Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

desertsun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 347 posts

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#121

Post by tresil »

eschulz wrote: post #3

Would reducing 5% of water from this point in Louisiana not also have a noticeable impact and that state's environment? I could see a significant legal battle here, much bigger than we've seen in cases where other states down stream feel as though they are wronged by states upstream. Louisiana will ask itself, "to what extent will we be forced to give water to the entire US Southwest?".

States like Colorado are already “giving” most of “their” water to other states. Louisiana could probably be convinced to do the same.

Reducing the flow of water in Louisiana by 5% would not have noticeable impact on the state’s environment when you consider that annual variability of water flow must be far higher than 5% for such a vast and dynamic watershed. If that kind of annual variability is not often creating headlines, outside of flooding - for which this kind of project could only help, then it’s difficult to imagine how a far smaller variance would have meaningful impact.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#122

Post by BetterGeiger »

Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#123

Post by Ozzie_osman »

This was common practice throughout history. The Egyptians built canals, lakes, and basins to divert water from the Nile and vastly expand the amount of livable area and farmland. People think the Great Pyramids are a wonder of the world, but the irrigation projects were potentially more impressive and impactful.

More recently, the Libyan government built the Great Man-Made Project, which was thousands of kilometers of pipes pumping water from desert aquifers in the south to the cities in the north, which sounds like one of those crazy dictator megalomaniac ego projects but actually had a tremendous amount of impact (assuming there's as much water in the aquifers they're draining as they think).

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#124

Post by colordrops »

BetterGeiger wrote: post #122

Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.

This is a great idea. People need to connect all the big problems with animal husbandry to their immediate lives so they have impetus to stop eating meat. Most people have virtually no knowledge of how bad meat really is. They just see a product on the shelf that they strongly desire.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#125

Post by lamontcg »

dsr3 wrote: post #117
rich_sasha wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was also this project in USSR: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea So much water in that lake, right? But it went from 4th largest in the world to no lake.

It seems, in my subjective opinion based on reading the Wikipedia article, the engineering standards employed by the Soviets in the Aral project is subpar. Furthermore, the 'destruction' of the Aral sea, based on my reading of the article, is considered as an acceptable to the Soviets (they know that the Aral will shrunk). T The letter proposed in this thread seems to understand the danger of the taking too much wate…

> The letter proposed in this thread seems to understand the danger of the taking too much water and thus propose a reasonable limits of 2.5-5%.

What happens when that becomes not enough?

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#126

Post by defrost »

cosmotic wrote: post #26

I understand that this is mostly for agriculture, but maybe let's stop building and expanding big cities in the desert. Golf courses in Phoenix, for example, seem like an irresponsible use of water.

Artifical surf parks in Arizona seem a tad excessive.

[0] http://www.swellmfg.com/

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#127

Post by dsr3 »

rich_sasha wrote: post #120
dsr3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems, in my subjective opinion based on reading the Wikipedia article, the engineering standards employed by the Soviets in the Aral project is subpar. Furthermore, the 'destruction' of the Aral sea, based on my reading of the article, is considered as an acceptable to the Soviets (they know that the Aral will shrunk). T The letter proposed in this thread seems to understand the danger of the taking too much wate…

US engineering and attention to detail are, I agree, vastly different to the Soviet ones. But concern for quality of environment for others vs corporate profit? Hmm not sure. The initial overuse of water resources in the West, endless stories of top soil and water table irreversible pollution with one chemical or other, or the reports that gas and oil companies had a full perspective in global warming in 1990s... I'd…

That's a very good point! The feasibility studies could solve the engineering question but social/economic (not as in cost-benefit, but in which group/organization/corporation will have more priority) is much more harder to solve.

But in my personal guess, a strong NGO/political activism by CA could influence the canal for the better. After all, construction of such canal, aside from having the support of the Federal Government, would requires an interstate compact/agreement. California would probably impose a decent environmental standard. Furthermore, Southeast states would also impose a strong limitation on the waters they will agree to divert. Unlike China, US States has strong sovereignty on matter like this and it would probably lead to some kind of equilibrium on the 'sustainable' water diversion rate.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#128

Post by lamontcg »

atmartins wrote: post #81
alar44 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the stupid status quo thing to do. People need to move where resources are, not shift resources across an entire fucking continent doing god knows what to the ecosystems in between. This godlike arrogance thinking we can just rearrange the earth on a whim for our needs is the fucking problem. This is why humanity is a cancer.

Should... should. So. Should they move the canneries, ports, flat land, abundant sun and all the skilled labor and their families? Mechanics, installers, fabricators, etc. It's not like it's a small operation. There are canneries almost a mile long. There are small mountains of peach pits that form when they're processed (these are used for other purposes by the way!). What about mature orchards? I'm not sure why peo…

I don't hate California at all, I'm a Washington Liberal.

But the agriculture in California in the face of climate change is completely unsustainable. It is up there with the coal mining and fracking in Pennsylvania.

We need to properly manage the crisis and reduce the amount of human suffering involved because uprooting people in painful.

The alternative seems like we could wind up having literal water wars at some point. This proposal caps the diversion at 5% but that seems the same as building more freeways to me, which just causes more traffic. Give California more water and the agricultural industry will expand and you'll kick the can down the road again.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#129

Post by qikInNdOutReply »

colordrops wrote: post #124
BetterGeiger wrote: post #122

Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.

This is a great idea. People need to connect all the big problems with animal husbandry to their immediate lives so they have impetus to stop eating meat. Most people have virtually no knowledge of how bad meat really is. They just see a product on the shelf that they strongly desire.

Im sure people will react reasonably when a state subsidized luxury good for everyone reveals its reall price over night.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#130

Post by alar44 »

atmartins wrote: post #81
alar44 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's the stupid status quo thing to do. People need to move where resources are, not shift resources across an entire fucking continent doing god knows what to the ecosystems in between. This godlike arrogance thinking we can just rearrange the earth on a whim for our needs is the fucking problem. This is why humanity is a cancer.

Should... should. So. Should they move the canneries, ports, flat land, abundant sun and all the skilled labor and their families? Mechanics, installers, fabricators, etc. It's not like it's a small operation. There are canneries almost a mile long. There are small mountains of peach pits that form when they're processed (these are used for other purposes by the way!). What about mature orchards? I'm not sure why peo…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN