4 ms·

Rather cause and effect. We need efficient mitigations to problems occurring right now, not gestures that would have an effect 50 years from now, if only the re

Rather cause and effect. We need efficient mitigations to problems occurring right now, not gestures that would have an effect 50 years from now, if only the rest of the world followed suit.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The mitigations are to stop development and water intensive agriculture, and anyone who runs on that platform won’t be elected. The problem will, painfully, solve itself when water supplies are exhausted.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Agriculture typically uses 75-80% of the water in southwestern states. Residential is around 7% (similar to losses from evaporation). Residential per-capita use has been declining for decades. Agricultural use per acre or flat or rising. Stopping development has little to do with the water issues in the SW (it might still be a good idea, but this is not the main reason why)
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    I agree with you regarding the ratios you mention. Importantly, the Colorado River Compact was established during an atypically wet cycle, and even with ag reductions, I’d argue no additional pressure should be placed on the watershed due to long duration droughts becoming more frequent. We might yet have to bring water from elsewhere, no further pressure should be incurred.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      The CRT was established after an atypically wet cycle, by people who were decidedly incurious about long term precipitation patterns. http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-about-the-colorado-rivers-flow-100-years-ago-in-compact-negotiations/ http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-ab... We would barely have to cut agricultural use in order to completely cover the water needs of doubling the entire population of the US southwest. Yes, surface and ground water sources are "stressed", but residential use is only going to get more and more efficient on a per-capita basis. Even though growing population creates more absolute need, in as world where agriculture is flood-irrigating fields or spray irrigating alfalfa (losing an outrageous amount to evaporation), we should start with the "easy" problems first. Pay farmers to install drip systems, for a start.
  - lovich 4y ago
    It does not change the fact that the area is becoming unliveable without massive investment. Why should the rest of the country subsidize these people lifestyle choices to live in an inhospitable area? I’d be willing to support subsidizing moving them to a new location that’s better suited to living in, but I have no interest in helping pay for people to spit in reality’s eye so they can live in a place they have emotional/cultural ties to
    - bagels 4y ago
      Unfortunately this thinking applies to many places in the US when it comes to weather and climate disasters. Midwest river flooding, hurricanes all through the gulf coast, rising sea levels, tornadoes, New York was flooded from a hurricane, and Texas was pretty ravaged by some cold weather recently. What place is so perfect for people to live in that doesn't face any challenges from climate change?
      - lovich 4y ago
        Probably no where permanent. They’ll have to move to the locations that fit their current needs much as I and many other economic migrants. If they do not have the resources to make the move, I have complete empathy for them and am willing to vote for politicians who will allocate my tax dollars towards helping those people out of their current issue. If, however, they refuse to move because of some non economic reason then that is a lifestyle choice they will have to shoulder the burden of. If one of my representative politicians tries to use my tax dollars to help them continue their untenable lifestyle choices I will vote for their competitor. Also > Midwest river flooding, hurricanes all through the gulf coast, rising sea levels, tornadoes, New York was flooded from a hurricane, and Texas was pretty ravaged by some cold weather recently Don’t include Texas in that. The other groups have had weather systems of increasing severity that are massively expensive to build against. Texas had weather they declared was unforseeable when they had hit the temperature multiple times in the previous 20-30 years and refused to spend a relatively small amount of money to winterize their generators and mitigate the problem.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  - htlion 4y ago
    Residential is only 7% if you put the burden on the producer (agriculture) and not the consumer (people). Every time that such numbers are shared, most people quickly jumps to "farmers should pay more attention / switch cultures". Very rarely someone will talk about the impacts: a change of diet for consumers, most likely with less meat (though depends on the area). It is easy to assume that the water you consume only comes from the tap, but 1kg of beef meat costs 15,000 litres of water to produce [1]. Moreover, at a larger scale: "One third of this volume is for the beef cattle sector; another 19% for the dairy cattle sector." [1]. So instead of trying to find the scapegoat that supposedly consumes most of our water, we should all remember that we, meat eaters, are one of the main culprits here ! [1] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Not really. I live in NM. The agriculture sector here produces less than 8% of both the calories and pounds of food consumed within the state. Most of the beef production in NM is exported out of state (and country). So if the "burden is on the consumer", it's on people who don't live in US southwest, and that has to stop. The fever dreams of the 1930s/40s bureau of reclamation have done so much damage.
      - htlion 4y ago
        We need to compare the imported water from food and the exported water from food. Also, considering NM is a bit tricky. With 7 inhabitants /km2, NM is a very rural state, so it is expected that it would export its food. I would be very interested in the water balance for the US, knowing that we import a lot of soy for cattle.
    - danaris 4y ago
      People will buy roughly the same amount of almonds whether they're produced in California or Ohio[0]. Claiming that we have to attribute agricultural water (ab)use to the consumer is just absolving the producers of any and all responsibility for destructive, short-sighted decisions about where and how to produce. [0] Or any other place with a reasonable natural amount of rainfall. Nothing special about Ohio for this purpose.
Scarblac 4y ago
They said the same thing 50 years ago. You need both, as it's only going to get worse, and we can do something about how quickly.
- troyvit 4y ago
  Yeah exactly. We need to solve this current problem with immediate solutions (if those exist), but we need need need to start thinking 50 years into the future now with the choices we make.

