7 ms·

> in a desert Why do so many people choose to live in a desert? It makes very little economic sense. Feels like it will be destined for failure no matter what

> in a desert Why do so many people choose to live in a desert? It makes very little economic sense. Feels like it will be destined for failure no matter what silicon valley tries to pay its grunts. Any expectation of having enough water for such a low price is laughably absurd. The population of this state is literally asking for these conditions - they are choosing to live there.

dboreham 4y ago
People like nice weather.
deaddodo 4y ago
The vast majority of the population in California doesn't live in a desert. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes/climates. It's a moot point regardless as the California Water Plan is probably one of the most extensive in the world, beaten likely only by Israel. There is plenty of water for the populace and supporting services; and most of the populated desert regions (the IE particularly) are self-sufficient in water sources (Big Bear and Mt San Antonio supplying the aforementioned region). The problem is water heavy industries (specific types of: ag, water bottling, manufacturing, etc) that benefit from the mild-temperate year round climate and strong soil, despite lack of sufficient natural water supply.
- ece 4y ago
  Why aren't there MPG-like standards for farming, and if we had such standards, how much water would be saved? Maybe there are irrigation standards and I just don't know.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    If you charged for water and also let farmers sell excess there would be incentive to improve efficiency. But politically this is untenable.
    - ece 4y ago
      I think a consumer standard (like farmed with x quantity of water) might work just as well, and it might be a way to get around the normal politics.
  - deaddodo 4y ago
    The aforementioned industries have pushed heavily for "water rights" under the guise of residential accessibility, artificially deflating their cost and forcing the population to subsidize their usage. That's like asking why does the government take federal tax dollars to subsidize corn fields in Nebraska despite massive surpluses? Because those businesses then use those profits to continue to lobby for those under the guise of "jobs" and commercial welfare.
- robonerd 4y ago
  >The vast majority of the population in California doesn't live in a desert. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes/climates. The San Francisco watershed covers 40% of California including much of the region you are speaking of. The paleoclimate research, measuring historical salinity of the Bay using carbon dated sediment cores, shows that during the Medieval warm period the San Francisco watershed averaged only 60% of the rainfall it does today.
rory 4y ago
How did you make the jump from "Residents use 3-5% of the water supply" to "any expectation of having enough water to reside in this place is absurd"? Do you think the water table is not enough to support 5% of current usage levels?
pengaru 4y ago
It's nice living where there aren't any mosquitoes or humidity.
- AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
  Right, but then you're also living without plentiful growth - without lots of pollination. That's part of what not having water is. That's the current plight of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Florida has plenty of humidity, and when I lived there I got on just fine. I live in rural TN today - same deal. It rains all the damn time, mosquitoes everywhere. We have a service come once a quarter that takes care of them. I don't have cancer as a result. I capture so much rain water and filter it down and use it for productive purposes, I live on 15 acres and pay $25 for my water. I saw some other people make reference to subsidizing folks in rural areas, but that's simply not the case. We use our water and conserve it unlike any suburban areas do, we don't spare a drop. And we pay the same rates as everyone else in the state.
krapp 4y ago
People lived in deserts all across the US for tens of thousands of years and got by just fine and never had to pay a dime for water. This isn't a desert climate problem, it's a "capitalism charging money for something that should be free" and "modern civilization having no concept of ecological balance" problem.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > it's a "capitalism charging money for something that should be free"…problem It’s mostly the opposite. If we put a price on water, with the first 50,000 gallons per residence being free or subsidised [1], the problem would self correct. Water-heavy industries would be priced out. A budget would emerge for conservation. We don’t get this, however, because the state’s heaviest water users, certain agriculture and industry, have convinced enough of the urban population that water pricing is some capitalist scam. (Analogous to how landowners convinced renters that the enemy was the employers.) The story of modern California’s woes is one of special interests co-opting a gullible anti-capitalist slice of the populace. [1] https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Agencies-Recommend-Indoor-Residential-Water-Use-Standard https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Ag...
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  Are you kidding me? Water and farmland were perpetual sources of ancient conflict, even if you fail to normalize for population density. Prices are how you push back and achieve balance. Wishful thinking is not a solution.
- YATA1 4y ago
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > and got by just fine Or maybe not. The Anasazi left a bunch of uninhabited ruins. Current thinking is that drought played a big part in why their population declined.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
potiuper 4y ago
Desert is more sensible place for urban humans than using productive land for buildings and roads.
- AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
  Live on your own productive land and use sensible automation to make it manageable. We live in the 21st century. What is wrong with everybody?

