| ▲ | bad_haircut72 11 hours ago |
| Its obviously not as dire (yet) but I think Texas will face something like this in the coming decades. Its the kind of problem that requires people at all levels of society to cooperate and sacrifice - farmers & businesses need to draw less, people need to use less and government needs intelligent and actionable policy, plus big investment into unsexy and invisble infrastructure upgrades - so basically we're screwed. |
|
| ▲ | water-data-dude 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Absolutely. It's probably worse than you think though. I work with some groundwater conservation districts in Texas. Texas has some aquifers that they rely heavily on, and they're being depleted at an unsustainable rate. Efforts to regulate the rate at which groundwater is consumed are met with mixed results because of state laws that make it very difficult to regulate pumping. One particularly depressing example from the recent past is what happened in Hays County. The groundwater situation in Hays County is bad, to the point that springs are going dry. Hays County managed to push something through the state legislature that'd give the Hays Trinity Water Conservation District more power to manage groundwater use (it passed overwhelmingly), but then Greg Abbot vetoed it - likely at the behest of Aqua Texas, a big water utility company that pumps a TON of water and has been pretty blatant about ignoring pumping caps and generally acted in bad faith. Source: https://archive.is/b1bp1 |
|
| ▲ | mattmaroon 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The American Southwest needs to get started on desalination. It’s the only long term answer we have now, know works, and is at least within shooting distance of cost-feasible. |
| |
| ▲ | Retric 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you own water rights, selling them to a city at near desalination rates is way more profitable than farming. So desalination only makes economic sense after removing all farms from an area. | | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, if you’re selling the water at rates that aren’t below cost farms will remove themselves. Desalination is cheap enough for humans to live and do most work things, it’s hard to imagine it ever being cheap enough for farming. | | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is that the farmers own the water, its not about selling it to them but getting it from them. | | |
| ▲ | clcaev 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Farmers do not own the water that flows through their property. This is a Riparian rights concern and is quite complicated. | | |
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Its definitely complicated. But the end of the story is that the government can not easily stop the farmers from using water in many of these drought stricken areas. Its going to be a big political battle |
| |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Then tax them at a rate equivalent to their environmental cost? I don't think this is complicated (except politically, of course). You just want everyone to carry the cost of their own externalities. | | |
| ▲ | nandomrumber 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Two problems with that, typically unelected bureaucrats get to set the price, and political complexity is the worse kind. |
|
| |
| ▲ | logicchains 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Dubai has farms fed on desalinated water and the food they produce is still cheaper than imported equivalents. | | |
| ▲ | Retric 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Dubai is paying ~$2,450 per acre-foot of desalinated water. You generally need around 2 acre feet of water per acre of farmland assuming near zero rain, it varies by crop type but goes up with temperature and down with humidity. Farms growing food crops don’t produce ~5,000$ in profits per acre, even 1/10th that is an extreme outlier. On top of this desalinated water still has significantly more salt than rainwater which eventually causes issues. Subsides can always make things look cheaper when you ignore the subsidy. | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Is that just because imported Dubai food is insanely expensive? I don't believe the math on anything but maybe indoor farming here is going to work out if the water costs anything at all. Indoor farming can be extremely water-efficient, often at the cost of energy inefficiency, but with low solar prices and the level of sun they have in the Southwest perhaps that can become economical? I don't know, I just do know that water shortages are a problem, are going to continue to become more of a problem, and there's currently just one technology that's affordable enough that some nations currently use it at scale. So let's get started. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | kjkjadksj 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The hard part is getting all that water to parts inland and uphill | |
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The southwest, for the most part, refuses to accept the federal funding & infrastructure support that would be necessary for desalination at scale to be feasible. Nobody wants to vote for water rationing, and the state can’t even enforce consumption limits against corporations and the wealthy. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is it really feasible if a state can only pull it off with large federal funding efforts? It seems like a problem those in the area will just have to deal with given that they're knowingly walking down that path. If you can't fund desalinization or other options, won't take federal funding, and choose not to region or conserve water then you collectively made your own bed. | | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't really know what they're talking about, states almost never refuse federal funding for anything. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Louisiana refused federal highway funding for long enough that their highway system went to shit. They refused due to a federal mandate that the drinking age be raised to 21. It isn't common, but states have absolutely forwent federal funding to stand their ground, and in my opinion they should do it more often. Its a huge weakness in our federal system that states are so dependent on federal funding for long lived programs. | | |
