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

211–220 of 347 posts

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

#211

Post by mcculley »

geysersam wrote: post #197
fmajid wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential consumption is not the issue, subsidized water for agriculture in California is. Agricultural users paid as little$70 an acre-foot for water, which is less than a thousandth the residential rate. Under the state’s ridiculously baroque system of senior water rights, just because someone was first to nail a notice to a tree by a river in the 19th Century, everybody else in the area has to cut their water co…

> laundering water exports Sorry I might be ignorant but this sounds ridiculous. How could that ever be economically viable? If you wanted to import water, there are plenty of places (less populated than California) closer to the Arabic peninsula (not on the other side of the world) where water is more plentiful.

It would not be economically viable without the market distortion caused by the subsidization.

See https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...

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

#212

Post by tenpies »

MomoXenosaga wrote: post #163
atoav wrote: post #136

Before looking at the water source, wouldn't doing the bare minimum to control the water sinks would be in order? I mean, we have harder regulations on water useage in the alps, and this is a water rich area where only 3% of the a available water is used. The truth is that the water a land will provide is limited. And of course you could expand this water by also taking the water from another land, but maybe pitting…

Most of the water is used by industry, I always find it amusing when we pretend 5 minute showers will have an impact. And building all those chip foundries in Texas isn't going to help.

It's the "EV" approach to water.

It's truly comical that consumers are expected to make all these huge sacrifices, when the only sacrifice necessary is the ink and paper necessary for reform.

All it takes it a desire to return to reality. Irrigating deserts is generally a bad idea.

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

#213

Post by solar-ice »

dagw wrote: post #183
jollybean wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So much for the bigotry. Europeans are almost as fat as Americans and White Europeans are basically the same as White Europeans in that regard. I've lived all over both continents and yes, Europeans live in very small flats. Energy is prohibitively expensive. I enjoy European culture a bit more (both have advantages), but in North America you have the choice generally to live big or small. Not everyone needs a big ho…

but in North America you have the choice generally to live big or small How is that different in Europe? For the price of a one room flat in the centre of the nice part of town you can equally get a nice big house with a garden way out of town if that is what you prefer. Sure US houses tend to be bigger on average, but it's not like you can't buy a big house on the cheap if that is what you want. You just have to be…

> The only real difference is that, on average, Europeans tend to prioritise shorter commutes and living closer to town over large homes.

And afaict Americans /are prohibited from/ prioritising that due to zoning - it is nearly impossible to get an apartment close to shops, work, and functioning public transit.

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

#214

Post by vidarh »

concordDance wrote: post #209
dagw wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but in North America you have the choice generally to live big or small How is that different in Europe? For the price of a one room flat in the centre of the nice part of town you can equally get a nice big house with a garden way out of town if that is what you prefer. Sure US houses tend to be bigger on average, but it's not like you can't buy a big house on the cheap if that is what you want. You just have to be…

Average US housing has 3x the floor space and land space as a British house. The Brits are very poor by US standards.

Average housing is mediated by where people want to live and preferences around the value of space. I could move elsewhere in the UK and have 5x the space for the same price, or I could buy a castle in France. But while that castle might be tempting for retirement, I value living close to the centre of London more than I value the extra space.

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

#215

Post by throwaway0a5e »

s5300 wrote: post #11
kickout wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

California being the 5th largest world GDP if it were its own country, I think it may come out on top pretty easily. Also the home of things we bomb the shit out of people with…

The Midwest states or the states of the Boston-DC corridor, or the gulf coast states are all similarly large economic blocks. The "muh fifth largest economy" trope is just a reflection of state borders that really have little impact at the federal political level. Furthermore, CA stands of a lot of stuff a lot of people hate. Indiana and Ohio will gladly put aside their hatred for each other if CA is trying to screw them both.

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

#216

Post by nraynaud »

bee_rider wrote: post #83
tracerbulletx wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California takes 27% of the water from the Colorado River. That's more than Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada combined.

Ah, ok. So the idea is pretty fanciful in the first place, but on top of that the author is also being disingenuous by focusing on southwestern states, then?

to complete the answer, there are actual pumps to bring the colorado river waters all the way to Los Angeles, this is bonkers. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Colorado...

And Los Angeles also gets some water by another gigantic water system coming all the way from northern California collecting the melting snow from the high Sierras. "Los Angeles" is a bit of the loose term because the central valley is connected to the same system for agricultural needs.

I think it's really the bleak future to look at as an example, Phoenix is still small enough that it doesn't yet use more than its alotment of the Colorado river. But clearly the article is looking at artificially propping up Phoenix in the future the way Los Angles is right now.

Edit: and in the terminator 2 movie, this is not a rain ditch, it’s supposed to be an actual river.

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

#217

Post by solar-ice »

concordDance wrote: post #209
dagw wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but in North America you have the choice generally to live big or small How is that different in Europe? For the price of a one room flat in the centre of the nice part of town you can equally get a nice big house with a garden way out of town if that is what you prefer. Sure US houses tend to be bigger on average, but it's not like you can't buy a big house on the cheap if that is what you want. You just have to be…

Average US housing has 3x the floor space and land space as a British house. The Brits are very poor by US standards.

Yes, but the average US house is basically in the middle of the countryside by British standards, that's the difference. We could say Americans are very poor by British standards since they can't live near shops, work, etc.

If you want to live an hour outside the city and drive everywhere, you can rent a 3-bedroom detached house of a similar size as a US house reasonably easily, for about the same price. The difference is that when you give people a choice - which they don't have in much of the US - many apparently choose not to do that.

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

#218

Post by golergka »

oblib wrote: post #92

As someone who moved to LA in the early 70s, and left LA in the late 80s, and spent some time to visit Palm Springs, Phoenix, and Las Vegas, I can say with full confidence that anyone with a lick of sense knew there was not enough water to sustain that growth that started back then, but that didn't stop anyone from building or buying those homes. They all knew it, but didn't care. It was, and still is, plain old stup…

> As someone who moved to LA in the early 70s, and left LA in the late 80s, and spent some time to visit Palm Springs, Phoenix, and Las Vegas, I can say with full confidence that anyone with a lick of sense knew there was not enough water to sustain that growth that started back then, but that didn't stop anyone from building or buying those homes. They all knew it, but didn't care.

But Las Vegas is treating almost all of the water it uses and ends up being very close to water neutral.

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

#220

Post by HPsquared »

concordDance wrote: post #205
markvdb wrote: post #162

Let's compare daily average household domestic water consumption: - where I live: 202l [0] - US: >1135l [1] US household consumption share of total water usage: 12% [1]. Just reducing household usage to 50% more than a random wealthy northwestern European region instead of 560%(!) more equals 10% total water usage savings. That's without even touching agriculture or other water hungry sectors. Aligning usage to be a…

> - We only have one earth. It's _ours_ you know, not just yours. And our children's. And our children's children's..." This makes no sense as a response. Water usage is a local issue where water goes through X rather than Y. Water usage in Pakistan has zero effect on Germany, unlike CO2 emmissions. If an entire river got diverted to lawns then the effects would only be between the divert point and the sea (in the fo…

I suppose water (at least natural water from rivers) is one of the few actual zero-sum games in economics. No matter not hard you try, it won't rain more, and a given river only has so much water to give.
Post reply on HN