6 ms·

Reservoirs are drying up in the Western U.S.

37 points by lisper 5y ago

post_break 5y ago
I think we're going to hit a stage where if we don't restrict industrial pumping from these reservoirs they are going to just run dry. Having grass in deserts, unlimited housing in deserts, and growing food in places where it just wasn't made for without sucking billions of gallons of water from other places just doesn't make sense.
- amcoastal 5y ago
  Yeah. Not a lot of sympathy, there's plenty of water to go around, stop trying to grow corn in a desert.
- oceanplexian 5y ago
  Deserts are excellent places for agriculture for the same reason they are good for solar power. There is an abundant amount of solar energy, the growing season is long and consistent, there are few pests, and reversing desertification has numerous environmental benefits. The problem is an engineering problem: We need to build more reservoirs, encourage rainwater harvesting, convert agriculture to more efficient irrigation, and build out desalination. The Earth has no shortage of H2O, in fact it’s one of the most abundant things on the planet.
  - post_break 5y ago
    Solar and growing food aren't exactly apple to apples. One has no moving parts and doesn't require moving a natural resource for it to work. Maybe if you argued about hydroponics in the area using solar to power the lights inside the building and AC, but growing food in a desert where water is scarce by taking it in insane volumes from another place just doesn't make sense to me.
    - aeternum 5y ago
      >growing food in a desert where water is scarce by taking it in insane volumes from another place just doesn't make sense to me The central valley project has arguably been one of the most impressive things humanity has ever done. It turned 3 million acres of desert into farmland, which has provided us with almost 100 years of food and also produces over 5 Twh of electricity per year.
- mcot2 5y ago
  Good luck: https://youtu.be/rWpui1P9cAY https://youtu.be/rWpui1P9cAY
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  It may already be too late. The rate of subsidence in the growing regions of California is astonishing[1]--nearly a foot per year in some places. Some aquifers can take a long, long time to recharge (the rate differs per aquifer) and some aquifers can be damaged by compaction and never recharge[2]. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ca-water-ls https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ca-water-ls [2] https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/aquifer-compaction https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/aquifer-compaction
bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago
Is this not a sign that humans in a region are hitting the carrying capacity of the local environment?
- MikeUt 5y ago
  There are three factors at play: population size, population lifestyle, and efficiency of resource use. It is customary to completely ignore population size as a factor, as long as lifestyles or resource use could be more eco-friendly (commute with bicycles, rebuild infrastructure to make that possible, re-zone cities, change diets, make industries and farming greener, etc..) This is the case even though those large, society-wide transformations would take decades, and even while the population is actively being increased by immigration (most of the developed world has had below-replacement fertility for decades, so birthrates are not a factor).
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  Humans in those regions are far beyond the carrying capacity of the local environment, and have been for decades.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Doesn't the correlation between this statement and reality depend mostly on the definition of "local"?
    - Arnt 5y ago
      Yes, but at least in some people's opinion, it is currently true even for "local to the third planet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day The point is arguable, IMO, and the details very much so.
MikeUt 5y ago
Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans I don't know why ecological stress is so rarely traced back to population size, outside of "debunkings" of Malthusianism. Edit due to rate limit: One of the replies claims the US has a positive natural growth rate. This is false - US fertility is currently at 1.78 births/woman. The last time it was above the replacement level of 2.1 was in 1972, 49 years ago: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert... Edit 2: As dragonwriter pointed out, I was mistaken and both are true - fertility is below replacement, and natural population growth (birth - deaths) is positive. I think this is due to population aging, and due to immigrants skewing younger (i.e. childbearing age): https://cis.org/Report/Birth-Rates-Among-Immigrants-America https://cis.org/Report/Birth-Rates-Among-Immigrants-America
- ArkanExplorer 5y ago
  American population is driven solely by immigration, given that the average fertility is far below replacement. If you don't want one billion Americans, then you need to propose and support: - Ending refugee programs and withdrawing from the UN convention on refugees - Sending refugees back to safe countries - Building walls along the southern border - Ending the H1B visa - deporting illegal immigrants already in the country - Disallowing citizenship by birth - Ending chain family migration The bigger issue here is that Americans are moving out of States with huge pension bills, into 'younger' states with lower taxes and fewer legacy costs. Its basically a death loop playing out at an inter-state migration level.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > American population is driven solely by immigration No, the US still has a positive natural growth rate.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Source? Because I've seen ArksanExplorer's position quoted repeatedly. (Though far below replacement is almost certainly false.)
Flatcircle 5y ago
Has anyone proposed nuclear reactors on the coast, that use their fuel rods to exclusively desalinate ocean water that can be used by coastal regions so those areas aren't pulling from the fresh water river systems? *edit, I just mean use traditional desalination powered by a dedicated nuclear plant. (If fresh water is that scarce)
- chomp 5y ago
  How would that work? I’d imagine salt and mineral buildup would impede heat transfer and wind up melting the reactor down.
- barathr 5y ago
  There's little need for nuclear for this when there's surplus solar power in the West these days during the middle of the day. Desalination is the perfect kind of load for this suprlus power: flexible, its output can be stored, water demand is highest during the day when there's sunlight, irrigation demand is highest during the summer when there's more sunlight, etc. (In the coming decade there's going to be too much solar power production but only during the day, and not enough renewable generation in the evening.)
  - bostik 5y ago
    Desalination is indeed a nice way to drain excess energy from the grid, because the end product is directly usable. But let's keep in mind that large-scale desalination comes with its own externalities. Removing salt from sea water leaves behind a concentrated brine, which in turn has to be handled and managed properly. Otherwise you'll risk endangering the coastal ecosystems.[0] On the other hand, there is research indicating that the waste and side products could themselves be used to enhance the desalination process (to make it less destructive to surroundings) as well as generate secondary income streams from the side products themselves.[1] 0: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227589 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... 1: https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-hydroxide-0213 https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-h...
- 5y ago