| ▲ | mattmaroon 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I did say “almost”. I’m aware it has happened. But I have property in Arizona and I have a real hard time imagining this state saying no thank you if offered water. It’s sort of a big deal out there these days. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall an hour ago | parent [-] | | Oh I hear you, I have family in Phoenix. My main concern there is that states can and should turn down federal funding if it comes with strings the state isn't interested in accepting. Our federal system becomes fairly useless if states are so dependent on federal funding that we can no longer have 50 different experiments running to try out different legislative approaches. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | lazide 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Like people who build in flood zones and don’t have flood insurance, they do have a nasty tendency to make their problem your problem somehow though. | | |
| ▲ | _heimdall an hour ago | parent [-] | | They shouldn't be my problem, and I say that as someone who lived in a flood prone home with no flood insurance as it was ridiculously expensive for pretty terrible coverage. I wouldn't have lived in that house if I was unable or unwilling to deal with the consequences of a flood, no one else should either. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | treis 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People use very little water. Most of what is drawn is returned back to the system. By that I mean if you use 20 gallons for a shower 19 is going into the drain to be reused. The only real usage of water is evaporation and that's stuff like growing plants and cooling towers. |
| |
| ▲ | toast0 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most places get freshwater from rivers or acquifers, sometimes lakes, use it for whatever, some large amount of that used water is collected as sewage, treat the sewage and discharge it downstream/into large bodies of water/the ocean. Many systems also output reclaimed water; it's clean, but not up to environmental standards for discharge or drinking; typically excess clorination. This is often used for municipal irrigation sometimes toliet flushing, etc; uses where water below drinking standards is fine. A handful of systems discharge treated water into their reservoirs or into acquifer recharge ponds. But there's an ick factor, even when discharge water is often held to higher standards than drinking water, so it's only done when the situation outweighs the ick. | |
| ▲ | bongodongobob 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | ??? 20 gallons get reused, 100% of it goes back into the system. If somehow 5% was destroyed from showering we wouldn't have any water left. | | |
| ▲ | treis 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Some evaporates. It will eventually come down again as rain somewhere else but as far as the original city is concerned the water is used. | |
| ▲ | victorbjorklund 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You know what they meant. They obviously mean the system controlled by us - not rain and shit. | | |
| ▲ | nandomrumber 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is this true in many places in the USA? You have seperate drainage for shower water and effluent? That’s certainly not the case here in Australia. Here, typically storm water and household waste water are carried over a common system. Usually if it rains more than 3mm in 24hrs the treatment systems are overwhelmed and untreated waste is sent out to sea. Coastal areas anyways. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | vel0city 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Texas is doing things to try and address it. Prop 4 passed allocating another billion a year in sales taxes to go towards water infrastructure. https://www.texaswater.org/prop-4 Texas has also recently started building new reservoirs after a long time of not building any. Bois d'Arc and Arbuckle have recently been finished, others are in progress, and a few more are in planning phases. There's a lot to hate on about Texas politics but there are some competent people trying to address water concerns. Not saying Texas is doing everything perfectly, we're still drawing on aquifers at an unsustainable rate and need to change that. |
|
| ▲ | vorpalhex 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Texas is either desert or desert adjacent. We have always gotten our water by having torrential rains inconsistently. This doesn't mean don't conserve, be intelligent, etc. But this does mean that your water won't "balance out" year to year, you need to look at big 25-30 year intervals. Right now the single biggest waste of water in Austin is leaky pipes. Like infrastructure pipes owned by the city. Meanwhile our water conservation budget is going to billboards telling people to rush in the shower. The entire population could stop bathing and not reduce enough to make up for the leaks happening in the crumbling water infra. |
| |
| ▲ | martinpw 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > We have always gotten our water by having torrential rains inconsistently I think OP is talking more about groundwater depletion: https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/panhandle-runs-on-water-... | |
| ▲ | jkmcf 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We have similar problems in Colorado re: pipes leaking. People don't want to pay the full cost of water, which includes supporting infrastructure. Municipalities are caught between these unfunded costs and taxpayers refusing to pay 1¢ more. I believe the utilities require political approval to raise rates, so that doesn't happen either. | |
| ▲ | ralph84 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Wouldn’t leaks from underground pipes end up back in the aquifer and not really be a net water loss in the long term? | | |
