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

281–290 of 347 posts

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

#281

Post by BetterGeiger »

somenameforme wrote: post #148
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.

If you want go to this route, then you might find the cost of your cereal going up. More than 98% [1] of the water usage attributed to beef/cattle (and other animals) is an indirect measurement - it's from the estimated water usage in the production of the feed that's given to them. Cattle themselves directly use next to no water. So you'd need to add your water tax to grains and other such products. Another interest…

Yes most of the water use to produce beef is indirect, in growing the feed. If beef is taxed to consumers it will reduce demand, which will reduce the demand for feed, which will reduce the consumption of water. Decreasing the demand for cereal will decrease its cost, not increase it.

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

#282

Post by BetterGeiger »

mike_d wrote: post #159
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.

I know you said protein, but calories are really the metric we want to use here. TL;DR: 2.1 calories/gallon for almonds, 5.3 c/g for tofu, 1,558 c/g for beef. Almonds consume 3.2 gallons of water each for just shy of 7 calories. 2.18 calories per gallon. Cows consume ~3,200 gallons of water from birth to slaughter, where they produce about 6 million calories. 1,875 calories per gallon. An additional 50 bales of hay t…

Your numbers for beef are absurdly wrong. Reality is closer to 2000 gallons per pound, or roughly 0.5 calories per gallon. Chicken is about 4x less. Grains are roughly an order of magnitude less. As a country the USA consumes dramatically more meat than necessary, cutting even a little would have a massive impact on water consumption.

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

#283

Post by oliwarner »

ianai wrote: post #270
oliwarner wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is not the issue I think this is the biggest issue with every resource and climate issue right now. As soon as you point out something significant, somebody pops up with "But that's not the real issue", and points to another three. US domestic, residential resource usage (water, raw energy, fossil fuel) is so amazingly out of whack with the rest of the world that it's starting to demoralise the rest of us. This is…

How many countries successfully built highway systems by leaving the construction of them to private people? How about rail systems? Because a national water grid is closer to a power grid or highway system ie fundamental, critical, and national infrastructure than something even an hoa could pull off. These “arguments” for “personal responsibility” are increasingly shallow. The rhetorical equivalent of grabbing some…

Where did I argue for personal responsibility or privately built infrastructure? Are you replying to the right comment?

The US needs to take national responsibility for energy consumption and water use. From agriculture to residential and everything in between. That will involve a lot of Federal and state funded infrastructure but also a lot of subsidised home improvement, and tax. The whole US needs to take this seriously, we all do.

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying we should ignore any of the issues you talked about; rather it's your approach of ignoring domestic because of argri that I think sends the wrong message to everyone.

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

#284

Post by space_fountain »

_8j50 wrote: post #106
space_fountain wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bonds are a way of printing money, debt in general is how money is printed weirdly enough. And look, maybe our big ideas could focus on something that isn't solvable by just not trying to grow food in the desert or if we absolutely must doing it in a place that doesn't have plenty of land that isn't desert

The problem is places that aren't deserts are national parks, what you call the deserts are multiple entire states! I keep hearing your argument, what is this place that isn't a desert people should be farming and building on? Any place west if the missisipi that hasn't already been incorporated, what is it? Why do you insist it isn't solvable?the tech is there, the money is there, the will is there. Do you have a be…

Nothing here isn't solvable, but we have a lot of problems and is this the best use of our limited resources? There are places in the continental us with plenty of water and land that could be used for agriculture. Lots of states like Ohio have returned to forests and probably many other states as well. I like forests, they're cool, but we could totally have less of them. It's also not like we'd need to move all the farms. The west does have water, just not quite enough.

I'm also just very unimpressed by this particular letter to the editor. Maybe it's a good idea, but it definitely doesn't sell it

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

#285

Post by _8j50 »

cafard wrote: post #262
_8j50 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? I don't get your point.

I find it increasingly pointless to subsidize the impractical land use in the southwest and mountain west.

Fair enough. I think if done at the right scale it would cause an economic growth at grand scale. Forget pipes to cities, I am thinking artificial rivers and lakes.