Rather cause and effect. We need efficient mitigations to problems occurring right now, not gestures that would have an effect 50 years from now, if only the rest of the world followed suit.

toomuchtodo 4y ago

The mitigations are to stop development and water intensive agriculture, and anyone who runs on that platform won’t be elected. The problem will, painfully, solve itself when water supplies are exhausted.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Agriculture typically uses 75-80% of the water in southwestern states. Residential is around 7% (similar to losses from evaporation). Residential per-capita use has been declining for decades. Agricultural use per acre or flat or rising. Stopping development has little to do with the water issues in the SW (it might still be a good idea, but this is not the main reason why)
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  I agree with you regarding the ratios you mention. Importantly, the Colorado River Compact was established during an atypically wet cycle, and even with ag reductions, I’d argue no additional pressure should be placed on the watershed due to long duration droughts becoming more frequent. We might yet have to bring water from elsewhere, no further pressure should be incurred.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    The CRT was established after an atypically wet cycle, by people who were decidedly incurious about long term precipitation patterns. http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-about-the-colorado-rivers-flow-100-years-ago-in-compact-negotiations/ http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-ab... We would barely have to cut agricultural use in order to completely cover the water needs of doubling the entire population of the US southwest. Yes, surface and ground water sources are "stressed", but residential use is only going to get more and more efficient on a per-capita basis. Even though growing population creates more absolute need, in as world where agriculture is flood-irrigating fields or spray irrigating alfalfa (losing an outrageous amount to evaporation), we should start with the "easy" problems first. Pay farmers to install drip systems, for a start.
- lovich 4y ago
  It does not change the fact that the area is becoming unliveable without massive investment. Why should the rest of the country subsidize these people lifestyle choices to live in an inhospitable area? I’d be willing to support subsidizing moving them to a new location that’s better suited to living in, but I have no interest in helping pay for people to spit in reality’s eye so they can live in a place they have emotional/cultural ties to
  - bagels 4y ago
    Unfortunately this thinking applies to many places in the US when it comes to weather and climate disasters. Midwest river flooding, hurricanes all through the gulf coast, rising sea levels, tornadoes, New York was flooded from a hurricane, and Texas was pretty ravaged by some cold weather recently. What place is so perfect for people to live in that doesn't face any challenges from climate change?
    - lovich 4y ago
      Probably no where permanent. They’ll have to move to the locations that fit their current needs much as I and many other economic migrants. If they do not have the resources to make the move, I have complete empathy for them and am willing to vote for politicians who will allocate my tax dollars towards helping those people out of their current issue. If, however, they refuse to move because of some non economic reason then that is a lifestyle choice they will have to shoulder the burden of. If one of my representative politicians tries to use my tax dollars to help them continue their untenable lifestyle choices I will vote for their competitor. Also > Midwest river flooding, hurricanes all through the gulf coast, rising sea levels, tornadoes, New York was flooded from a hurricane, and Texas was pretty ravaged by some cold weather recently Don’t include Texas in that. The other groups have had weather systems of increasing severity that are massively expensive to build against. Texas had weather they declared was unforseeable when they had hit the temperature multiple times in the previous 20-30 years and refused to spend a relatively small amount of money to winterize their generators and mitigate the problem.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
- htlion 4y ago
  Residential is only 7% if you put the burden on the producer (agriculture) and not the consumer (people). Every time that such numbers are shared, most people quickly jumps to "farmers should pay more attention / switch cultures". Very rarely someone will talk about the impacts: a change of diet for consumers, most likely with less meat (though depends on the area). It is easy to assume that the water you consume only comes from the tap, but 1kg of beef meat costs 15,000 litres of water to produce [1]. Moreover, at a larger scale: "One third of this volume is for the beef cattle sector; another 19% for the dairy cattle sector." [1]. So instead of trying to find the scapegoat that supposedly consumes most of our water, we should all remember that we, meat eaters, are one of the main culprits here ! [1] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Not really. I live in NM. The agriculture sector here produces less than 8% of both the calories and pounds of food consumed within the state. Most of the beef production in NM is exported out of state (and country). So if the "burden is on the consumer", it's on people who don't live in US southwest, and that has to stop. The fever dreams of the 1930s/40s bureau of reclamation have done so much damage.
    - htlion 4y ago
      We need to compare the imported water from food and the exported water from food. Also, considering NM is a bit tricky. With 7 inhabitants /km2, NM is a very rural state, so it is expected that it would export its food. I would be very interested in the water balance for the US, knowing that we import a lot of soy for cattle.
  - danaris 4y ago
    People will buy roughly the same amount of almonds whether they're produced in California or Ohio[0]. Claiming that we have to attribute agricultural water (ab)use to the consumer is just absolving the producers of any and all responsibility for destructive, short-sighted decisions about where and how to produce. [0] Or any other place with a reasonable natural amount of rainfall. Nothing special about Ohio for this purpose.

Scarblac 4y ago

They said the same thing 50 years ago. You need both, as it's only going to get worse, and we can do something about how quickly.

troyvit 4y ago
Yeah exactly. We need to solve this current problem with immediate solutions (if those exist), but we need need need to start thinking 50 years into the future now with the choices we make.