13 ms·

“””the Bureau of Reclamation will release an additional 500,000 acre-feet (616.7 million cubic meters) of water this year from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir upstr

by ianai 4y ago

“””the Bureau of Reclamation will release an additional 500,000 acre-feet (616.7 million cubic meters) of water this year from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir upstream on the Wyoming-Utah border that will flow into Lake Powell.””” Per the article, sounds like they also have about 80% of that in an artificial lake that they’ll not release for now. As someone who’s lived his entire life in the southwest: this is bad. The importance of water to life can’t be understated but can go unrealized if you’re “in the land of plenty” of water. Lack of water has felled societies and started wars throughout history. “People will say they’re going to war for all sorts of reasons but ultimately it’s for of water, food, or resources.” (Paraphrasing) Further, the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move. That’s not a solution for the number of people at stake. Further, this is some of the most renewable energy rich land in the US. Solar panels and some pipes could probably push water in from the oceans reliably enough-levels of renewable energy.

formerkrogemp 4y ago
Thirsty 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- skybrian 4y ago
  It's particularly galling when many California cities have desalination as an option and it's opposed in many places. Farming is going to have to cut back regardless, though, since it uses 80% of the water. (Not including environmental use.)
  - azemetre 4y ago
    Why is farming an improper use of water? I mean nations need to grow food and not rely on other countries as their bread basket, that seems like good systems planning. As for the types of food I suppose that is a good discussion to have but how do you deal with the reality that beef is an enormous use of water over nearly every single crop?
    - freeone3000 4y ago
      It's a desert. There are way better regions to grow food.
      - ac29 4y ago
        The central valley, where most of CA's food is grown, is not a desert. It was formerly mostly grasslands.
        formerkrogemp 4y ago
        It's a desert now. Or will be. There's no more snowmelt to rely on. Rainfall is down. Aquifers are depleted so much the ground is sinking. Someone said I'm this thread that San Diego isn't a desert because they get 20% more rain than a desert by definition. 10 inches per year is really not a lot to replenish your water levels.
    - rurp 4y ago
      Growing food in the desert is the improper part. There are plenty of areas in other parts of the country that aren't experiencing crippling drought. That is where water intensive crops should be grown. Most southwest desert farming only exists because of government subsidies. If farmers actually had to pay market rate for water most farms in this region would not be possible.
      - azemetre 4y ago
        That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is, I honestly want to say desert farming uses less resources than raising cattle for slaughter but I'm unsure and just guessing from the hip here.
zackees 4y ago
California topped off all of their reservoirs in 2019. These systems of dams are designed to sustain california for five years, according to local farmers that i’ve talked to. However the water supply is being diverted into the ocean now because of insane environmental laws. A farmer in california pays more for water than labor, taxes or anything else.
- warcher 4y ago
  Gonna need some citations on that one big hoss. Most of the talk out of California lately is farmers in an arms race to drill the deepest well, because they're planting water-hungry crops like almonds like fiends (good profit margins so fuck the water table).
  - annoyingnoob 4y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/business/supply-chain-california-farmers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/business/supply-chain-cal...
- kickout 4y ago
  as they should? water where water isn't naturally should be very expensive from an environmental footprint. Externalities and all that
- Arrath 4y ago
  2019, while being a wet year, did not come close to the monumental claim of "topping off all their reservoirs". Got anything to back that up? As for mandated minimum flow levels, would you rather the river courses run dry?
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  > diverted into the ocean now because of insane environmental laws Is that from the Resnick [0] talking points memo? The Resnicks should grow their almonds back in the Middle East where they belong instead of in the CA desert. [0]https://www.forbes.com/profile/stewart-lynda-resnick/?sh=2744a70d74c0 https://www.forbes.com/profile/stewart-lynda-resnick/?sh=274...
curiousgal 4y ago
- Arrath 4y ago
  Agreed 100%, unfortunately.
- yes_i_can 4y ago
- animal_spirits 4y ago
  If you don't want to start a flame war then don't start a flamewar. This is not relevant to the article
  - curiousgal 4y ago
    My point is that if people are fighting something that is so inconsequential to their own personal lives, imagine how hard they are going to fight the things that do affect them.on a daily basis. The very same things that need to be done to tackle climate change.
    - mmmpop 4y ago
  - perihelions 4y ago
    It was a good illustration of - "Apophasis... is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
- 0x7265616374 4y ago
salmonfamine 4y ago
I don't think "just move" is the answer either, but the fact remains that the region cannot sustainably support its current population (much less a growing population) given current levels of consumption. So, either the population has to be reduced, or consumption has to be reduced. But either option seems politically impossible. Our understanding of freedom is not compatible with the cold reality of constrained resources. There isn't a price mechanism capable of equitably reducing consumption, and there isn't a technological solution that's capable of scaling to demand. Something's gotta give.