| ▲ | toast0 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Water in the ground from leaky pipes will travel in all directions. Some of it may end up back in the aquifer, but some will end up on the surface and evaporate. Depends on conditions near the pipe and the volume of the leak. | |
| ▲ | water-data-dude 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Texas state laws make regulating groundwater use very difficult. The Trinity aquifer is probably going to go dry in ten years. |
| |
| ▲ | polar8 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Wouldn’t it just go back into groundwater? |
|
|
| ▲ | 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I can’t imagine the various legislatures in several “highly skeptical” states that are either considering or have already implemented “no chemtrails” and fluoride laws are going to find it easy to convince people to allow cloud seeding. Pretty sure Tennessee already preemptively banned it. |
| |
| ▲ | Redster 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, TN did pass that. Much of TN (especially around the capital) is temperate rainforest, so I imagine the lawmakers perceived downsides, but not upsides. Unfortunately, there is conflation or confusion between cloudseeding and sunlight reflection methods. I hope to see this legislation in TN changed to allow cloudseeding. | |
| ▲ | bad_haircut72 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Most of that idiotic crap goes out the window when real problems show up. I do believe Texans will get the same "pray for rain" BS we're laughing at Iran for now though. | |
| ▲ | mkoubaa 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nothing a golf course ban couldn't reverse | | |
| ▲ | DANmode 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you sure? | |
| ▲ | kcplate 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ahh yes, the old “let’s outlaw those things I don’t like, but others do that has billion dollar industries supporting it” approach. That always goes over well. | | |
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is there a better argument for golf courses than “think of the jobs”? | | |
| ▲ | kcplate 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure. It’s a recreation that many people get joy from doing… Just because it may not be “your thing”…doesn’t mean it’s not worth having. | | |
| ▲ | slumberlust 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I enjoy playing golf and also realize how wasteful it is. Id support repurposing the spaces near me for parks/zoning usage. | | |
| ▲ | kcplate an hour ago | parent [-] | | Parks need to be landscape maintained, so does new development—-often in very similar ways that a golf course is (water, chemical, maintenance). Unless around you simply doesn’t have the open land space to support the area’s park and development needs, what is actually wasted? I think folks get caught up on golf course water usage, but every course around me uses reclaimed water. If houses were built there, that would no longer be reclaimed water, but potable water. Also I am convinced that landscape chemical usage would go up as well. I have close family and friends in the business, I guarantee that huge efforts go into making sure not a single drop of irrigation isn’t used unless it’s needed. I can tell you that my neighbors don’t pay that much attention to their exact irrigation needs—simply watering for as long as they can, when they can. I doubt seriously that replacing a golf course with more homes would net much water savings…at least around me. | | |
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Public parks directly serve way more people than golf courses and don’t discriminate based on income (or class, ethnicity, etc) to the same degree, if at all. |
|
| |
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I have absolutely enjoyed my time on the golf course, but much like recreational cruise ships I’ll be perfectly content with them gone too. Just because I enjoy something doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate how wasteful it is and would oppose ending or at least reducing it. | | |
| ▲ | kcplate an hour ago | parent [-] | | I just don’t see the waste. Unless you are just going to let those spaces go wild again you will have similar efforts to maintain the spaces and with potential similar water usage. | | |
| ▲ | BolexNOLA 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > you will have similar efforts to maintain the spaces and with potential similar water usage. For more people across a broader socio-economic background. I mean come on let’s just acknowledge the elephant in the room: golf is a rich sport for upper-income/rich people that requires a massive amount of space that then often has a deleterious effect on surrounding real estate (i.e. inflates it and prices people out). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | rectang 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Those of us who live in other states also have to prepare for the refugees fleeing ruined lands who will bring their destructive ideology with them. |
| |
| ▲ | latchkey 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How would you prepare? | | |
| ▲ | rectang 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think the first step is to develop a "we're not Texas" culture. Observe the ways in which Texas is ruining its environment and deliberately, conspicuously do something else. For example, the aquifer situation in the Central Valley of California is in some ways similar to Ogallala aquifer in Texas. "If we don't want to end up like Texas, we need to get a handle on this." Enact laws and conservation measures which make it difficult for those coming from out of state to bring their ecologically irresponsible practices with them. Ideally, reduce the ecological impact wrought by well-established California interests as well, but if necessary grandfather them in in order to prepare. |
| |
| ▲ | bombcar 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s so lucky that even though refugees from other states bring negative consequences at least refugees from other countries don’t. | | |
|