes can be self supporting with catchment systems, grey water reuse, etc. Edit: Anyone interested in some best practices should look at what Fresno County is doing. They get an average of 11 inches of rain annually and they were basically desert before a canal system was built in the late 1800s. In some years, their ground levels have risen because of their water policies and practices. In contrast, much of the rest of California and the Midwest are experiencing subsidence as water tables permanently and steadily fall.
  - sharkmerry 6y ago
    They self-admittedly have a unique set of resources. Natural Resources Fresno County is unique among California counties in the range of natural resources (forests, riverways, and wildlife habitats) that encompass its vast terrain.... Two major rivers, the Kings and San Joaquin, flow through this rich landscape, providing the County with its most prized resource, water.[0] [0] -https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/water-and-natural-resources-division https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-plannin...
tfigment 6y ago
Water tends to be the real constraint not land in the west. Is there enough water to feed that boom? Does the colorado river flow to the ocean?
- laurencerowe 6y ago
  Most of that water usage is agricultural though, 68% in Arizona and 86% in Colorado.
  - pixl97 6y ago
    Yes, hence it's already in use by Ag
    - laurencerowe 6y ago
      Presumably towns could easily afford to buy those water rights from farmers if needed. Many farmers use inefficient flood irrigation because water rights are so cheap it's not worth them investing in drip irrigation.
- barry-cotter 6y ago
  Yes. People can pay more for water than cows or corn. If water supply is a problem raise prices. Keep on raising them until it isn’t a problem. If some farmers go out of business that’s capitalism. No one owes farmers a livelihood any more than they owe factory workers one. Selling natural resources at below market prices is just a subsidy to the favored industry at the expense of everyone else.
- ianai 6y ago
  So LV particularly recycles their water. The dryness is awful and it’s why I moved. But anything that can be reclaimed and reused is. The only waste is the stuff people pour into the yards and thus let evaporate instead of staying in the system. It’s also got the Hoover Dam and Colorado river piped straight to it. (Unfortunately much of that water is sent out to California, but that’s another problem.) Yes, water’s a huge issue in the southwest. It’s also managed differently in different places. But from what I saw in LV, I think it can be a solved problem. It is not a constraint. Edit-But let’s assume water is a constraint. Then why don’t we add to the needed infrastructure projects a project to pump water in from the coast? I’m sure there’s a feasible and affordable way to do it since we already have the highway systems. Just run some pipes alongside it - powered by solar? Doesn’t need to be running 24/7.
msla 6y ago
Las Vegas is the desert Southwest, not the Midwest. Water concerns are real, as is the sheer emptiness. I know some people think Ohio is empty (probably the same ones who think Nevada is Midwestern) but rural Nevada is nuclear test range empty. It's an entirely different order of being.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Colorado isn't exactly land starved. Ask anyone there who isn't making their money directly off of California money how the influx of California money is working out for them and they won't paint a rosy picture.

foota 6y ago

They are running out of water though.