- apcragg 4y ago
  There is plenty of water in the south west, we just use most of it to grow animal feed in the desert. Even worst, much of that water is subsidized by the US Government which allows farmers to grow that animal feed in the high plains where it would be economically infeasible otherwise. We have engineered this problem to the benefit of a small number of ranchers and farmers and seem determined to blame it on everybody else.
  - salmonfamine 4y ago
    We agree here. By "consumption," I'm not just referring to residential consumption. There is enough water in the Southwest for a sizable population, of course. The problem ahead is how to distribute a constrained resource to that population without deferring to lobbied interests, wealthy landowners, golf-course owners, etc. That's an uphill battle, to say the least.
    - apcragg 4y ago
      For sure! Even Buy-and-dry schemes seem to be struggling with political backlash and those landowners are being fairly compensated in voluntary transactions. It's not going to be pretty when the junior water rights holders are cut off for good.
  - freeopinion 4y ago
    The benefit is arguably not just to a small number of ranchers and farmers. The U.S. went all-in on globalization. That includes globalization of food production. For 50 years the typical USian has taken bananas and coconut for granted. Coffee is a staple in every kitchen. Produce and dairy of countless varieties are produced in California for consumers around the country and indeed around the world. Would you argue that globalization of the food supply chain is a mistake? Do you propose that Chicago grow its own spinach? Should Saudi Arabia grow its own alfalfa? Should apples and grapes consumed in Oklahoma be grown in Oklahoma? I suppose many people are rethinking this whole globalization strategy. From microchips to mozzarella. Economics: the spectator sport with real spectator consequences.
pram 4y ago
> Further, the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move. Though if you consider the long-term outlook apocalyptic and you own a house in these states, it would be prudent to sell before everyone else.
- kingkawn 4y ago
  I already know multiple people who have left southern California in order to beat the rush out. They consider themselves climate refugees.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  The Federal government has set the precedent that they will bail out people impacted by climate change in the USA.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Only when it's convenient. They did change the rules about FEMA and insurance when it comes to floods. They also adjusted the flood area designations to include theoretical risk (ie places that have never had a flood problem).
freeopinion 4y ago
As for telling people to move, that actually is a solution even for the number of people at stake. Look how many million people left California in the last two years. Just ask Boise, ID. If you start charging $20/CCF instead of $5/CCF to fill an olympic-sized swimming pool, immigration into California might come to a screeching halt. You don't have to solve the problem in a single year. You can have a 10 or 20 year target to get to zero growth. Just put a cap on building permits. But plenty of people will scream bloody murder about that. Aren't FAANGs already shelling out millions to add housing because of shortages? Nevada is trying to pipe water in from Idaho and Utah. A Southern Nevada community that doesn't even exist yet just proposed to cut off the water to a neighboring community with thousands of residents so that the planned community could build homes. Don't reject any solution out of hand. Population growth management is an obvious place to spend some really good thinking.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Human consumption if you have an ocean isn’t much of a concern in the dry places, desalination is cheap enough for what people can pay. Agricultural and industrial usage, not so much.
- pkaye 4y ago
  Since farming is 80% of water use, cutting out a little bit of the water intensive farming will provide for any residential needs for some time.
  - MattGaiser 4y ago
    Yep. All other discussions are fiddling around the edges while you still have farmers casually spraying water in the hot air as it is cheaper than pipes.
    - freeopinion 4y ago
      Then raise the price of water. I don't get a Nobel Prize for this. It really just earns me a Captain Obvious sticker. In the short term, your food will be more expensive. In the long term, people will invest in water-reduced production. Want to see fintech and crypto currency startups at YC get replaced by VF (vertical farming) startups claiming to reduce water use by 80%? Just raise the price of water by 1¢/liter. VFVC (vertical farming venture capital) will be all the rage.
jcranmer 4y ago
The real solution to the water crisis is to start by admitting that water is a scarce resource in the region that needs to be rationed somehow and then start working on an equitable plan for rationing. While water is necessary for life, a lot of the water usage in a suburban lifestyle is just plain wasted. To give an idea, when I worked at a water treatment plant, I got to see just how different the water consumption rates were between winter and summer--winter water usage was roughly half that of summer. So a simple starting point for water rationing is... ban lawns and watering lawns (if you don't like such bans, then I'd alternatively suggest changing water rates so that it's cost-exorbitant to water a lawn). If you want to live in a desert, you need to landscape your house appropriately for living in a desert. The next contentious point will be a readjustment of the water rates for agricultural perspectives. The simple truth of the matter is that residential water usage--especially if you remove lawn care from the equation--is highly recoverable as drinkable water, since almost all of that water goes back down the sewer pipes. Agricultural water usage is generally far less recoverable, especially if you're growing plants for export whose mass is mostly water (which means you are rather literally exporting water).
