7 ms·

Arizona actually already does this, in profound quantities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_

Arizona actually already does this, in profound quantities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Arizona_Project The problem isn't the pipes, obviously. It's the fact that the 1922 agreement that divided up the water in the Colorado River (upon which Arizona depends) incorrectly calculated the amount of water available in the river every year. The Colorado River Compact divides up 20 million acre-feet of water. Modern analyses show that the Colorado river's average flow is about 15.5 million acre feet, and has been less than 13 million acre-feet during the last decade or so. These reductions curtail who gets what water. https://www.5280.com/how-the-100-year-old-colorado-river-compact-laid-the-foundation-for-the-wests-current-water-crisis/ https://www.5280.com/how-the-100-year-old-colorado-river-com...

adam_arthur 4y ago
And the Colorado River is the only water source in North America right? People have a fetishization with hyping up disappearing water sources as leading to mass forced desertions of population centers, which is not rooted in any kind of reality. We can already pipe oil from texas to Canada with ease, we can do the same from Canada to Arizona with water. Or wherever else. The economics and viability of it is obvious and clear. Residents of water scarce areas would pay marginally higher taxes to support this
- tony_cannistra 4y ago
  > People have a fetishization with hyping up disappearing water sources as leading to mass forced desertions of population centers, which is not rooted in any kind of reality. I have never heard this. Where are you reading that? Disappearing water sources are a reality. Time and time again, long pipelines like what you suggest just aren't viable. I'd suggest you enjoy some fact-based reporting on the topic: https://grist.org/agriculture/drought-water-pipeline-cost-west-solution-infrastructure/ https://grist.org/agriculture/drought-water-pipeline-cost-we... The near- and medium-term solutions we need are solely in use reduction. Period.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    Oil pipelines have already proven the economic viability. The choice of abandoning trillions of real estate vs a 10s of billions infrastructure project is obvious. Article cites the cost as $14B which is effectively nothing vs the alternative. Even $100B is nothing. These two TSMC fabs are $40B alone So much fearmongering from economically illiterate people. Use your brain
    - tony_cannistra 4y ago
      I hate to break it to you, but your "economically illiterate people" might actually understand some fundamental social and political realities that you've not yet had the chance to reckon with. Not to mention the physical realities of water resources. Your comparison to oil pipelines is nonsense. Where to start: privatization, a global commodity market, relative scarcity, massive extractive capex.... Sure, we built oil pipelines easily in the past. How difficult has it become? Surely the capital exists. Why don't we build more? Nobody is talking about abandoning real estate. The tragedy of people like you is that you provide a half-compelling distraction. People (cities/farmers/industry) need to use less water. The longer it takes to get people to realize this, the harder it is to fix.
      - adam_arthur 4y ago
        Why would we practice conservation when we can spend $30-50B in capex amortized over 50 years via marginally higher taxes on the populace with minimal opex to solve the problem permanently? Thats why they are economically illiterate. The obvious and more cost effective choice will win in the end, and it doesn’t involve austerity and suffering and repentance for high water use
        tony_cannistra 4y ago
        Because it wouldn't solve the problem permanently. The folks who wrote the Colorado River Compact thought they were solving the problem of dividing the river's water permanently, too. They made it worse. I don't disagree that economics are a critical part of this conversation. But I don't understand how you're making the argument that enabling more water use, not less, is cost effective. Even amortized across 50 years, $30B is more than the $0B required if we just use less water. None of this even comes anywhere near discussing the potential deleterious ecological (and economic!) impacts of draining water-rich ecosystems by piping their water elsewhere. Look to the phase-out of leaded gasoline as a great example of how externalities matter.
- kortex 4y ago
  > We can already pipe oil from texas to Canada with ease, we can do the same from Canada to Arizona with water. Or wherever else. The economics and viability of it is obvious and clear. Oil and gas are far more value dense than water. Pipeline transport adds somewhere around $5-20 per barrel of oil, or $0.03/L. Some quick googling suggests Phoenix residents pay around $0.00022/L. That's a factor of 142x.
  - adam_arthur 4y ago
    If they pay $0.00022/L then its really not that scarce after all huh? True scarcity would drive prices up and increase cost viability of transport, obviously. The reason its not done right now is because its not an imminent problem
    - idontknowifican 4y ago
      it’s an essential for life and the consumer price reflects heavy subsidies