dboreham 4y ago

People like nice weather.

deaddodo 4y ago

The vast majority of the population in California doesn't live in a desert. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes/climates. It's a moot point regardless as the California Water Plan is probably one of the most extensive in the world, beaten likely only by Israel. There is plenty of water for the populace and supporting services; and most of the populated desert regions (the IE particularly) are self-sufficient in water sources (Big Bear and Mt San Antonio supplying the aforementioned region). The problem is water heavy industries (specific types of: ag, water bottling, manufacturing, etc) that benefit from the mild-temperate year round climate and strong soil, despite lack of sufficient natural water supply.

ece 4y ago
Why aren't there MPG-like standards for farming, and if we had such standards, how much water would be saved? Maybe there are irrigation standards and I just don't know.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  If you charged for water and also let farmers sell excess there would be incentive to improve efficiency. But politically this is untenable.
  - ece 4y ago
    I think a consumer standard (like farmed with x quantity of water) might work just as well, and it might be a way to get around the normal politics.
- deaddodo 4y ago
  The aforementioned industries have pushed heavily for "water rights" under the guise of residential accessibility, artificially deflating their cost and forcing the population to subsidize their usage. That's like asking why does the government take federal tax dollars to subsidize corn fields in Nebraska despite massive surpluses? Because those businesses then use those profits to continue to lobby for those under the guise of "jobs" and commercial welfare.
robonerd 4y ago
>The vast majority of the population in California doesn't live in a desert. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes/climates. The San Francisco watershed covers 40% of California including much of the region you are speaking of. The paleoclimate research, measuring historical salinity of the Bay using carbon dated sediment cores, shows that during the Medieval warm period the San Francisco watershed averaged only 60% of the rainfall it does today.

rory 4y ago

How did you make the jump from "Residents use 3-5% of the water supply" to "any expectation of having enough water to reside in this place is absurd"? Do you think the water table is not enough to support 5% of current usage levels?

pengaru 4y ago

It's nice living where there aren't any mosquitoes or humidity.

AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
Right, but then you're also living without plentiful growth - without lots of pollination. That's part of what not having water is. That's the current plight of California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Florida has plenty of humidity, and when I lived there I got on just fine. I live in rural TN today - same deal. It rains all the damn time, mosquitoes everywhere. We have a service come once a quarter that takes care of them. I don't have cancer as a result. I capture so much rain water and filter it down and use it for productive purposes, I live on 15 acres and pay $25 for my water. I saw some other people make reference to subsidizing folks in rural areas, but that's simply not the case. We use our water and conserve it unlike any suburban areas do, we don't spare a drop. And we pay the same rates as everyone else in the state.

krapp 4y ago

People lived in deserts all across the US for tens of thousands of years and got by just fine and never had to pay a dime for water. This isn't a desert climate problem, it's a "capitalism charging money for something that should be free" and "modern civilization having no concept of ecological balance" problem.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> it's a "capitalism charging money for something that should be free"…problem It’s mostly the opposite. If we put a price on water, with the first 50,000 gallons per residence being free or subsidised [1], the problem would self correct. Water-heavy industries would be priced out. A budget would emerge for conservation. We don’t get this, however, because the state’s heaviest water users, certain agriculture and industry, have convinced enough of the urban population that water pricing is some capitalist scam. (Analogous to how landowners convinced renters that the enemy was the employers.) The story of modern California’s woes is one of special interests co-opting a gullible anti-capitalist slice of the populace. [1] https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Agencies-Recommend-Indoor-Residential-Water-Use-Standard https://water.ca.gov/News/News-Releases/2021/Nov-21/State-Ag...
jjoonathan 4y ago
Are you kidding me? Water and farmland were perpetual sources of ancient conflict, even if you fail to normalize for population density. Prices are how you push back and achieve balance. Wishful thinking is not a solution.
YATA1 4y ago
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> and got by just fine Or maybe not. The Anasazi left a bunch of uninhabited ruins. Current thinking is that drought played a big part in why their population declined.
- ncmncm 4y ago

potiuper 4y ago

Desert is more sensible place for urban humans than using productive land for buildings and roads.

AndrewUnmuted 4y ago
Live on your own productive land and use sensible automation to make it manageable. We live in the 21st century. What is wrong with everybody?