37 points by lisper 5y ago

I think we're going to hit a stage where if we don't restrict industrial pumping from these reservoirs they are going to just run dry. Having grass in deserts, unlimited housing in deserts, and growing food in places where it just wasn't made for without sucking billions of gallons of water from other places just doesn't make sense.

amcoastal 5y ago
Yeah. Not a lot of sympathy, there's plenty of water to go around, stop trying to grow corn in a desert.
oceanplexian 5y ago
Deserts are excellent places for agriculture for the same reason they are good for solar power. There is an abundant amount of solar energy, the growing season is long and consistent, there are few pests, and reversing desertification has numerous environmental benefits. The problem is an engineering problem: We need to build more reservoirs, encourage rainwater harvesting, convert agriculture to more efficient irrigation, and build out desalination. The Earth has no shortage of H2O, in fact it’s one of the most abundant things on the planet.
- post_break 5y ago
  Solar and growing food aren't exactly apple to apples. One has no moving parts and doesn't require moving a natural resource for it to work. Maybe if you argued about hydroponics in the area using solar to power the lights inside the building and AC, but growing food in a desert where water is scarce by taking it in insane volumes from another place just doesn't make sense to me.
  - aeternum 5y ago
    >growing food in a desert where water is scarce by taking it in insane volumes from another place just doesn't make sense to me The central valley project has arguably been one of the most impressive things humanity has ever done. It turned 3 million acres of desert into farmland, which has provided us with almost 100 years of food and also produces over 5 Twh of electricity per year.
mcot2 5y ago
Good luck: https://youtu.be/rWpui1P9cAY https://youtu.be/rWpui1P9cAY
nathanaldensr 5y ago
It may already be too late. The rate of subsidence in the growing regions of California is astonishing[1]--nearly a foot per year in some places. Some aquifers can take a long, long time to recharge (the rate differs per aquifer) and some aquifers can be damaged by compaction and never recharge[2]. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ca-water-ls https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ca-water-ls [2] https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/aquifer-compaction https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/aquifer-compaction

bitxbitxbitcoin 5y ago

Is this not a sign that humans in a region are hitting the carrying capacity of the local environment?