- r00fus 4y ago
  Given that non-residential is 80% of usage, it seems like that'd be where we should start looking at recycling water usage.
  - wfhordie 4y ago
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Agricultural water is usually not for sale to supplement your residential usage. Your lawn or shower is competing with other residential uses, not agriculture.
      - kbutler 4y ago
        But agricultural water could be entered into the market for residential usage - the current legal structure incentivizes using the water for agriculture, rather than allowing reselling for higher-value-per-gallon uses. I was curious about the almond statistic above. Sounds like "1-3 gallons" is exaggerated, but that 1-gallon-per-almond is at least on the right order of magnitude, but farmers are working to reduce water use. https://farmtogether.com/learn/blog/dispelling-miconceptions-about-almonds-water-use https://farmtogether.com/learn/blog/dispelling-miconceptions...
rurp 4y ago
The water authority in Southern Nevada recently authorized 800,000 new housing connections. So one of the organizations that should be managing the water emergency is actively making it worse. The problem is that they make a lot more money on new connections than serving existing ones. So existing residents are (correctly) being told to restrict water, but then the same people saying that are turning around and greatly exacerbating the problem.
peachtree2 4y ago
Almonds in California use so much water it could feed 56 cities the size of Los Angeles (back-of-the-envelope math from publically available sources) It's not just people that at fault, but an agricultural sector that has no limits on its consumption do to the money and politics involved.
- tzs 4y ago
  Since only something like 0.03% of that water actually ends up in the almonds, you need to track what happens to that other 99.97% to determine the actual impact of almonds.
- kk6mrp 4y ago
  They do limit water consumption actually.
snarfy 4y ago
There really isn't a lot of reason for phoenix to exist. Before the invention of air conditioning it was merely a truck stop between the texas coast and the california cost. Everything there is artificially put there and the only thing making it possible is the water. If everyone tries to stay, the price of water will adjust accordingly. Any crisis with the water will be handled by government as well as they handled covid.
eloff 4y ago
I was just at lake Powell a couple weeks ago. It was very sad to see how low the water was. Lone rock is completely dry. Beaches where people used to park their boats are now up 80ft of cliffs. I couldn't help but think I was looking at climate change first hand. I know it's more complex than that, but the feeling was unshakable nonetheless. I think for now the solution is to raise the price of water for agricultural users and let the chips fall where they may. That's the vast majority of water use in the southwest. One could do this in a somewhat balanced way by offering some financial support for said farmers. But it has to be done.
wbl 4y ago
We do not need farms in Arizona when Michigan exists
- zrail 4y ago
  I know you're probably using Michigan just as a foil, but Michigan is sort of a weird case. The land that's able to be farmed is being farmed very well. The problem is that north of a certain point the land is just not very arable[1] due to a number of factors including soil quality and growing season length. [1]: https://project.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/ag_regions.html https://project.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/ag_regions.html
- Galaxity 4y ago
  Many of the crops grown in Arizona and southern California such as lettuce and spinach are grown there to supply the country during the winter season. Michigan couldn't replace that during the winter. So it's more of an issue that we would have to decide to only eat vegetables seasonally. No green leafs in winter. Or build vast greenhouses I suppose.
bart_spoon 4y ago
> Further, the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move. That’s not a solution for the number of people at stake. While I agree, we probably should start telling people to stop moving there. The places in the US that are getting the largest influx of people are the same places that are going to be impacted the most by climate change: the West and the South. Some of the fastest growing cities in the nation are in Utah and Arizona, the exact areas we are discussing here. I used to live in Utah and now live in the Midwest. A lot of people I know feel strongly that they would rather live in the West over the Midwest for various reasons, some of which I agree with, but I can't imagine moving back out there and taking on a mortgage in the area where it seems like the water crisis is a ticking time bomb. I'd love to be wrong, but if the worst case scenarios are realized, a lot of suffering will be happening to people who have put themselves in the situation well after the warning signs became widely recognized.
irrational 4y ago
> the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move What about telling people to stop building in these areas? Last time I looked they were still building new housing developments in Las Vegas! Of course, I also think people should stop building in Miami because of the ocean level rising.
aaaaaaaaata 4y ago
They'd better start exporting some sunlight. and not via fruit.

