The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs • Hacker News Board

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#191

Post by 29083011397778 » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 3:01 PM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #17

shakezula wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Government for thee, not for me" is the prevailing sentiment for these types. The article even mentions it - the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude is a core cultural identity to Americans and this is exactly how it manifests.

That is absolutely NOT a core cultural identity to Americans. There is a tendency to want to solve things at a local or regional level that frustrates larger issues like water management. There is also a western do it yourself individualism that puts common resources in contention, but Americans aren't all some John Galt/John Wayne hybrid.

> The pro-DWID faction grew frustrated that their neighbors, many of whom had wells, were blocking their ability to secure water for themselves. “It’s the haves and the have-nots,” Nabity said. “Literally, some neighbors were like, ‘Screw you guys. You bought a property that doesn’t have water. That’s not my issue.’ ”

> Residents who didn’t like the idea of a utility formed by their neighbors found the idea of a private water provider more palatable. “I trust them,” Jackman told me. “I think they’re smart. This is what they do.”

I'm not sure I entirely believe you when you say Americans as a whole have a desire to solve things as a community. That can be true of some, and maybe even the majority, but I firmly believe there's enough of a general "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude to screw over a large number of people.

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#192

Post by bombcar » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 3:13 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #90

bombcar wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have strong suspicions that the data doesn't hold up if examined closely, because "suburbs" are just low density towns, and small towns continue to exist nearly everywhere. Sure maintenance comes around, but it always seems to work out, somehow.

There are lots of small towns across the US where it has not worked out. I spent a couple years in Macomb, IL when I was a kid. Take a look at that place on Street View. Overall population growth is mostly what has allowed for things to “work out” previously, but as the rate of growth slows down or even goes negative for the first time in recent history, the necessary conditions may not hold anymore for things to “wo…

Urban centers don't survive well under declining population either, so it's kind of an orthogonal question.

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#193

Post by knappe » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #163

knappe wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I too want to find this article (I'm certain it was linked from HN). It isn't a strong towns article, but it had some great diagrams showing how the city centers are the only economically viable places for utilities because of density. The suburbs were just not cost effective and thus were going to go bankrupt because of the lack of efficiency. I've tried to find this article in the past and it has been long enough t…

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborh... ? > What is obvious here is that the poor neighborhoods are profitable while the affluent neighborhoods are not. Throughout the poor neighborhoods, the city is -- TODAY -- bringing in more revenue than they will spend to maintain the neighborhood, and that's assuming they actually invest the money to maintain the neighborhood (which they have not been).…

This is the article I was thinking of, thanks for finding it!

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#194

Post by phpisthebest » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 5:32 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #151

phpisthebest wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in cities that do not call out grass, combination of ordinances make grass the easiest and most economical, one could not replace it with say concrete. These are set in a variety of zoning, building, and maintenance ordinances For your "native garden" depending on your meaning could be banned because the city classifies all "unmaintained plants" to be weeds in violation of the ordinance. Various zoning and build…

Okay, but there's a difference in saying something is banned vs saying it is expensive/too much work.

I disgree, at some point you have a functional ban even if you have not come right out and banned a thing

If you put enough roadblocks, hurtles, etc in front of something it becomes a functional ban

Case in point see the 2 most controversial subjects of today Abortion and Gun Rights, with each political side attempting functional bans with out actually "banning" the thing out right

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#195

Post by csnover » Wed, Jul 06, 2022, 9:00 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #189

imtringued wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those poorer ancestors built denser housing and commercial real estate. What they built back in the day is often illegal today and has been grandfathered in while outperforming modern real estate in property taxes. Old "blighted" buildings can pay more taxes than fancy new commercial real estate that is designed for car dependency and suburbia.

No, I mean the suburbia. The entire shtick of Strongtowns is that suburbia is unsustainable, because it requires infrastructure that we cannot now afford to replace, despite being able to afford to build it in the first place.

The Growth Ponzi Scheme is the thing that explains this.

The cost of building out infrastructure the first time is covered by the sale of the newly constructed properties (and sometimes state or federal grant money) which is all one-time income.

Taxes are supposed to cover the eventual replacement cost, but they can’t because the level of taxation required to actually do this would make suburbs unaffordable. Instead, they primarily use debt and tax revenue from newer properties that are supposed to be paying for their own eventual infrastructure replacement to make up the deficit.

This is why Strong Towns calls it the growth ponzi scheme: the city can only outrun the cost of infrastructure replacement by taking money from new properties to pay for old ones until they run out of land to build or assets to leverage for debt, at which point the whole scheme fails.

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#196

Post by caramelcustard » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 1:47 AM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #165

caramelcustard wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost any significant technological innovation was expensive to provide to the public in its infancy but as the time went on, it became more accessible to the public. Right off the bat, i could name airplane transportation as a fine example.

Only some airplane transportation. Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago. Inter-city rail travel is much less accessible now than 80 years ago. More to the point, you've assuming the conclusion. If we could distill and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Arizona at cost-effective rates then yes, it would be a significant technological innovation. But knowing that it would b…

"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"?

