4 ms·

Year-to-year variability isn't enough to make up for cumulative multi-year effects. See this UC Boulder webinar - here's the timepoint where they discuss mult

Year-to-year variability isn't enough to make up for cumulative multi-year effects. See this UC Boulder webinar - here's the timepoint where they discuss multi-year droughts: https://youtu.be/YhF9sOUpe9Y?t=1868 https://youtu.be/YhF9sOUpe9Y?t=1868 1931-1937 1959-1964 1988-1992 2000-2005 2012-present Notice the increasing tempo of drought frequency? That's in line with long-term climate model predictions of the drying of the American Southwest, linked to a general trend of rising interior temperatures in midlatitude continental zones (in particular, decreased soil moisture, declining summer snowpack, possibly expanding Hadley cell circulation). See also the 2000-present graph at the bottom of this page: https://www.drought.gov/states/colorado https://www.drought.gov/states/colorado It might be true that these reservoirs could be refilled if most outflow was eliminated, but that would mean the end of regional agriculture and severe restrictions on household water use across the entire region.

WalterBright 4y ago
> severe restrictions Why do people always turn to regulation and rationing rather than simply increasing the price of water?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Essentially the effect is the same, but one reason is reducing conflict. A bidding war over water rights, for example, might mean that some regions don't get enough water to survive while others get enough to keep their golf courses green. Historically in the American West, that kind of thing has led to people dynamiting canals and so on. A more balanced option might be setting a minimal delivery baseline for everyone in the watershed, with prices rising steeply above that baseline for the remaining water. This would encourage adoption of recycling, aka 'toilet-to-tap'...
- Ancalagon 4y ago
  Not to mention restricting water use for agriculture would more than solve the problem for residential users.
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  Because the people with the most money (golf courses) and the people with the most legitimate need for water (thirst) are not the same people. Many Americans have this bizarre fixation on the idea that markets are magic and freedom means that whoever has the most money gets whatever they want. Sorry but that is an incredibly cruel and inefficient way to make decisions.
  - RhysU 4y ago
    I would rather accept the wisdom of the cruel and inefficient markets, in which literally the whole world has input in some fashion, over the edicts issued by a local board of the well-connected and appointed.
    - fallingfrog 4y ago
      No, the world's people are not what has the input- the world's money does. Very different. Money does not think or feel, it's just a measure of power. Money is power. If you think money should purely decide this question you are in effect saying "whoever is the most powerful gets what they want", which is anti-civilization. Markets only function at all because powerful governments moderate and regulate them. Otherwise the world would quickly decay into a hobbsian war of all against all. Unregulated markets always self-destruct. Rationing on one level or another is the only reason that markets in limited areas are even possible. Try having markets without "rationing" who can print money, for example.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        > Unregulated markets always self-destruct. I hadn't noticed the US self-destructing. Maybe I read the wrong history books?
        fallingfrog 4y ago
        Because our markets are tightly regulated. And where they aren’t you get things like the financial crisis.

WalterBright 4y ago

> severe restrictions Why do people always turn to regulation and rationing rather than simply increasing the price of water?

photochemsyn 4y ago
Essentially the effect is the same, but one reason is reducing conflict. A bidding war over water rights, for example, might mean that some regions don't get enough water to survive while others get enough to keep their golf courses green. Historically in the American West, that kind of thing has led to people dynamiting canals and so on. A more balanced option might be setting a minimal delivery baseline for everyone in the watershed, with prices rising steeply above that baseline for the remaining water. This would encourage adoption of recycling, aka 'toilet-to-tap'...
Ancalagon 4y ago
Not to mention restricting water use for agriculture would more than solve the problem for residential users.
fallingfrog 4y ago
Because the people with the most money (golf courses) and the people with the most legitimate need for water (thirst) are not the same people. Many Americans have this bizarre fixation on the idea that markets are magic and freedom means that whoever has the most money gets whatever they want. Sorry but that is an incredibly cruel and inefficient way to make decisions.
- RhysU 4y ago
  I would rather accept the wisdom of the cruel and inefficient markets, in which literally the whole world has input in some fashion, over the edicts issued by a local board of the well-connected and appointed.
  - fallingfrog 4y ago
    No, the world's people are not what has the input- the world's money does. Very different. Money does not think or feel, it's just a measure of power. Money is power. If you think money should purely decide this question you are in effect saying "whoever is the most powerful gets what they want", which is anti-civilization. Markets only function at all because powerful governments moderate and regulate them. Otherwise the world would quickly decay into a hobbsian war of all against all. Unregulated markets always self-destruct. Rationing on one level or another is the only reason that markets in limited areas are even possible. Try having markets without "rationing" who can print money, for example.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      > Unregulated markets always self-destruct. I hadn't noticed the US self-destructing. Maybe I read the wrong history books?
      - fallingfrog 4y ago
        Because our markets are tightly regulated. And where they aren’t you get things like the financial crisis.