Arizona Limits Construction Around Phoenix as Its Water Supply Dwindles (nytimes.com) 153
Longtime Slashdot reader MightyMartian shares a report from the New York Times: Arizona has determined that there is not enough groundwater for all of the housing construction that has already been approved in the Phoenix area, and will stop developers from building some new subdivisions (Source paywalled, alternative source), a sign of looming trouble in the West and other places where overuse, drought and climate change are straining water supplies. The decision by state officials very likely means the beginning of the end to the explosive development that has made the Phoenix area the fastest growing metropolitan region in the country. The state said it would not revoke building permits that have already been issued and is instead counting on new water conservation measures and alternative sources to produce the water necessary for housing developments that have already been approved.
Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and its suburbs, gets more than half its water supply from groundwater. Most of the rest comes from rivers and aqueducts as well as recycled wastewater. In practical terms, groundwater is a finite resource; it can take thousands of years or longer to be replenished. The announcement of a groundwater shortage means Arizona would no longer give developers in some areas of Maricopa County new permits to construct homes that rely on wells for water.
Phoenix and nearby large cities, which must obtain separate permission from state officials for their development plans every 10 to 15 years, would also be denied approval for any homes that rely on groundwater beyond what the state has already authorized. The decision means cities and developers must look for alternative sources of water to support future development -- for example, by trying to buy access to river water from farmers or Native American tribes, many of whom are facing their own shortages. That rush to buy water is likely to rattle the real estate market in Arizona, making homes more expensive and threatening the relatively low housing costs that had made the region a magnet for people from across the country.
Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix and its suburbs, gets more than half its water supply from groundwater. Most of the rest comes from rivers and aqueducts as well as recycled wastewater. In practical terms, groundwater is a finite resource; it can take thousands of years or longer to be replenished. The announcement of a groundwater shortage means Arizona would no longer give developers in some areas of Maricopa County new permits to construct homes that rely on wells for water.
Phoenix and nearby large cities, which must obtain separate permission from state officials for their development plans every 10 to 15 years, would also be denied approval for any homes that rely on groundwater beyond what the state has already authorized. The decision means cities and developers must look for alternative sources of water to support future development -- for example, by trying to buy access to river water from farmers or Native American tribes, many of whom are facing their own shortages. That rush to buy water is likely to rattle the real estate market in Arizona, making homes more expensive and threatening the relatively low housing costs that had made the region a magnet for people from across the country.
Water Is Wet (Score:4, Insightful)
And the desert is not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately it's as much news as people in famine prone countries deciding not to breed because they won't be able to properly raise and feed their children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Water Is Wet (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's gonna vote them out? The people who can vote there already live there - and they're probably happy about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:3)
Just buy off the election officials. Go direct. None of that pesky voting and risk of losing your investment.
I know this is meant as a joke, but I can't tell whether or not you believe the underlying statement. If you do, then your perception is wildly out of line with any evidence about recent elections (please cite one example where election officials were bought off and threw an election).
If you don't believe it then I guess you're mocking the rubes who do? But that's not particularly funny and it risks reinforcing their view by echoing it back to them (i.e. they'll read this as standard dark humor from someone
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:4, Insightful)
He is a right wing shill, of course he believes that anywhere trump lost is due to corrupt election officials
Re: (Score:3)
Hi dumb ass Marxist clown. I never mentioned Trump. He's the one living rent free in your head. I didn't even vote for the guy.
I said elections are corrupt which has been true since before your dumb wrinkled ass was born.
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters made a lot of claims about the elections officials in Maricopa County (where Phoenix is located) being corrupt, and repeated investigations have shown that they are not [apnews.com]
You are going to have to come up with some other support for your denial of reality
Re: (Score:2)
So you're ok with the vote machine being broken into by election officials in between the machine certification and the election.
But you're a Marxist asshole so yeah that's expected and par for the course.
And oh yeah it's on film. What next, you going to say it's a deep fake?
Re: (Score:2)
It is one thing for you to be willing to ingest lies and brain cancer yourself, but expecting everybody else to believe your crap is just a step too far
I am sure you can provide citations for your dreck, but then you would have them fact checked and exposed for the lies they are
That must hurt your widdle feewings, huh?
Re: (Score:1)
Part of that is they're trying to preserve some of that for the truck farms out there.
The problem is, with dwindling supply, this is a delaying action at best.
Re: (Score:2)
We will definitely wipe ourselves out before any asteroid or comet does. Besides, we can always send Bruce Willis up there to handle the situation.
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:3)
Could an asteroid make Earth less hospitable than the moon or Mars? Maybe it would make more sense to focus on how to survive a global disaster for a few years on Earth without going anywhere?
On a multibillion year time scale we have to worry about the sun swallowing the Earth, but we could probably leave that problem to future generations.
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to another area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure."
The moment Smith said these lines he became very like- and relatable.
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:5, Insightful)
"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment,"
False. Boom and bust cycles in populations are well documented with jackrabbits and coyotes being one example.
Re: Water Is Wet (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much every mammal will. It's even in the Smith quote. Mammals achieve equilibrium in their environment. Usually by mass starvation. That's the primary method of achieving equilibrium. Anyone who agrees with Smith simply doesn't understand how life works. Animals don't choose to stop breeding because they plan ahead for resource depletion. That's a stupid belief.
What Smith demonstrates is he has no understanding of how life works. For all his capabilities, access to information, duration of existence and so on he's pretty fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Smith has no idea wtf he's talking about. Life of all sorts will grow to fill whatever resources are available and keep breeding past that point and then have a population crash. If they're capable of spreading to other areas to find more resources they will.
