4 ms·

The wild political madness involved in the grand project to water the American West is detailed in Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert" (1986), and is a must-read f

The wild political madness involved in the grand project to water the American West is detailed in Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert" (1986), and is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the current situation. It was written before a climate-related megadrought was really on anyone's long-term radar, but it really explains a lot. For example, dams are only part of the water storage picture, there's also groundwater, and the water projects often had the goal of protecting groundwater (keeping the water table closer to the surface), but then once they'd provided water via a dam or aquaduct, the farmers would just expand the areas they were farming and groundwater extraction would often increase as a side effect. Humans really aren't that good at long-term planning, is one conclusion.

MooMooMilkParty 4y ago
Also worth reading, and considerably more up to date, is Science Be Dammed. https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/science-be-dammed https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/science-be-dammed
- ch4s3 4y ago
  This might be the best book on the topic. It covers in detail the hard math of water rights, and how more rights were apportioned than there is water in the river most years.
knodi123 4y ago
In the science fiction novel "The Water Knife" by Paolo Bacigalupi, characters are always name dropping "Cadillac Desert" and talking about how prophetic and what a must-read it is. Just as an aside.
micromacrofoot 4y ago
It's fun to imagine an alternate species that can plan practically for the future. Even a simple rule or two... like "don't put cities in inhospitable places" would be transformative. We've got plenty of room in places that aren't completely barren and devoid of water, though these pesky (and mostly imaginary) borders often manage to get in the way.
- kortilla 4y ago
  It’s fine to put houses in places without water and that might even be better since there is a lower risk of flooding. Use the places with water to grow food, use aqueducts to carry water in a controlled fashion to places where people live. New Orleans and basically all of Florida have tons of water. They are great examples of terrible places to build and we’re constantly subsidizing them to rebuild every year a hurricane rolls through.
  - formerkrogemp 4y ago
    > It’s fine to put houses in places without water and that might even be better since there is a lower risk of flooding. Use the places with water to grow food, use aqueducts to carry water in a controlled fashion to places where people live. This is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin. It is ok to put houses in places without water. It isn't okay to have too many houses in the desert. Entire towns and cities will be abandoned as this drought continues. Aqueducts won't solve that, nor will exporting unsustainable agriculture to other places where they will also run out of arable land/fertile topsoil given time with the exact same agricultural practices. > New Orleans and basically all of Florida have tons of water. They are great examples of terrible places to build and we’re constantly subsidizing them to rebuild every year a hurricane rolls through. This is sadly true. New Orleans has never recovered its population from before Katrina. Florida real estate is perpetually a deck of cards.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    I think you might be looking at my comment in too much of a binary way. You also shouldn't build houses in places that regularly flood either. We have more than enough land in hospitable places with abundant water, and no consistent flooding or other major disasters. Our shortsightedness alone probably leads to more than enough waste to house and feed the entirety of the planet. Moving huge amounts of people is of course a logistical nightmare, but it would have been much easier a few hundred years ago. Anyway, none of this is realistic because we're humans. Our foolishness is an inherent trait. If we can survive ourselves, it'll be out of pure luck.
atoav 4y ago
> Humans really aren't that good at long-term planning, is one conclusion. Especially not within a system that gives you cool prizes if you don't.
dqh 4y ago
> Humans really aren't that good at long-term planning, is one conclusion. I think the problem is long-term co-operation rather than planning. The temptation of short-term gain is always too great for someone.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Humans are actually pretty good at long term planning. What we’re not good at is solving externalities. The problem with water usage is that we haven’t created a system that aligns incentives with our goals. Why would any farmer conserve water when they think the farm next door isn’t? Since water is a shared resource if you don’t use it someone else will.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Yeah we need to ditch the legacy water allocation methods and meter everyone. Then we can just jack up the price as necessary.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    That was discussed in California a few years ago when the water situation was bad. It turns out to be very complex, and intertwined with other states etc. Some marginal changes were made, and then the next winter was very wet.
- algoatecorn 4y ago
  You hit the nail on the head. Today I was reading this (free) book chapter on the Sustainable Development Goals Series. Three quotes really stuck out to me. 1. Agri-food systems' pervasive externalities imply a divergence between the market price of foods and their social cost. 2. The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear that healthfulness, equity, resilience, and sustainability are interlinked, pre-competitive issues. 3. When faced with massive, systemic, even existential challenges, our ancestors envisioned and achieved remarkable innovations that ultimately begat the agri-food systems we have today, for good or for ill. It is time to do so again. As we address these problems, we should really keep in mind the interconnectedness of water, food, health, environment, and society. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-88802-2_7 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-88802-2_...
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    > Agri-food systems' pervasive externalities imply a divergence between the market price of foods and their social cost. We produce more food on less land than ever. Nutrient dense food is available year round at an affordable cost to almost everyone for the first time in history. Increasingly big ag is switching to drip irrigation and no till where that is appropriate. There's are also a growing body of research into how to manage large farms with lower fertilizer inputs. Things are changing and improving, just unevenly and incrementally. The ability for the world to produce a huge surplus of calories and to trade them as commodities across borders IS resilience.
ianai 4y ago
And this is a pretty funny/wild take on how water rights can play out in the US Southwest (Milagro beanfield war). All too true to life. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milagro_Beanfield_War_(novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milagro_Beanfield_War_(n...
troutwine 4y ago
You might also like William Vollmann's "Imperial".

