6 ms·

It’s not a solution because it doesn’t solve the problem of excessive water use.

cyberax 2y ago
What makes the water use "excessive"? In the case of the aquifer, it's clear. It's a finite resource that is going to be depleted sooner rather than later. But that doesn't apply to diverting water from the Missouri River. I guess the author just wants people to self-flagellate and repent their sins, rather than look for solutions?
- warcher 2y ago
  The solution is obvious and inevitable. These businesses are going to go under. You cannot run food manufacturing operations with the amount of water they have available. We will grow food someplace with more water. The people who own those businesses will hold on until the bitter end. This is expected. They will try increasingly desperate measures to continue running their business, including but not limited to ecologically destructive practices. It won’t work. There’s no water.
- anonymouskimmer 2y ago
  The Missouri discharges an average of 2,445 cubic meters of water per second (2004). This is 77.1 cubic kilometers per year, but it varies significantly per year, and per time of year. In (2000) 26 cubic kilometers of water was removed from the Ogallala aquifer. So for an average year we're looking at 1/3 of the total flow over the entire basin. And on those years when water is needed the most this is likely to be an even larger share of the river (such as 2006 when 26 cubic kilometers was just over 2/3 of the total Missouri discharge). 2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge 2000 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer It might work, though would be expensive, but what are the literal downstream effects?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Sure. And that would be a good reason to promote more efficient irrigation along with the aqueduct. And to limit the amount of water removed from the river, and to construct reservoirs to manage the seasonality. However, calling the proposed aqueduct "regressive" is not a good reasoning.
    - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
      It seems kind of regressive for a common tax to pay for the aquifer that primarily benefits the farmers. If its paid for by taxing the farmers directly, or at least proportionately, then sure, it probably wouldn't be regressive.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        I don't think the author meant "regressive" in that sense. For them it means: "Actually thinking about a solution instead of wringing hands"
- doug_durham 2y ago
  The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Are you burning fossil fuels? If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. Are the farmers going to pay the $18 billion and $1 billion a year for this? No they won't. It's always a hand out.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Solar, wind, nuclear, biodiesel? In particular, Kansas gets a whopping 50% of energy from wind and 14% from nuclear. They still use coal for 30% of the generation, but it's on the way out. Mind you, mandating that the pumps are powered by renewable energy would be a good requirement. > If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. So your whole idea is to wring hands, self-flagellate, and then to write tearful articles about that?
    - thecrash 2y ago
      You come across here like the manager who's tired of hearing his engineers tell him that a design target isn't possible. There are some problems that can be solved if everyone gets over themselves and applies a can-do problem-solving attitude. There are other problems that are caused by fundamental system constraints and can't be solved, only worked around. The trouble is that a certain kind of manager believes that every problem is the former kind, and considers everyone who acknowledges the existence of the latter kind to be weak-willed.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        No, I'm coming here as somebody who is annoyed with people thinking that the only way forward is to hug trees and cry about how the humanity is bad. Yes, the water pumping is unsustainable, so we need to talk about the way to replace it with sustainable water sources. It will probably also involve optimizing the water usage.

What makes the water use "excessive"? In the case of the aquifer, it's clear. It's a finite resource that is going to be depleted sooner rather than later. But that doesn't apply to diverting water from the Missouri River. I guess the author just wants people to self-flagellate and repent their sins, rather than look for solutions?

warcher 2y ago
The solution is obvious and inevitable. These businesses are going to go under. You cannot run food manufacturing operations with the amount of water they have available. We will grow food someplace with more water. The people who own those businesses will hold on until the bitter end. This is expected. They will try increasingly desperate measures to continue running their business, including but not limited to ecologically destructive practices. It won’t work. There’s no water.
anonymouskimmer 2y ago
The Missouri discharges an average of 2,445 cubic meters of water per second (2004). This is 77.1 cubic kilometers per year, but it varies significantly per year, and per time of year. In (2000) 26 cubic kilometers of water was removed from the Ogallala aquifer. So for an average year we're looking at 1/3 of the total flow over the entire basin. And on those years when water is needed the most this is likely to be an even larger share of the river (such as 2006 when 26 cubic kilometers was just over 2/3 of the total Missouri discharge). 2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge 2000 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer It might work, though would be expensive, but what are the literal downstream effects?
- cyberax 2y ago
  Sure. And that would be a good reason to promote more efficient irrigation along with the aqueduct. And to limit the amount of water removed from the river, and to construct reservoirs to manage the seasonality. However, calling the proposed aqueduct "regressive" is not a good reasoning.
  - anonymouskimmer 2y ago
    It seems kind of regressive for a common tax to pay for the aquifer that primarily benefits the farmers. If its paid for by taxing the farmers directly, or at least proportionately, then sure, it probably wouldn't be regressive.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      I don't think the author meant "regressive" in that sense. For them it means: "Actually thinking about a solution instead of wringing hands"
doug_durham 2y ago
The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Are you burning fossil fuels? If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. Are the farmers going to pay the $18 billion and $1 billion a year for this? No they won't. It's always a hand out.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Solar, wind, nuclear, biodiesel? In particular, Kansas gets a whopping 50% of energy from wind and 14% from nuclear. They still use coal for 30% of the generation, but it's on the way out. Mind you, mandating that the pumps are powered by renewable energy would be a good requirement. > If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. So your whole idea is to wring hands, self-flagellate, and then to write tearful articles about that?
  - thecrash 2y ago
    You come across here like the manager who's tired of hearing his engineers tell him that a design target isn't possible. There are some problems that can be solved if everyone gets over themselves and applies a can-do problem-solving attitude. There are other problems that are caused by fundamental system constraints and can't be solved, only worked around. The trouble is that a certain kind of manager believes that every problem is the former kind, and considers everyone who acknowledges the existence of the latter kind to be weak-willed.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      No, I'm coming here as somebody who is annoyed with people thinking that the only way forward is to hug trees and cry about how the humanity is bad. Yes, the water pumping is unsustainable, so we need to talk about the way to replace it with sustainable water sources. It will probably also involve optimizing the water usage.