3 ms·
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
by 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.
- throwntoday 4y agoI don't think you appreciate just how much water the northern part of the continent has.
- tony_cannistra 4y agoActually, I do. I've lived there. Generally speaking, substantial alterations to hydrological regimes can cause deleterious cascading ecological effects. Just look toward the literature on the hydrological (and consequential ecological) effects of dams (necessary to divert water) for examples. One of particular interest is dams' tendency to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding events, which are characteristically necessary for much of the functioning of floodplain ecosystems such as those you're describing. Such reductions can wreak havoc on biodiversity in these regions.
- throwntoday 4y agoI only meant that the region which has an abundance of water which largely goes to waste can sell their excess via pipelines to the lower 48 wherever there is a dire need.