4 ms·

They stopped building because there are no low-hanging locations left, other than Sites. Where, exactly, do you want these reservoirs built that will cost less

They stopped building because there are no low-hanging locations left, other than Sites. Where, exactly, do you want these reservoirs built that will cost less than a nuke?

zeroonetwothree 3y ago
Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each.
- BrentOzar 3y ago
  > Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each. Yeah but that's from Shein, and you don't wanna buy your nukes from a company that uses child labor and unsustainable materials.
  - hedora 3y ago
    So, don't hire a company that specializes in using child labor to build nuclear weapons to dig your reservoirs?
  - webninja 3y ago
    Upvoted for the irony. Better make sure your nuke metals are sourced from conflict-free mines too, haha
Phiwise_ 3y ago
The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. Meanwhile, the state budget has ballooned to six times what it was circa 1985. Choosing to starve because you just picked the last fruit off the low-hanging branch is plainly irrational, especially since reservoirs are an aquaculture investment, not a burn pit to shovel money into. The smart business decision is to build wherever gives the best balance between comparative cost and usefulness, regardless of absolute cost, and then make whatever the cost is back through selling the rescued water. If the ruling class is generally right that the state is still a desirable abd growing place to live outside of the regular desperation for more water then this is about as close to a guaranteed return as these things get.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
  >The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. ... but water usage is flat-to-down.
  - Phiwise_ 3y ago
    Of course it is. Usage naturally stops growing during a supply shortage concomitant with a contraction of the original primary consumer. If your goal is prosperity, consumers tightening their belts is a negative signal, not a positive coincidence.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      ... or it's a demonstration of reduced waste and/or shift to less water-intensive agricultural uses. Is there a particular reason to believe it's one vs the other?
      - Phiwise_ 3y ago
        Is emergency rationing and price hikes an indicator of a shortage or of "reduced waste"? As for "less water-intensive agricultural uses", again, shifting to a less desired product to rescue your margins after your costs increase is a step backward for the prosperity of your customers, not forward.

They stopped building because there are no low-hanging locations left, other than Sites. Where, exactly, do you want these reservoirs built that will cost less than a nuke?

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each.

BrentOzar 3y ago
> Is a nuke particularly expensive or something? Google tells me they are less than a billion dollars each. Yeah but that's from Shein, and you don't wanna buy your nukes from a company that uses child labor and unsustainable materials.
- hedora 3y ago
  So, don't hire a company that specializes in using child labor to build nuclear weapons to dig your reservoirs?
- webninja 3y ago
  Upvoted for the irony. Better make sure your nuke metals are sourced from conflict-free mines too, haha

Phiwise_ 3y ago

The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. Meanwhile, the state budget has ballooned to six times what it was circa 1985. Choosing to starve because you just picked the last fruit off the low-hanging branch is plainly irrational, especially since reservoirs are an aquaculture investment, not a burn pit to shovel money into. The smart business decision is to build wherever gives the best balance between comparative cost and usefulness, regardless of absolute cost, and then make whatever the cost is back through selling the rescued water. If the ruling class is generally right that the state is still a desirable abd growing place to live outside of the regular desperation for more water then this is about as close to a guaranteed return as these things get.

NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
>The population of CA, meaning the number of people who need water for drinking and growing food, has doubled in the past decades. ... but water usage is flat-to-down.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  Of course it is. Usage naturally stops growing during a supply shortage concomitant with a contraction of the original primary consumer. If your goal is prosperity, consumers tightening their belts is a negative signal, not a positive coincidence.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    ... or it's a demonstration of reduced waste and/or shift to less water-intensive agricultural uses. Is there a particular reason to believe it's one vs the other?
    - Phiwise_ 3y ago
      Is emergency rationing and price hikes an indicator of a shortage or of "reduced waste"? As for "less water-intensive agricultural uses", again, shifting to a less desired product to rescue your margins after your costs increase is a step backward for the prosperity of your customers, not forward.