by ianai 4y ago

formerkrogemp 4y ago

Thirsty 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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 4y ago
It's particularly galling when many California cities have desalination as an option and it's opposed in many places. Farming is going to have to cut back regardless, though, since it uses 80% of the water. (Not including environmental use.)
- azemetre 4y ago
  Why is farming an improper use of water? I mean nations need to grow food and not rely on other countries as their bread basket, that seems like good systems planning. As for the types of food I suppose that is a good discussion to have but how do you deal with the reality that beef is an enormous use of water over nearly every single crop?
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    It's a desert. There are way better regions to grow food.
    - ac29 4y ago
      The central valley, where most of CA's food is grown, is not a desert. It was formerly mostly grasslands.
      - formerkrogemp 4y ago
        It's a desert now. Or will be. There's no more snowmelt to rely on. Rainfall is down. Aquifers are depleted so much the ground is sinking. Someone said I'm this thread that San Diego isn't a desert because they get 20% more rain than a desert by definition. 10 inches per year is really not a lot to replenish your water levels.
  - rurp 4y ago
    Growing food in the desert is the improper part. There are plenty of areas in other parts of the country that aren't experiencing crippling drought. That is where water intensive crops should be grown. Most southwest desert farming only exists because of government subsidies. If farmers actually had to pay market rate for water most farms in this region would not be possible.
    - azemetre 4y ago
      That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is, I honestly want to say desert farming uses less resources than raising cattle for slaughter but I'm unsure and just guessing from the hip here.

zackees 4y ago

California topped off all of their reservoirs in 2019. These systems of dams are designed to sustain california for five years, according to local farmers that i’ve talked to. However the water supply is being diverted into the ocean now because of insane environmental laws. A farmer in california pays more for water than labor, taxes or anything else.

warcher 4y ago
Gonna need some citations on that one big hoss. Most of the talk out of California lately is farmers in an arms race to drill the deepest well, because they're planting water-hungry crops like almonds like fiends (good profit margins so fuck the water table).
- annoyingnoob 4y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/business/supply-chain-california-farmers.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/20/business/supply-chain-cal...
kickout 4y ago
as they should? water where water isn't naturally should be very expensive from an environmental footprint. Externalities and all that
Arrath 4y ago
2019, while being a wet year, did not come close to the monumental claim of "topping off all their reservoirs". Got anything to back that up? As for mandated minimum flow levels, would you rather the river courses run dry?
anonAndOn 4y ago
> diverted into the ocean now because of insane environmental laws Is that from the Resnick [0] talking points memo? The Resnicks should grow their almonds back in the Middle East where they belong instead of in the CA desert. [0]https://www.forbes.com/profile/stewart-lynda-resnick/?sh=2744a70d74c0 https://www.forbes.com/profile/stewart-lynda-resnick/?sh=274...

curiousgal 4y ago

Arrath 4y ago
Agreed 100%, unfortunately.
yes_i_can 4y ago
animal_spirits 4y ago
If you don't want to start a flame war then don't start a flamewar. This is not relevant to the article
- curiousgal 4y ago
  My point is that if people are fighting something that is so inconsequential to their own personal lives, imagine how hard they are going to fight the things that do affect them.on a daily basis. The very same things that need to be done to tackle climate change.
  - mmmpop 4y ago
- perihelions 4y ago
  It was a good illustration of - "Apophasis... is a rhetorical device wherein the speaker or writer brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be brought up. Accordingly, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis
0x7265616374 4y ago

salmonfamine 4y ago

I don't think "just move" is the answer either, but the fact remains that the region cannot sustainably support its current population (much less a growing population) given current levels of consumption. So, either the population has to be reduced, or consumption has to be reduced. But either option seems politically impossible. Our understanding of freedom is not compatible with the cold reality of constrained resources. There isn't a price mechanism capable of equitably reducing consumption, and there isn't a technological solution that's capable of scaling to demand. Something's gotta give.