adam_arthur 4y ago

And the Colorado River is the only water source in North America right? People have a fetishization with hyping up disappearing water sources as leading to mass forced desertions of population centers, which is not rooted in any kind of reality. We can already pipe oil from texas to Canada with ease, we can do the same from Canada to Arizona with water. Or wherever else. The economics and viability of it is obvious and clear. Residents of water scarce areas would pay marginally higher taxes to support this

tony_cannistra 4y ago
> People have a fetishization with hyping up disappearing water sources as leading to mass forced desertions of population centers, which is not rooted in any kind of reality. I have never heard this. Where are you reading that? Disappearing water sources are a reality. Time and time again, long pipelines like what you suggest just aren't viable. I'd suggest you enjoy some fact-based reporting on the topic: https://grist.org/agriculture/drought-water-pipeline-cost-west-solution-infrastructure/ https://grist.org/agriculture/drought-water-pipeline-cost-we... The near- and medium-term solutions we need are solely in use reduction. Period.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  Oil pipelines have already proven the economic viability. The choice of abandoning trillions of real estate vs a 10s of billions infrastructure project is obvious. Article cites the cost as $14B which is effectively nothing vs the alternative. Even $100B is nothing. These two TSMC fabs are $40B alone So much fearmongering from economically illiterate people. Use your brain
  - tony_cannistra 4y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but your "economically illiterate people" might actually understand some fundamental social and political realities that you've not yet had the chance to reckon with. Not to mention the physical realities of water resources. Your comparison to oil pipelines is nonsense. Where to start: privatization, a global commodity market, relative scarcity, massive extractive capex.... Sure, we built oil pipelines easily in the past. How difficult has it become? Surely the capital exists. Why don't we build more? Nobody is talking about abandoning real estate. The tragedy of people like you is that you provide a half-compelling distraction. People (cities/farmers/industry) need to use less water. The longer it takes to get people to realize this, the harder it is to fix.
    - adam_arthur 4y ago
      Why would we practice conservation when we can spend $30-50B in capex amortized over 50 years via marginally higher taxes on the populace with minimal opex to solve the problem permanently? Thats why they are economically illiterate. The obvious and more cost effective choice will win in the end, and it doesn’t involve austerity and suffering and repentance for high water use
      - tony_cannistra 4y ago
        Because it wouldn't solve the problem permanently. The folks who wrote the Colorado River Compact thought they were solving the problem of dividing the river's water permanently, too. They made it worse. I don't disagree that economics are a critical part of this conversation. But I don't understand how you're making the argument that enabling more water use, not less, is cost effective. Even amortized across 50 years, $30B is more than the $0B required if we just use less water. None of this even comes anywhere near discussing the potential deleterious ecological (and economic!) impacts of draining water-rich ecosystems by piping their water elsewhere. Look to the phase-out of leaded gasoline as a great example of how externalities matter.
kortex 4y ago
> We can already pipe oil from texas to Canada with ease, we can do the same from Canada to Arizona with water. Or wherever else. The economics and viability of it is obvious and clear. Oil and gas are far more value dense than water. Pipeline transport adds somewhere around $5-20 per barrel of oil, or $0.03/L. Some quick googling suggests Phoenix residents pay around $0.00022/L. That's a factor of 142x.
- adam_arthur 4y ago
  If they pay $0.00022/L then its really not that scarce after all huh? True scarcity would drive prices up and increase cost viability of transport, obviously. The reason its not done right now is because its not an imminent problem
  - idontknowifican 4y ago
    it’s an essential for life and the consumer price reflects heavy subsidies