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

We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

desertsun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#21

Post by dv_dt »

vorpalhex wrote: post #15
dv_dt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cities weren’t built up the agricultural water users would likely just use more water. They account for 80% of California’s use.

Most of that watershed is also theirs. The cities have taken more and more of it. They can drive the farmers away, that is an option - then they'll have high food prices _and_ drought.

This is a curious way to put it. No matter what legal rights to water we have previously allocated, when everybody is going to be short of water - the legal rights only go so far. The whole reason for society to invest in carbon emission reductions, was to avoid difficult and costly outcomes like this.

The most legal solution to the legal shortfalls would likely for the right holders to go sue fossil fuel companies.

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#22

Post by Arnt »

richk449 wrote: post #7
donatj wrote: post #3

Nope. Just nope. Not going to happen. You can move, you are mobile. Move to where the water is.

It seems easier to move water than people. Plus, sun is good for people and crops. Transferring water to where it will be useful seems like the kind of thing a government should do.

It seems easier at first, in much the same way that an O(n) algorithm may seem faster than O(1) at first.

You'd have to move very approximately one tanker full of water for each person every week, for the rest of that person's life. You can think of much more effective ways to do it than with tankers, but can you think of any that are more effective than moving the person to the water?

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#23

Post by drewbug01 »

“We have dried up the Colorado, and fairness now requires us to begin draining the Mississippi. This is our God-given right and responsibility.”

Good grief. What a bloated sense of entitlement. The hubris of the past 200 years is catching up to us and these people think the answer is “double down on the same strategies that caused this crisis in the first place.”

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#24

Post by richk449 »

donatj wrote: post #20
richk449 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems easier to move water than people. Plus, sun is good for people and crops. Transferring water to where it will be useful seems like the kind of thing a government should do.

I don't know how you figure that. People move every day on their own. People can literally just start walking east for free. > Plus, sun is good for people and crops We've got plenty of sunlight in the Midwest, I assure you. We don't need any of yours.

> We've got plenty of sunlight in the Midwest, I assure you. We don't need any of yours.

I grew up in the Midwest. Plenty of sunlight are not words I would use to describe it.

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#25

Post by richk449 »

Arnt wrote: post #22
richk449 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems easier to move water than people. Plus, sun is good for people and crops. Transferring water to where it will be useful seems like the kind of thing a government should do.

It seems easier at first, in much the same way that an O(n) algorithm may seem faster than O(1) at first. You'd have to move very approximately one tanker full of water for each person every week, for the rest of that person's life. You can think of much more effective ways to do it than with tankers, but can you think of any that are more effective than moving the person to the water?

I’m not sure why “effective” is the metric you are using. I’m saying it is easier to dig a canal that can provide water for tens of millions of people than it is to move tens of millions of people to a new state.

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#26

Post by Arnt »

richk449 wrote: post #25
Arnt wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems easier at first, in much the same way that an O(n) algorithm may seem faster than O(1) at first. You'd have to move very approximately one tanker full of water for each person every week, for the rest of that person's life. You can think of much more effective ways to do it than with tankers, but can you think of any that are more effective than moving the person to the water?

I’m not sure why “effective” is the metric you are using. I’m saying it is easier to dig a canal that can provide water for tens of millions of people than it is to move tens of millions of people to a new state.

This has been discussed before on HN. Quoting an actual engineer from faulty memory: Boring a tunnel through the mountains is well beyond what's currently doable. Doing it on the surface would require lifting the water a few km up in order to let it flow down on the other side, and would be the largest engineering project ever, expensive to build and equally expensive to operate. Total water use (including farming and industry) may well be well over 1000kg per person and day even if it's restricted because the water is expensive, lifting that weight several km requires a lot of energy and expense.

Sorry about the word effective, it should have been efficient. I used the word because the pumps may be compared to other means of transport in terms of water moved per joule spent.

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#27

Post by vorpalhex »

dv_dt wrote: post #21
vorpalhex wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of that watershed is also theirs. The cities have taken more and more of it. They can drive the farmers away, that is an option - then they'll have high food prices _and_ drought.

This is a curious way to put it. No matter what legal rights to water we have previously allocated, when everybody is going to be short of water - the legal rights only go so far. The whole reason for society to invest in carbon emission reductions, was to avoid difficult and costly outcomes like this. The most legal solution to the legal shortfalls would likely for the right holders to go sue fossil fuel companies.

If my house burns down because I built it in a wildfire area, I don't get to steal half of your house and call it redistribution.

This is an area that has always had drought issues. It is not just global warming. You don't get to sue whoever has a dollar.

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#28

Post by dv_dt »

vorpalhex wrote: post #27
dv_dt wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a curious way to put it. No matter what legal rights to water we have previously allocated, when everybody is going to be short of water - the legal rights only go so far. The whole reason for society to invest in carbon emission reductions, was to avoid difficult and costly outcomes like this. The most legal solution to the legal shortfalls would likely for the right holders to go sue fossil fuel companies.

If my house burns down because I built it in a wildfire area, I don't get to steal half of your house and call it redistribution. This is an area that has always had drought issues. It is not just global warming. You don't get to sue whoever has a dollar.

If someone neglects to clear their home area of burn material, and their house catches fire then burns their neighbors house - there certainly is a liability.

We live in a society where individual actions and rights have boundaries when they cause social effects. Part of goverments function is working out the fair way to discuss and act one it - particularly during trying times - like mass regional drought.

Re: We need to move water from Midwest west. Let's get on with it.

#29

Post by vorpalhex »

dv_dt wrote: post #28
vorpalhex wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my house burns down because I built it in a wildfire area, I don't get to steal half of your house and call it redistribution. This is an area that has always had drought issues. It is not just global warming. You don't get to sue whoever has a dollar.

If someone neglects to clear their home area of burn material, and their house catches fire then burns their neighbors house - there certainly is a liability. We live in a society where individual actions and rights have boundaries when they cause social effects. Part of goverments function is working out the fair way to discuss and act one it - particularly during trying times - like mass regional drought.

> If someone neglects to clear their home area of burn material, and their house catches fire then burns their neighbors house - there certainly is a liability.

This is actually incorrect. Liability only exists if you start the fire (and often times requires the element of negligence or intent).

> We live in a society where individual actions and rights have boundaries when they cause social effects

And that's why it's illegal to siphon your neighbors groundwater. We have hundreds of years of court cases on groundwater rights and they are generally clear - the owner of the land has rights to the groundwater before appropriation.

You can't build your home in a desert and then complain that it's a desert. That's a you problem. Go live somewhere with water.

Post reply on HN