apcragg 4y ago
There is plenty of water in the south west, we just use most of it to grow animal feed in the desert. Even worst, much of that water is subsidized by the US Government which allows farmers to grow that animal feed in the high plains where it would be economically infeasible otherwise. We have engineered this problem to the benefit of a small number of ranchers and farmers and seem determined to blame it on everybody else.
- salmonfamine 4y ago
  We agree here. By "consumption," I'm not just referring to residential consumption. There is enough water in the Southwest for a sizable population, of course. The problem ahead is how to distribute a constrained resource to that population without deferring to lobbied interests, wealthy landowners, golf-course owners, etc. That's an uphill battle, to say the least.
  - apcragg 4y ago
    For sure! Even Buy-and-dry schemes seem to be struggling with political backlash and those landowners are being fairly compensated in voluntary transactions. It's not going to be pretty when the junior water rights holders are cut off for good.
- freeopinion 4y ago
  The benefit is arguably not just to a small number of ranchers and farmers. The U.S. went all-in on globalization. That includes globalization of food production. For 50 years the typical USian has taken bananas and coconut for granted. Coffee is a staple in every kitchen. Produce and dairy of countless varieties are produced in California for consumers around the country and indeed around the world. Would you argue that globalization of the food supply chain is a mistake? Do you propose that Chicago grow its own spinach? Should Saudi Arabia grow its own alfalfa? Should apples and grapes consumed in Oklahoma be grown in Oklahoma? I suppose many people are rethinking this whole globalization strategy. From microchips to mozzarella. Economics: the spectator sport with real spectator consequences.

pram 4y ago

> Further, the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move. Though if you consider the long-term outlook apocalyptic and you own a house in these states, it would be prudent to sell before everyone else.

kingkawn 4y ago
I already know multiple people who have left southern California in order to beat the rush out. They consider themselves climate refugees.
mywittyname 4y ago
The Federal government has set the precedent that they will bail out people impacted by climate change in the USA.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Only when it's convenient. They did change the rules about FEMA and insurance when it comes to floods. They also adjusted the flood area designations to include theoretical risk (ie places that have never had a flood problem).

freeopinion 4y ago

As for telling people to move, that actually is a solution even for the number of people at stake. Look how many million people left California in the last two years. Just ask Boise, ID. If you start charging $20/CCF instead of $5/CCF to fill an olympic-sized swimming pool, immigration into California might come to a screeching halt. You don't have to solve the problem in a single year. You can have a 10 or 20 year target to get to zero growth. Just put a cap on building permits. But plenty of people will scream bloody murder about that. Aren't FAANGs already shelling out millions to add housing because of shortages? Nevada is trying to pipe water in from Idaho and Utah. A Southern Nevada community that doesn't even exist yet just proposed to cut off the water to a neighboring community with thousands of residents so that the planned community could build homes. Don't reject any solution out of hand. Population growth management is an obvious place to spend some really good thinking.

colechristensen 4y ago
Human consumption if you have an ocean isn’t much of a concern in the dry places, desalination is cheap enough for what people can pay. Agricultural and industrial usage, not so much.
pkaye 4y ago
Since farming is 80% of water use, cutting out a little bit of the water intensive farming will provide for any residential needs for some time.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  Yep. All other discussions are fiddling around the edges while you still have farmers casually spraying water in the hot air as it is cheaper than pipes.
  - freeopinion 4y ago
    Then raise the price of water. I don't get a Nobel Prize for this. It really just earns me a Captain Obvious sticker. In the short term, your food will be more expensive. In the long term, people will invest in water-reduced production. Want to see fintech and crypto currency startups at YC get replaced by VF (vertical farming) startups claiming to reduce water use by 80%? Just raise the price of water by 1¢/liter. VFVC (vertical farming venture capital) will be all the rage.

jcranmer 4y ago

The real solution to the water crisis is to start by admitting that water is a scarce resource in the region that needs to be rationed somehow and then start working on an equitable plan for rationing. While water is necessary for life, a lot of the water usage in a suburban lifestyle is just plain wasted. To give an idea, when I worked at a water treatment plant, I got to see just how different the water consumption rates were between winter and summer--winter water usage was roughly half that of summer. So a simple starting point for water rationing is... ban lawns and watering lawns (if you don't like such bans, then I'd alternatively suggest changing water rates so that it's cost-exorbitant to water a lawn). If you want to live in a desert, you need to landscape your house appropriately for living in a desert. The next contentious point will be a readjustment of the water rates for agricultural perspectives. The simple truth of the matter is that residential water usage--especially if you remove lawn care from the equation--is highly recoverable as drinkable water, since almost all of that water goes back down the sewer pipes. Agricultural water usage is generally far less recoverable, especially if you're growing plants for export whose mass is mostly water (which means you are rather literally exporting water).