MooMooMilkParty 4y ago

Also worth reading, and considerably more up to date, is Science Be Dammed. https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/science-be-dammed https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/science-be-dammed

ch4s3 4y ago
This might be the best book on the topic. It covers in detail the hard math of water rights, and how more rights were apportioned than there is water in the river most years.

knodi123 4y ago

In the science fiction novel "The Water Knife" by Paolo Bacigalupi, characters are always name dropping "Cadillac Desert" and talking about how prophetic and what a must-read it is. Just as an aside.

micromacrofoot 4y ago

It's fun to imagine an alternate species that can plan practically for the future. Even a simple rule or two... like "don't put cities in inhospitable places" would be transformative. We've got plenty of room in places that aren't completely barren and devoid of water, though these pesky (and mostly imaginary) borders often manage to get in the way.

kortilla 4y ago
It’s fine to put houses in places without water and that might even be better since there is a lower risk of flooding. Use the places with water to grow food, use aqueducts to carry water in a controlled fashion to places where people live. New Orleans and basically all of Florida have tons of water. They are great examples of terrible places to build and we’re constantly subsidizing them to rebuild every year a hurricane rolls through.
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  > It’s fine to put houses in places without water and that might even be better since there is a lower risk of flooding. Use the places with water to grow food, use aqueducts to carry water in a controlled fashion to places where people live. This is so boneheaded I don't know where to begin. It is ok to put houses in places without water. It isn't okay to have too many houses in the desert. Entire towns and cities will be abandoned as this drought continues. Aqueducts won't solve that, nor will exporting unsustainable agriculture to other places where they will also run out of arable land/fertile topsoil given time with the exact same agricultural practices. > New Orleans and basically all of Florida have tons of water. They are great examples of terrible places to build and we’re constantly subsidizing them to rebuild every year a hurricane rolls through. This is sadly true. New Orleans has never recovered its population from before Katrina. Florida real estate is perpetually a deck of cards.
- micromacrofoot 4y ago
  I think you might be looking at my comment in too much of a binary way. You also shouldn't build houses in places that regularly flood either. We have more than enough land in hospitable places with abundant water, and no consistent flooding or other major disasters. Our shortsightedness alone probably leads to more than enough waste to house and feed the entirety of the planet. Moving huge amounts of people is of course a logistical nightmare, but it would have been much easier a few hundred years ago. Anyway, none of this is realistic because we're humans. Our foolishness is an inherent trait. If we can survive ourselves, it'll be out of pure luck.

atoav 4y ago

> Humans really aren't that good at long-term planning, is one conclusion. Especially not within a system that gives you cool prizes if you don't.

dqh 4y ago

> Humans really aren't that good at long-term planning, is one conclusion. I think the problem is long-term co-operation rather than planning. The temptation of short-term gain is always too great for someone.

colinmhayes 4y ago

Humans are actually pretty good at long term planning. What we’re not good at is solving externalities. The problem with water usage is that we haven’t created a system that aligns incentives with our goals. Why would any farmer conserve water when they think the farm next door isn’t? Since water is a shared resource if you don’t use it someone else will.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Yeah we need to ditch the legacy water allocation methods and meter everyone. Then we can just jack up the price as necessary.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  That was discussed in California a few years ago when the water situation was bad. It turns out to be very complex, and intertwined with other states etc. Some marginal changes were made, and then the next winter was very wet.
algoatecorn 4y ago
You hit the nail on the head. Today I was reading this (free) book chapter on the Sustainable Development Goals Series. Three quotes really stuck out to me. 1. Agri-food systems' pervasive externalities imply a divergence between the market price of foods and their social cost. 2. The COVID-19 pandemic has made clear that healthfulness, equity, resilience, and sustainability are interlinked, pre-competitive issues. 3. When faced with massive, systemic, even existential challenges, our ancestors envisioned and achieved remarkable innovations that ultimately begat the agri-food systems we have today, for good or for ill. It is time to do so again. As we address these problems, we should really keep in mind the interconnectedness of water, food, health, environment, and society. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-88802-2_7 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-88802-2_...
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > Agri-food systems' pervasive externalities imply a divergence between the market price of foods and their social cost. We produce more food on less land than ever. Nutrient dense food is available year round at an affordable cost to almost everyone for the first time in history. Increasingly big ag is switching to drip irrigation and no till where that is appropriate. There's are also a growing body of research into how to manage large farms with lower fertilizer inputs. Things are changing and improving, just unevenly and incrementally. The ability for the world to produce a huge surplus of calories and to trade them as commodities across borders IS resilience.

ianai 4y ago

And this is a pretty funny/wild take on how water rights can play out in the US Southwest (Milagro beanfield war). All too true to life. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milagro_Beanfield_War_(novel) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Milagro_Beanfield_War_(n...

troutwine 4y ago

You might also like William Vollmann's "Imperial".