4 ms·
The first thing to point out is that some like to hijack the water shortage as being related to climate change. It isn't. It's based simply on inaccurate projec
by jmyeet 5y ago
The first thing to point out is that some like to hijack the water shortage as being related to climate change. It isn't. It's based simply on inaccurate projections of how much water would flow in and increased usage. That's it.
What I find infuriating is:
1. Water rights for agriculture are a particular problem. As if we don't subsidize agriculture enough (eg [1]);
2. There really should be more water restrictions and there should've been for years already; and (this is the big one)
3. We're making consumers (further) subsidize agriculture by funding and paying for expensive desalinated water.
[1]: https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-10-10/colorado-river-california-farmers-dry-fields-fallow-drought https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2021-10-10/colorad...
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoWhat do you mean "It isn't"? Yes, the projections were inaccurate, but the reason they were inaccurate is that they climate change has and will continue to decrease the amount of water that falls in the region.
- jmyeet 5y agoYou'll see a lot of charts on the water levels of Lake Powell, for example. It's easy to paint a picture of drought and/or climate change and that's what people do. But you can't just look at the net. You have to look at inflows vs outflows. Here's one such study on supply and demand [1]: > Apportioned water in the Basin exceeds the in the Lower Basin despite recently approximate 100-year record (1906 through experiencing the worst 11-year drought in the 2011) Basin-wide average long-term historical last century. However, there have been natural flow2 of about 16.4 million acre-feet periodic shortages throughout the Upper (maf). Note the increasing consumption from Figure 2. [1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/ColoradoRiver/CRBS_Executive_Summary_FINAL.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jimnotgym 5y agoWhy, I wonder, does the article talk about a massive drought if that is not a factor?
- banannaise 5y agoIt's only a "massive drought" in comparison to excessively rosy projections. Unfortunately, that's the default position, and a lot of material simply runs with it.
- titzer 5y agohttps://www.drought.gov/current-conditions https://www.drought.gov/current-conditions
- margalabargala 5y agoYes indeed- everyone agrees that based on current definitions of drought, large areas are in drought. The argument being made here is that rather than some current conditions being considered "drought" compared to what's "normal", current conditions ought be considered "normal", as the current definition of "normal" does not accurately reflect what is in fact normal for some of these areas.
- kokanee 5y ago> It's based simply on inaccurate projections of how much water would flow in This ignores the fact that both projections and actual flow are trending downward. If the problem were just bad data, we would be just as likely to have a surplus as a deficit.
- manquer 5y agoEqual probability of both errors is only if the errors were random. The errors or poor data could be intentional so the outcome is favorable to someone
- russdill 5y agoIt's really hard to argue that climate change isn't a component. The problem may still exist without climate change, that's an argument that certainly can be made.
- burkaman 5y agoWhy were the projections inaccurate?
- s1artibartfast 5y agoWater rights aren't a subsidy, but Water ownership is part of the problem. If the state wants water someone else owns, they should buy it.
- idiotsecant 5y agoIf we're going to subsidize something agriculture is one of the things i'd be willing to foot the bill for. The invisible hand of the market is not a good way to make sure that everyone stays fed.
- spiderice 5y agoI'm not expert, but I think you're oversimplifying a real problem. My understanding is that we're giving water to farmers at such a cheap price, that they are essentially wasting it on crops that shouldn't be grown where they are growing them. Which costs us ridiculous amounts of water in order to get cheap luxury crops, at the cost of other things. If it were about keeping people fed.. well, that really isn't an issue. We're REALLY efficient at farming enough crops to keep people fed, even without wasting water. edit: after reading some other comments, it's perhaps inaccurate to say that we're giving agriculture the water. And it sounds more like they bought it years ago at a ridiculously cheap price and are still benefiting from that.
- rurp 5y agoBut why grow that food in a desert where residents are facing critical water shortages?
- time_to_smile 5y agoWhile you are absolutely correct that there are plenty of problematic issues around water management in the West that would have created a problem like this eventually even in a world without climate change, it is absolutely the case that aridification of the region, caused by climate change, is exacerbating the issue. This is similar to the issue regarding forest fires in the West cost. A huge factor is mismanagement of controlled burns in the forests. However, years of record drought absolutely do increase the probability of a forest fire. Rather than falsely say "it isn't", it's better dismiss the false narrative that this is completely unavoidable because of climate change. With much better water management we could have postponed the impact of climate change quite a while. The bigger issue is that climate change is being used as an excuse to mask decades of mismanagement of water resources in this region. I also agree with your point that the real conversation should be entirely "what are we going to do about agriculture in deserts and regions that are soon to be deserts?"
- ZoomerCretin 5y agoAs someone that enjoys being able to eat, I think that agricultural subsidies are far better than the alternative.