4 ms·

>urban water use is not the problem even if it's what people see every day Urban water use (e.g. your lawn and your golf course) generates almost no taxable ac

>urban water use is not the problem even if it's what people see every day Urban water use (e.g. your lawn and your golf course) generates almost no taxable activity. Agricultural water use magically something that was of no value to the state into revenue. I have no hope the state curtails agricultural use before everything falls apart. It will however, curtail urban water use long before they get around to anything serious about agriculture. Look at how fisheries have historically been managed. First they make it hard for the small time operators who are of no concern to the state. Then they let it run until it collapses. Then with that revenue already gone they finally get off their butts and implement something. Then 30yr later things maybe start working again. I hope I'm wrong, but in the absence of hardliner ideologues following the money is a very accurate predictor of how large sociopathic entities comprised of many humans who are "just doing their jobs" (e.g. states) act.

masklinn 4y ago
> Urban water use generates almost no taxable activity. Aside from the entire urban economic activity? It's rather difficult to have a city without water.
- 8note 4y ago
  You can have a city with brown lawns though
  - Someone1234 4y ago
    The Church and Utah governments are also the biggest waster there too. That is also political. The whole messaging around this is disingenuous. Urban water usage is a small subset, and even within that category individual citizens are a small subset, but yet most of the PR/"make changes" have been focused on a minority of a minority.
    - lost_tourist 4y ago
      It's a literal "solve the 90% problem first" but right wing people like to blame democrats pointing with one finger while pocketing cash from their industrial, eco-killing practices with the other hand. That's the way it has always been. They will have enough money to move out of Utah when it goes dry. The other 99% who were dumb enough to be duped by them will suffer and starve.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      The focus is on the Urban water users because they are the ones that are facing the problem and need a solution. They can do that either by reducing water usage or procuring more water.
      - Someone1234 4y ago
        Urban users cannot reduce water usage enough to solve the problem.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think that is debatable. A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. Church and government water use you mention also fall under the control of the urban governments. That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water.
        masklinn 4y ago
        > I think that is debatable. It's not. Saving the great salt lake requires a water consumption reduction larger than total urban consumption in Utah. You can't get 1.5 million acre-feet out of a box which contains half a million. > A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. That's literally pulled out of your ass with no supporting evidence, and even if it were true it'd still be nowhere near what's needed. > That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water. No there is not always the option of purchasing the thing everyone lacks.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think we are talking about two different subjects. I was talking about ensuring enough water for urban users to live and you are talking about maintaining the great salt lake. This seems to be the confusion.
toofy 4y ago
> I hope I'm wrong, but in the absence of hardliner ideologues following the money is a very accurate predictor of how large sociopathic entities comprised of many humans who are "just doing their jobs" (e.g. states) act. i was with you until the bit about “the state”. from what i understand of the situation, the government isn’t watering the rocky, dry, dusty chunks of land that are being used as farms. these are privately owned individuals and companies throwing water away. if the state (whether utah, or federal) declares that its absurd to waste water attempting to grow crops in _the desert_ then certain people will declare the government is unfairly throwing its weight around. the coming water wars are gonna be such a mess unless steps are taken now to mitigate. related sidenote: i vaguely remember reading a few years ago that oil barons were buying up land all over, separating the water rights and reselling the land minus the water rights. does anyone know of any good recent studies or reading on this?

masklinn 4y ago

> Urban water use generates almost no taxable activity. Aside from the entire urban economic activity? It's rather difficult to have a city without water.

8note 4y ago
You can have a city with brown lawns though
- Someone1234 4y ago
  The Church and Utah governments are also the biggest waster there too. That is also political. The whole messaging around this is disingenuous. Urban water usage is a small subset, and even within that category individual citizens are a small subset, but yet most of the PR/"make changes" have been focused on a minority of a minority.
  - lost_tourist 4y ago
    It's a literal "solve the 90% problem first" but right wing people like to blame democrats pointing with one finger while pocketing cash from their industrial, eco-killing practices with the other hand. That's the way it has always been. They will have enough money to move out of Utah when it goes dry. The other 99% who were dumb enough to be duped by them will suffer and starve.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    The focus is on the Urban water users because they are the ones that are facing the problem and need a solution. They can do that either by reducing water usage or procuring more water.
    - Someone1234 4y ago
      Urban users cannot reduce water usage enough to solve the problem.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think that is debatable. A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. Church and government water use you mention also fall under the control of the urban governments. That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water.
        masklinn 4y ago
        > I think that is debatable. It's not. Saving the great salt lake requires a water consumption reduction larger than total urban consumption in Utah. You can't get 1.5 million acre-feet out of a box which contains half a million. > A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. That's literally pulled out of your ass with no supporting evidence, and even if it were true it'd still be nowhere near what's needed. > That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water. No there is not always the option of purchasing the thing everyone lacks.
        s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I think we are talking about two different subjects. I was talking about ensuring enough water for urban users to live and you are talking about maintaining the great salt lake. This seems to be the confusion.

toofy 4y ago

> I hope I'm wrong, but in the absence of hardliner ideologues following the money is a very accurate predictor of how large sociopathic entities comprised of many humans who are "just doing their jobs" (e.g. states) act. i was with you until the bit about “the state”. from what i understand of the situation, the government isn’t watering the rocky, dry, dusty chunks of land that are being used as farms. these are privately owned individuals and companies throwing water away. if the state (whether utah, or federal) declares that its absurd to waste water attempting to grow crops in _the desert_ then certain people will declare the government is unfairly throwing its weight around. the coming water wars are gonna be such a mess unless steps are taken now to mitigate. related sidenote: i vaguely remember reading a few years ago that oil barons were buying up land all over, separating the water rights and reselling the land minus the water rights. does anyone know of any good recent studies or reading on this?