An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
1–10 of 28 posts
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#2> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas?
This is bogus: do neither.
The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit or allow you to make a water/sewer connection." Bolinas, CA does this.
But oh, no! We the great and mighty Cities Of Humanity know better than Nature. We must not accept her limits. And so they grow without control, and then when Fire or Cholera exposes their overleveraged water account they fall back on Too Big To Fail. Sorry farmers, we know better, your land is ours now. We're Urbanists, we know what's best for you.
If you're interested in these issues, consider reading Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. It's long and scholarly and dry (heh) but it will change your perspective on the limits of Nature. Perhaps you'll move somewhere with 100 inches of rainfall per year, like I did.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#3> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
> Nature's limits on the population of that land
Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist.
Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population?
Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water somehow the exception?
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#4One book I'd recommend for changing your perspective, especially to anyone in the Bay Area, is _Imperial San Francisco_. It ties together early San Francisco's extractive economy with late 19th century American imperialism and industrialization. The author argues that by the 1860s, Northern California and Nevada were already in San Francisco's hinterland, but city leaders sought to bring the entire Pacific basin under the city's dominion. The book covers mining, energy, armaments, and media as well as water. And it asks the same question as this essay: what were the costs, and was it worth it?
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#5> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist. Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water som…
Probably because water is (considered) a utility whereas food is (to a large extent) privately produced, transported, and sold.
> The people whose land was taken reacted with disbelief, sorrow, anger. That land might have been in their families for generations, might have been the family’s sole support, might have been the only home they’d ever known. The city decreed and mobilized and condemned properties for seizure without asking residents’ permission; found all sorts of legal subterfuges for denying the value of their fields and homesteads as established by expert witnesses; lowballed every estimate; treated them with distant contempt. Since the politicians and commissioners were not running for office upstate, they felt no need to package their enterprise as a humanitarian mission; they spoke in numbers and legal precedents.
Do you think this is acceptable conduct if it was in the service of procuring food for city people, or people in a country that was a net importer of food?
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#6> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist. Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water som…
Water is a natural resource. Food hasn't been a natural resource since the invention of agriculture.
You also seem to be unaware of the difference in scale. The average American uses between 500kg and 1000kg of water per day. The weight (and volume) of food they eat isn't even in the same ballpark. There is almost a 100x difference here.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#7> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
Farming consumes most fresh water, not cities.
Upstate New York, along with most of the country, used to be wilderness, sometimes huge forests, and is now farms.
Most farms only exist because they are subsidized. It's a welfare program. Economically and environmentally it makes no sense, farms in upstate New York or Wyoming, when food grows so much better in Illinois and California.
Another good book: An Indigenous People's History of the United States. There were people everywhere when colonists arrived, it isn't even accurate to really call it wilderness.
Anyway, the celebration of the farmer is preposterous, the best thing that could happen to farming is if fewer people farmed, because prices would rise.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#8> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
> Nature's limits on the population of that land Every city must import food. By that argument, all cities exceed the biological carrying capacity of its land and therefore shouldn't exist. Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population? Anyway, if you accept that cities can exist and can import goods, why is water som…
> Many nations also have a greater population than their capacity to grow food (e.g. UK, Germany). Should we forcefully remove half their population?
You can include China in there, which is partly why the CCP is always willing to sacrifice half their population - less mouths to feed.
War is only one famine away for countries that can't grow their own food, or get embargoed.
(The reason why Britain had the largest navy for centuries was to protect their sea lanes for trade to support their islands. Their doctrine was to have a navy as large as the next 2 navies, in case those 2 signed a treaty.)
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#9> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
Farming consumes most fresh water, not cities. Upstate New York, along with most of the country, used to be wilderness, sometimes huge forests, and is now farms. Most farms only exist because they are subsidized . It's a welfare program. Economically and environmentally it makes no sense, farms in upstate New York or Wyoming, when food grows so much better in Illinois and California. Another good book: An Indigenous…
I think a lot of upstate NY (and new england in general) used to be farms, and is now forest. Because most farming stopped making sense, once you could ship food from the midwest cheaply.
But how much water is consumed by the farming that remains in NY? I never had the impression any of it was irrigated, but haven't tried to look up numbers. Farming in CA is of course a wildly different story. Left without water it's a desert, not a forest.
Re: An Account of Human Costs: The reservoirs that provide water to New York City
#10> Do you do nothing and impose a water famine on a teeming city, or do you pull the lever and shift the onus onto much more sparsely populated rural areas? This is bogus: do neither. The cities should have accepted Nature's limits on the population of that land. There is only so much water and therefore there can only be so many people. To put it simply: "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit…
> "sorry, New York is full. We cannot issue you a building permit or allow you to make a water/sewer connection." Bolinas, CA does this.
San Francisco basically does this and everyone and his brother here complains about all the problems it brings.