5 ms·

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.
axiolite 6y ago
Water is not a constraint, it follows the same laws of supply and demand as other resources, and even when in demand, remains among the cheapest. It's actually very easy to reduce consumption (0.5 GPM faucets, 1 GPM showers and 0.7 GPF toilets), stretch the supply (grey water systems), reuse it almost indefinitely (teriary treated water), increase real supply (pipelines/aqueducts/water trucks/desalination), etc. Even if your locality has to foot the bill for some huge, expensive water projects like those, it's still going to cost a tiny fraction of your household expenditures. Whereas scare land in popular cities will cost you the bulk of your income for decades.
- yowlingcat 6y ago
  Very interesting. I've been thinking for a while about what a /large/ Arcosanti-esque desert oasis planned megacity would look like. This is probably the first question that I run into in my mind. On the plus side, the location means that you've got among the most promising conditions for harnessing solar power in the states.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Good solar conditions in a desert are probably offset by the heating and cooling costs required for wild temperature swings in such an environment. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen anyone normalize the energy production potential of an area based on the energy needs that are localized for that area.
- ip26 6y ago
  going to cost a tiny fraction of your house... Wellington, CO is discussing increasing the tap fee for building a new home to $67k, in a place where homes typically cost $380k.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
  The infrastructure required to "reuse [water] almost indefinitely" is a major investment for any municipality. Major investments are generally seen as constraints. I live near Santa Fe, and the mid-to-long term forecast for water supply is pretty dire. Humans have lived in the area for a long time, and it's not likely to become completely dry. But will there be enough to support e.g. a doubling of the county population? This seems unlikely, even with the sorts of changes in use and infrastructure that you mention.

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.

axiolite 6y ago

Water is not a constraint, it follows the same laws of supply and demand as other resources, and even when in demand, remains among the cheapest. It's actually very easy to reduce consumption (0.5 GPM faucets, 1 GPM showers and 0.7 GPF toilets), stretch the supply (grey water systems), reuse it almost indefinitely (teriary treated water), increase real supply (pipelines/aqueducts/water trucks/desalination), etc. Even if your locality has to foot the bill for some huge, expensive water projects like those, it's still going to cost a tiny fraction of your household expenditures. Whereas scare land in popular cities will cost you the bulk of your income for decades.

yowlingcat 6y ago
Very interesting. I've been thinking for a while about what a /large/ Arcosanti-esque desert oasis planned megacity would look like. This is probably the first question that I run into in my mind. On the plus side, the location means that you've got among the most promising conditions for harnessing solar power in the states.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  Good solar conditions in a desert are probably offset by the heating and cooling costs required for wild temperature swings in such an environment. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen anyone normalize the energy production potential of an area based on the energy needs that are localized for that area.
ip26 6y ago
going to cost a tiny fraction of your house... Wellington, CO is discussing increasing the tap fee for building a new home to $67k, in a place where homes typically cost $380k.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
The infrastructure required to "reuse [water] almost indefinitely" is a major investment for any municipality. Major investments are generally seen as constraints. I live near Santa Fe, and the mid-to-long term forecast for water supply is pretty dire. Humans have lived in the area for a long time, and it's not likely to become completely dry. But will there be enough to support e.g. a doubling of the county population? This seems unlikely, even with the sorts of changes in use and infrastructure that you mention.