"We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. The airspace has a different set of rules and "vehicle operator" requirements in comparison to...the ground. Considering that many have trouble operating ground vehicles in a safe manner, i doubt that we're ever going to have manually controlled "flying cars" being a viable transportation option. And no, they wouldn't be as significant as the shift from ground travel to AIR, as we already have air travel options.

I didn't say that there is "an obvious demand", in fact i said quite the opposite, that not many people are going to want to live in the desert. When you're talking about the costs, do you mean the costs of desalination, transportation or both?

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#197

Post by eesmith » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 5:22 AM UTC

caramelcustard wrote: post #196

eesmith wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only some airplane transportation. Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago. Inter-city rail travel is much less accessible now than 80 years ago. More to the point, you've assuming the conclusion. If we could distill and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Arizona at cost-effective rates then yes, it would be a significant technological innovation. But knowing that it would b…

"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"? "We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of thi…

I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents.

The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.)

To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta.

Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money.

Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#198

Post by caramelcustard » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 7:16 AM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #197

caramelcustard wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"? "We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of thi…

I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents. The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley…

Alright, i'll admit that i were a bit quick to judge the development and the presumed decrease in costs of what are essentially large scale complex industrial plants while comparing them to airplanes (not large scale complex industrial plants). I've just realized that not only it's a bit far fetched, but the logistical/ecological impact is in a completely different ballpark, meaning that any sort of a comparison between two completely different industries is meaningless. However, i still can't understand what your point is. Are those projects unnecessary? Should the governments, researchers and companies involved stop working on these projects? Or are you trying to say that i was way too quick to be like "oh yeah, the costs are going to be low and we're all going to drink desalinated water", because if so, i've already admitted that the initial comparison was bad, albeit i still think that eventually (and eventually is the keyword) the costs are going to be low enough to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example.

If you have an issue with my suggestion that perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology, then i'd like to say that i don't mean that farmers needs should be ignored in favour of some "weirdos living in a desert".

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#199

Post by eesmith » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 8:11 AM UTC

caramelcustard wrote: post #198

eesmith wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents. The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley…

Alright, i'll admit that i were a bit quick to judge the development and the presumed decrease in costs of what are essentially large scale complex industrial plants while comparing them to airplanes (not large scale complex industrial plants). I've just realized that not only it's a bit far fetched, but the logistical/ecological impact is in a completely different ballpark, meaning that any sort of a comparison betw…

I'm saying your comment to crooked-v didn't make sense. The economics don't work, and your argument that things get cheaper wasn't sound.

> Are those projects unnecessary?

joshuaheard's hypothetical interstate water transport project? Yes, unnecessary.

There are other lower-cost solutions. It'll be cheaper to provide free Earthships / passive homes / etc. to everyone in the desert southwest and ban outdoor watering. It'll be cheaper to build a New Cleveland and relocate the entire population of AZ to Ohio.

If you want to live in the desert, stop pretending you live in the English countryside. Every well sucking up irreplaceable water is a temporary facade against reality, and that facade is now crumbling.

> to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example

That's to provide for coastal cities, not to provide water to Alice Springs.

> perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology

Don't you understand? They did. The story mentions wells drilled down nine hundred feet to find water, and transporting water from different watersheds. That's all based on improved methods for drilling, pumping, and transporting.

Before about 80 years ago, we didn't have pumps able to drain the Ogallala. Now parts of that aquifer are 300 feet lower. Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?

Sometimes the only way to win is to play a different game.

Re: The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs

#200

Post by caramelcustard » Thu, Jul 07, 2022, 8:34 AM UTC

eesmith wrote: post #199

caramelcustard wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, i'll admit that i were a bit quick to judge the development and the presumed decrease in costs of what are essentially large scale complex industrial plants while comparing them to airplanes (not large scale complex industrial plants). I've just realized that not only it's a bit far fetched, but the logistical/ecological impact is in a completely different ballpark, meaning that any sort of a comparison betw…

I'm saying your comment to crooked-v didn't make sense. The economics don't work, and your argument that things get cheaper wasn't sound. > Are those projects unnecessary? joshuaheard's hypothetical interstate water transport project? Yes, unnecessary. There are other lower-cost solutions. It'll be cheaper to provide free Earthships / passive homes / etc. to everyone in the desert southwest and ban outdoor watering.…

I agree on that and i didn't take a whole lot of things into account. In fact, i'll add up another aspect: making a communuty dependent solely on a desalinated water transported either by pipe or vehicles of any kind from far away, while in theory resolves one problem, introduces several extra dependencies on the operators of the supply chain and potential risks associated with fuel prices, waste containment, prices of chemicals used, etc.

"That's to provide for coastal cities..." which is closer to actual viable application, provided that those cities have a backbone to rely on in case the supply chain slows down for whatever reason.

"...Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?" Yeah, sounds pointless, i understand your point now.