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

#286

Post by oblib »

akiselev wrote: post #195
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…

You've lived and traveled in Califoria and the west but have you tried to grow anything here? There's a reason we've built vast megaprojects to pump water around the West: our deserts have been the terminus for the biological nutrient cycle for millions of years through multiple climate cycles resulting in an incredibly fertile ecosystem, despite its desolate appearance. Combined with the heat, it creates the perfect…

From what I gathered this is not about the San Joaquin Valley farms, it's about Vegas, Phoenix, Palm Springs & Desert Hot Springs (Riverside County) and water for people living there.

Vegas went from 230,000 in 1970 to over 2.5 million residents in those years.

Phoenix from 870,000 to 4,652,000.

Riverside County from 44,579 to 2,544,820

So now we've got over 10 Million people living in the desert in just 3 those areas.

Aside from that, I lived in Sylmar, Ca in the `70s on the last parcel of ag zoned land there, so yeah, we did grow there.

When we bought our place there was a small 2 bedroon home on it, an orchard of fruit trees, a large garden, and we raised chickens and rabbits and a few cows (one at a time) there.

Our home was the oldest house in Sylmar at the time and it was akin to an oasis compared to most of the homes there. Because of the ag zoning we had two water lines, one for the home and one for the orchard & garden and we got a huge discount on the ag water line.

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

#287

Post by anjel »

lambdasquirrel wrote: post #113
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.

Well, so is growing alfalfa in the desert.

... for export

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

#288

Post by _8j50 »

exabrial wrote: post #254
_8j50 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must disagree, people need space and while conservatism has its place people should live along side nature not outside of it. There is no reason to keep an arid and infertile land the way it is for the sake of novelty alone. How about we turn the deserts into habitable and fertile lands. People are suffering and climate change will only make water and food shortage worse and lack of resources always results in wars…

Infertile lands are not infertile. There are thousands of rare creatures that inhibit them.

And millions more will inhabit them with water and trees. You can declare state and national parks to conserve desert environment. For example in Cali Joshua Tree national park is a great example.

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

#289

Post by _8j50 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #263
_8j50 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? You investigate and research! Tunnels, alternate locations,using solar and wind to generate pump power and once operational, using a dam to supplement the pump with hydroelectric power. I mean, this is one challenging area where the best and brightest should be well funded to come up with a solution instead of writing them off. Desalination is not a dream either. People are fine to talk about colonizing other pl…

Research isn't magic. The first step of research for problem solving is to establish a trade space and go with the most viable route first. If you want research into how to divert the Mississippi River to Arizona, you've started off backwards. The problem is lack of renewable water in socal, AZ, CO, Las Vegas, etc, and the solution might be just to reduce demand, increase reclamation, and add in some new renewable wa…

You are trying to solve the problem of lack of water to existing people who live there. The problem at the core is the area is arid and infertile. You are trying to solve the immediate problem instead of the root cause.

Fundamentally altering these areas will not only solve the immediate problem but cause economic growth and solve a myriad of other problems like food shortages, homelessness,etc... you are talking about the equivalent of repairing roads, I am suggesting building the equivalent of the interstate highways which were until recently the biggest spending ever and resulted in the biggest economic growth ever.

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

#290

Post by _8j50 »

space_fountain wrote: post #284
_8j50 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is places that aren't deserts are national parks, what you call the deserts are multiple entire states! I keep hearing your argument, what is this place that isn't a desert people should be farming and building on? Any place west if the missisipi that hasn't already been incorporated, what is it? Why do you insist it isn't solvable?the tech is there, the money is there, the will is there. Do you have a be…

Nothing here isn't solvable, but we have a lot of problems and is this the best use of our limited resources? There are places in the continental us with plenty of water and land that could be used for agriculture. Lots of states like Ohio have returned to forests and probably many other states as well. I like forests, they're cool, but we could totally have less of them. It's also not like we'd need to move all the…

The problem is with forests you destroy existing wildlife and climate change is a big deal. You want more trees not less. Transofrming the west adds more trees (good for climate), economic growth, less food shortage, homelessness and indirectly less social unrest and instability as well. It will solve many problems because it addresses a root cause of many problems: lack of resources and opportunity. Water+Space+renewable power is the answer.
Post reply on HN