MikeUt 5y ago
There are three factors at play: population size, population lifestyle, and efficiency of resource use. It is customary to completely ignore population size as a factor, as long as lifestyles or resource use could be more eco-friendly (commute with bicycles, rebuild infrastructure to make that possible, re-zone cities, change diets, make industries and farming greener, etc..) This is the case even though those large, society-wide transformations would take decades, and even while the population is actively being increased by immigration (most of the developed world has had below-replacement fertility for decades, so birthrates are not a factor).
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Humans in those regions are far beyond the carrying capacity of the local environment, and have been for decades.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  Doesn't the correlation between this statement and reality depend mostly on the definition of "local"?
  - Arnt 5y ago
    Yes, but at least in some people's opinion, it is currently true even for "local to the third planet". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Overshoot_Day The point is arguable, IMO, and the details very much so.

MikeUt 5y ago

Related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Billion_Americans I don't know why ecological stress is so rarely traced back to population size, outside of "debunkings" of Malthusianism. Edit due to rate limit: One of the replies claims the US has a positive natural growth rate. This is false - US fertility is currently at 1.78 births/woman. The last time it was above the replacement level of 2.1 was in 1972, 49 years ago: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fertility-rate https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/fert... Edit 2: As dragonwriter pointed out, I was mistaken and both are true - fertility is below replacement, and natural population growth (birth - deaths) is positive. I think this is due to population aging, and due to immigrants skewing younger (i.e. childbearing age): https://cis.org/Report/Birth-Rates-Among-Immigrants-America https://cis.org/Report/Birth-Rates-Among-Immigrants-America

ArkanExplorer 5y ago
American population is driven solely by immigration, given that the average fertility is far below replacement. If you don't want one billion Americans, then you need to propose and support: - Ending refugee programs and withdrawing from the UN convention on refugees - Sending refugees back to safe countries - Building walls along the southern border - Ending the H1B visa - deporting illegal immigrants already in the country - Disallowing citizenship by birth - Ending chain family migration The bigger issue here is that Americans are moving out of States with huge pension bills, into 'younger' states with lower taxes and fewer legacy costs. Its basically a death loop playing out at an inter-state migration level.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > American population is driven solely by immigration No, the US still has a positive natural growth rate.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Source? Because I've seen ArksanExplorer's position quoted repeatedly. (Though far below replacement is almost certainly false.)

Flatcircle 5y ago

Has anyone proposed nuclear reactors on the coast, that use their fuel rods to exclusively desalinate ocean water that can be used by coastal regions so those areas aren't pulling from the fresh water river systems? *edit, I just mean use traditional desalination powered by a dedicated nuclear plant. (If fresh water is that scarce)

chomp 5y ago
How would that work? I’d imagine salt and mineral buildup would impede heat transfer and wind up melting the reactor down.
barathr 5y ago
There's little need for nuclear for this when there's surplus solar power in the West these days during the middle of the day. Desalination is the perfect kind of load for this suprlus power: flexible, its output can be stored, water demand is highest during the day when there's sunlight, irrigation demand is highest during the summer when there's more sunlight, etc. (In the coming decade there's going to be too much solar power production but only during the day, and not enough renewable generation in the evening.)
- bostik 5y ago
  Desalination is indeed a nice way to drain excess energy from the grid, because the end product is directly usable. But let's keep in mind that large-scale desalination comes with its own externalities. Removing salt from sea water leaves behind a concentrated brine, which in turn has to be handled and managed properly. Otherwise you'll risk endangering the coastal ecosystems.[0] On the other hand, there is research indicating that the waste and side products could themselves be used to enhance the desalination process (to make it less destructive to surroundings) as well as generate secondary income streams from the side products themselves.[1] 0: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227589 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... 1: https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-hydroxide-0213 https://news.mit.edu/2019/brine-desalianation-waste-sodium-h...
5y ago