r00fus 4y ago
Given that non-residential is 80% of usage, it seems like that'd be where we should start looking at recycling water usage.
- wfhordie 4y ago
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Agricultural water is usually not for sale to supplement your residential usage. Your lawn or shower is competing with other residential uses, not agriculture.
    - kbutler 4y ago
      But agricultural water could be entered into the market for residential usage - the current legal structure incentivizes using the water for agriculture, rather than allowing reselling for higher-value-per-gallon uses. I was curious about the almond statistic above. Sounds like "1-3 gallons" is exaggerated, but that 1-gallon-per-almond is at least on the right order of magnitude, but farmers are working to reduce water use. https://farmtogether.com/learn/blog/dispelling-miconceptions-about-almonds-water-use https://farmtogether.com/learn/blog/dispelling-miconceptions...

rurp 4y ago

The water authority in Southern Nevada recently authorized 800,000 new housing connections. So one of the organizations that should be managing the water emergency is actively making it worse. The problem is that they make a lot more money on new connections than serving existing ones. So existing residents are (correctly) being told to restrict water, but then the same people saying that are turning around and greatly exacerbating the problem.

peachtree2 4y ago

Almonds in California use so much water it could feed 56 cities the size of Los Angeles (back-of-the-envelope math from publically available sources) It's not just people that at fault, but an agricultural sector that has no limits on its consumption do to the money and politics involved.

tzs 4y ago
Since only something like 0.03% of that water actually ends up in the almonds, you need to track what happens to that other 99.97% to determine the actual impact of almonds.
kk6mrp 4y ago
They do limit water consumption actually.

snarfy 4y ago

There really isn't a lot of reason for phoenix to exist. Before the invention of air conditioning it was merely a truck stop between the texas coast and the california cost. Everything there is artificially put there and the only thing making it possible is the water. If everyone tries to stay, the price of water will adjust accordingly. Any crisis with the water will be handled by government as well as they handled covid.

eloff 4y ago

I was just at lake Powell a couple weeks ago. It was very sad to see how low the water was. Lone rock is completely dry. Beaches where people used to park their boats are now up 80ft of cliffs. I couldn't help but think I was looking at climate change first hand. I know it's more complex than that, but the feeling was unshakable nonetheless. I think for now the solution is to raise the price of water for agricultural users and let the chips fall where they may. That's the vast majority of water use in the southwest. One could do this in a somewhat balanced way by offering some financial support for said farmers. But it has to be done.

wbl 4y ago

We do not need farms in Arizona when Michigan exists

zrail 4y ago
I know you're probably using Michigan just as a foil, but Michigan is sort of a weird case. The land that's able to be farmed is being farmed very well. The problem is that north of a certain point the land is just not very arable[1] due to a number of factors including soil quality and growing season length. [1]: https://project.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/ag_regions.html https://project.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/ag_regions.html
Galaxity 4y ago
Many of the crops grown in Arizona and southern California such as lettuce and spinach are grown there to supply the country during the winter season. Michigan couldn't replace that during the winter. So it's more of an issue that we would have to decide to only eat vegetables seasonally. No green leafs in winter. Or build vast greenhouses I suppose.

bart_spoon 4y ago

> Further, the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move. That’s not a solution for the number of people at stake. While I agree, we probably should start telling people to stop moving there. The places in the US that are getting the largest influx of people are the same places that are going to be impacted the most by climate change: the West and the South. Some of the fastest growing cities in the nation are in Utah and Arizona, the exact areas we are discussing here. I used to live in Utah and now live in the Midwest. A lot of people I know feel strongly that they would rather live in the West over the Midwest for various reasons, some of which I agree with, but I can't imagine moving back out there and taking on a mortgage in the area where it seems like the water crisis is a ticking time bomb. I'd love to be wrong, but if the worst case scenarios are realized, a lot of suffering will be happening to people who have put themselves in the situation well after the warning signs became widely recognized.

irrational 4y ago

> the answer is probably not to tell people to simply move What about telling people to stop building in these areas? Last time I looked they were still building new housing developments in Las Vegas! Of course, I also think people should stop building in Miami because of the ocean level rising.

aaaaaaaaata 4y ago

They'd better start exporting some sunlight. and not via fruit.