> 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,

> 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.