devmunchies 6y ago
Plenty of water. The problem is its being used to grow food for export.
- dwhit 6y ago
  I don’t want to starve
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    Then we should grow food in more places.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      Where is there even marginally arable land and not food production? Well, I mean, except when there is suburban sprawl sitting on it, instead, which seems to be what you are proposing, rather ironically?
      - 3131s 6y ago
        We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all.
        webmaven 6y ago
        l> We should be smarter about what foods we "produce". No more meat subsidies, or better yet no more meat at all. I'm with you on subsidies, but it's worth noting that historically, cattle, sheep, etc. were often raised and grazed on land that wasn't (and mostly still isn't) suitable for growing crops, usually because of some combination of elevation, slope[0], soil, or lack of rainfall. Animals are mobile, so you can move them around on a larger area with relatively sparse vegetation that humans don't consider palatable[1], or even migrate them seasonally on an even larger territory. So, within some limits, animal husbandry in areas otherwise marginal for agriculture can convert poor ground cover to high quality protein (and other animal products). As long as overgrazing is avoided, this seems to me to be a decent and sustainable arrangement. [0] Terraces can deal with slopes to an extent and slows erosion, but don't always conveniently lend themselves to large scale mechanized agriculture. Solutions to the other challenges also don't work everywhere. [1] It's worth noting that the domesticated animal least picky about what plants they'll eat is the goat, many varieties of which, when not moved frequently enough, can completely denude an area by eating plants and bushes down to the ground, climb trees to eat all the leaves they can reach and even stripping the bark, which kills the tree. Which makes goatherding a likely driver of desertification in already stressed ecosystems.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  growing food in fertile areas and then exporting it to places that need more food seems like a better use of resources than using it for the English gardens of suburban zoom tech workers
  - devmunchies 6y ago
    So... it sounds like other places have a fertility problem. And no, the soil is being depleted of all minerals and life. It’s better to spread farming out.
    - Barrin92 6y ago
      yes indeed which is why markets have allocated resources in such a way that the regions that are very fertile make a lot of food and then sell it to places that aren't, rather than filling them with more terrible low density housing of which the US has already too much
DoreenMichele 6y ago
We could do a lot to make water usage more sustainable. Most places in the US get at least ten inches of precipitation annually. Very few get less than that. With that much rainfall, a lot of homes can be self supporting with catchment systems, grey water reuse, etc. Edit: Anyone interested in some best practices should look at what Fresno County is doing. They get an average of 11 inches of rain annually and they were basically desert before a canal system was built in the late 1800s. In some years, their ground levels have risen because of their water policies and practices. In contrast, much of the rest of California and the Midwest are experiencing subsidence as water tables permanently and steadily fall.
- sharkmerry 6y ago
  They self-admittedly have a unique set of resources. Natural Resources Fresno County is unique among California counties in the range of natural resources (forests, riverways, and wildlife habitats) that encompass its vast terrain.... Two major rivers, the Kings and San Joaquin, flow through this rich landscape, providing the County with its most prized resource, water.[0] [0] -https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-planning/divisions-of-public-works-and-planning/water-and-natural-resources-division https://www.co.fresno.ca.us/departments/public-works-plannin...

tfigment 6y ago

Water tends to be the real constraint not land in the west. Is there enough water to feed that boom? Does the colorado river flow to the ocean?

laurencerowe 6y ago
Most of that water usage is agricultural though, 68% in Arizona and 86% in Colorado.
- pixl97 6y ago
  Yes, hence it's already in use by Ag
  - laurencerowe 6y ago
    Presumably towns could easily afford to buy those water rights from farmers if needed. Many farmers use inefficient flood irrigation because water rights are so cheap it's not worth them investing in drip irrigation.
barry-cotter 6y ago
Yes. People can pay more for water than cows or corn. If water supply is a problem raise prices. Keep on raising them until it isn’t a problem. If some farmers go out of business that’s capitalism. No one owes farmers a livelihood any more than they owe factory workers one. Selling natural resources at below market prices is just a subsidy to the favored industry at the expense of everyone else.
ianai 6y ago
So LV particularly recycles their water. The dryness is awful and it’s why I moved. But anything that can be reclaimed and reused is. The only waste is the stuff people pour into the yards and thus let evaporate instead of staying in the system. It’s also got the Hoover Dam and Colorado river piped straight to it. (Unfortunately much of that water is sent out to California, but that’s another problem.) Yes, water’s a huge issue in the southwest. It’s also managed differently in different places. But from what I saw in LV, I think it can be a solved problem. It is not a constraint. Edit-But let’s assume water is a constraint. Then why don’t we add to the needed infrastructure projects a project to pump water in from the coast? I’m sure there’s a feasible and affordable way to do it since we already have the highway systems. Just run some pipes alongside it - powered by solar? Doesn’t need to be running 24/7.

msla 6y ago

Las Vegas is the desert Southwest, not the Midwest. Water concerns are real, as is the sheer emptiness. I know some people think Ohio is empty (probably the same ones who think Nevada is Midwestern) but rural Nevada is nuclear test range empty. It's an entirely different order of being.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Colorado isn't exactly land starved. Ask anyone there who isn't making their money directly off of California money how the influx of California money is working out for them and they won't paint a rosy picture.