6 ms·
Isn't there a third option that involves building serious infrastructure to pipe water down from the Northwest? Of course you can't build things in America any
by api 4y ago
Isn't there a third option that involves building serious infrastructure to pipe water down from the Northwest?
Of course you can't build things in America anymore so that's probably off the table.
- turtledove 4y agoEcologically devastate the Pacific Northwest so we can continue to be wasteful with water is a heck of a take.
- formerkrogemp 4y agoThirsty folks from California and the Southwest wanting more water to be piped in to feed their water intensive crops and lawns in the desert. I'm sure that'll go down well in outlying regions. Maybe change in meteorological patterns and population levels hitting critical mass without the attendant infrastructure are bad for water levels. Aquifers are depleted. Rainfall is reduced. There's no more snowmelt to bank on as that savings account has been drained. Wildfires, drought, and rising sea levels will displace significant numbers of people. Agriculture will shift north and east. I think California peaked a few years ago.
- newbamboo 4y ago“folks from California and the Southwest wanting more water” People don’t complain about Floridians or iowaians. It’s always the brown bodies from California “driving up prices” and “drinking all the water.” California is a dog whistle for anti-immigrant viewpoints. “Folks from California.” We know who you mean when you say that. Immigrants and other “water drinkers.”
- splitstud 4y ago
- loeg 4y agoNo, WA doesn’t have a surplus.
- ncallaway 4y agoLeave our water alone. More seriously, though, water use is contentious between states and a big thing that the federal government mediates. WA and OR probably wouldn’t be willing to pump significant amounts of water to CA outside of extreme circumstances or uneconomical prices.
- hedora 4y agoIt'd probably be cheaper to just solve global warming. Capturing 100% of carbon produced from burning gas would cost something like $1/gallon. Much better to go extinct as a species than make our cars 20% more efficient, or somehow oust Putin.
- danans 4y agoWater is very heavy. The energy expenditure (AKA fossil fuel burned) to lift water over the mountains between the PNW and Southern CA would be massive and defeat any climate change progress. A fraction of that energy/investment put toward using water more efficiently in agriculture (in both the physical and economic sense) would make a bigger difference.
- Fricken 4y agoI just finished a trip to the Buttermilks, a climbing area on the eastern slopes of the Sierras. I was surprised to discover that the land is owned by the city of Los Angeles, so they can protect their freshwater source that is pumped and piped over the mountains to LA.
- danans 4y agoThe mountains they are piped over are not the High Sierra, but the narrow coastal ranges near Santa Clarita. That itself requires a massive amount of energy. Here is the full map of the system: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct#/media/File%3ALos_Angeles_Aqueduct_Map.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct#/media/... Pumping over the Cascades would require much more energy since there are no natural valleys connecting the water rich parts of the PNW with CA. It's a very thick wall of mountains that you would have to pump water up and down repeatedly.