61–70 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need the transcontinental pipeline to push water to where it needs to be. Or agriculture needs to move to where the water is.
I don't forsee a transcontinental water pipe going over well. I, for one, refuse to subsidize people who want to live in a dessert with my own water table. People should live in areas that can support human life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CA water use is 50% environment, 40% agriculture, 10% residential. Maybe we should focus on reducing that 50%? It was nice and all when we had plenty of water to waste but it’s time to revisit those policies. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
Is this a joke comment? Or is this really what the average American thinks?
In Iowa we have the opposite problem too much rain. We are in the last week to plant corn before seeing reduced yields.
We need the transcontinental pipeline to push water to where it needs to be. Or agriculture needs to move to where the water is.
Taking raw water from one watershed to another is an environmental disaster.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a third option that involves building serious infrastructure to pipe water down from the Northwest? Of course you can't build things in America anymore so that's probably off the table.
Ecologically devastate the Pacific Northwest so we can continue to be wasteful with water is a heck of a take.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKL40aBg-7E - The Biotic Pump] [https://forestecosyst.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s406... - The enduring link between forest cover and rainfall: a historical perspective on science and policy discussions] [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/amazon-lo... - Amazon Losing "Flying Rivers," Ability to Curb Warming]
If even Amazon rainforest can now start losing its ability to retain/produce rain due to deforestation (animal agriculture, hello again), how can our scattered and battered patches of trees we call forests have any meaningful ability to save/enhance the water cycle?
We need more forests, more continuous forests, large forests, new rainforests ... that's the only way.
It's not unprecedented. It's been a steady state that they have pretended was not a steady state. They are not "in a drought". They say drought in a way that implies that it is a temporary state that may return to a different, normal state. But it will not. They have reached a new normal of a lower water level. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-05-06/editorial-t... was a great editorial on this from last yea…
CA water use is 50% environment, 40% agriculture, 10% residential. Maybe we should focus on reducing that 50%? It was nice and all when we had plenty of water to waste but it’s time to revisit those policies. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
In Iowa we have the opposite problem too much rain. We are in the last week to plant corn before seeing reduced yields.
We need the transcontinental pipeline to push water to where it needs to be. Or agriculture needs to move to where the water is.
It's not unprecedented. It's been a steady state that they have pretended was not a steady state. They are not "in a drought". They say drought in a way that implies that it is a temporary state that may return to a different, normal state. But it will not. They have reached a new normal of a lower water level. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-05-06/editorial-t... was a great editorial on this from last yea…
It’s sad and pathetic watching the populace make poor decisions. As soon as it becomes untenable to live here I’m out.
The politicians have take advantage of people who are stretched to the max as it is to swoon them with words while making underhand deals. Imo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't forsee a transcontinental water pipe going over well. I, for one, refuse to subsidize people who want to live in a dessert with my own water table. People should live in areas that can support human life.
Grow your own food then.