This is not limited to humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Animals don't have a concept of money
Animals can be taught the concept of money:
https://www.zmescience.com/res... [zmescience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not."
A demonstrably incorrect statement. Well, at least you weren't modded "Informative".
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that we should have the ability to realize that and use that realization to limit our impact.
Instead we use our smarts to ensure we maximize the damage by spreading further.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently no one has informed Intel and TSMC of this. Hard to believe they don't read the news, but they apparently do not.
However, notice that Arizona has not decided to curtail industries that suck enormous quantities of water. It turns out enormous quantities of money can be substituted for enormous quantities of water when pols are involved.
Re:Water Is Wet (Score:4, Insightful)
That used to drive me nuts here in australia (You wanna see deserts? Try this shit out for size lol). We'd be having huge water restrictions , everyones gardens are dying, and the premier would be on the TV nervously talking down the possibility of more drastic outcomes. Meanwhile Some random multinational mining company gets the nod to drain halff an aquifer and fill it with cyanide to process dirt (Yes, Cyanide is used in tailings for multiple mining processes, and yes it has shocking impacts on the environment). Considering how few jobs mining actually creates in this country, its mindboggling how much political power it has.
Forget voting, politicians are chosen by money..
Re: (Score:2)
No. not really. Its the party line, but the evidence doesn't support the conclusion. Theres maybe 60-70 thousand people employed directly in the sector and another 100 or so indirectly, out of a country of 27million.
And I'm going to guess your probably employed by BHP. That company is huge. I actually did work there once, hated every second of it, the most bureacratic place I've ever worked, and I've worked a lot of government.
Re: (Score:2)
From where? The Colorado River?
Re:Water Is Wet (Score:4, Interesting)
Read up on the CAP (Central Arizona Project) that takes water from the Colorado to the Phoenix metro area [cap-az.com], or the Salt River Project that has brings water form the Salt River and Verde Rivers to the Phoenix Metro area [srpnet.com]
They are waaaay ahead of you
Of course they have already enacted planning laws that require any new development show were they are going to get water from for the next 100 years, so... [amwua.org]
It's almost as if... (Score:2)
Re:It's almost as if... (Score:5, Informative)
There have been people living in Arizona for about 10,000 years. The carrying capacity of the desert for hunter-gatherers is quite limited, but there's been agriculture in the river basins for about 2000. By 1300 there were some irrigation structures in use that were quite impressive for a culture without writing and with limited mathematics.
They did this without air conditioning. Partly they were just tougher than we were. Partly they were more adaptable than most of us are. But they also had generations of cultural expertise in dealing with the climate, for example knowing how to site and build homes to minimize heat in the summer.
Re: It's almost as if... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Partly there was too few of them to overwhelm the eco-system.
Re: (Score:2)
Partly there was too few of them to overwhelm the eco-system.
There were more than enough people on the continent to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
Electronics and machine are another factor. That heat needs to be removed. If you are in a dry climate, those can be placed outside.
But this article is about water. And what we have seen is co
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure most of them died before 60 as well. Older people have a rougher time with extreme temperatures compared to young people. Now that Arizona has a lot more old people, they need their AC!
Re: (Score:2)
60-70 years, which was the life expectancy at adulthood for pre-Columbiann indians, is pretty good, considering that current life expectancy in Arizona is 76.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are clearly an idiot who repeats idiotic things
By 1300 the Hohokam had created the largest canal system in prehistoric North America, with 500 miles of canals providing irrigation to over 100,000 acres of cropland. The system provided food for an estimated 80,000 people with the highest population density in the ancient Southwest. [arizonaruins.com]
Most of those canals are still in use today, and the name of the largest city in the valley, Phoenix, was in recognition that it was rising from the ashes of a previous large c
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I am willing to bet you were repeating something that you read or heard, and just trying to make it sound more authentic by claiming to have first hand knowledge of said dog whistles [wikipedia.org]. You don't get out much do you?
You said: Their ancestors were subsistence level tribes scratching an existence out of the sand. There was no ancient wisdom or culture of this n that.
As a matter of fact the Tohono O'odham are the main tribe in that area, and they do claim the Hohokam as their ancestors. The Gila River [gilariver.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You are a liar and a troll who cannot bear to be proven wrong
Re: (Score:2)
I lived my life. You have no idea who I am. You posted from wiki. Because you have zero personal experience in these matters. I didn't need to post from wiki.
And that's a wrap. My personal lived experience vs your wiki reposting about some other tribe that my cousin isn't a member of. You still think all NA are the same.
Oh and your racism. Can't forget that. You white gays and your "mystical Indian" bullshit. All my NA cousins laugh at you naive racist white guys and are happy to take your money se
Re: (Score:2)
Oh noes, got too close to the truth and you turned all nasty
just like the little bitch you are
Re: (Score:2)
And this has what exactly to do with the problem discussed here?
Or is it a thinly veiled attempt at derailing the discussion?
Re: (Score:2)
And the right wingnuts have their panties scared off by people wanting to come to America and work.
Desert is not good for living (Score:3)
It's actually very good for living (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem we're having is that we devote 50 to 60% of our entire civilizations outputs to the whims
Contrast Phoenix and Las Vegas (Score:5, Insightful)
It is possible to manage water usage in a desert. Look at Las Vegas. Although Nevada receives the smallest amount of Colorado River water, they have added 750,000 new people in the last 20 years and yet use 26 billions gallons less per year. They do this by aggressively recycling water and putting that water back into Lake Mead. And they aggressively restrict water usage (well, perhaps a little less aggressively for the Strip). So, lots of restrictions on grass, swamp coolers, and swimming pools, not to mention new golf courses.
Contrast that with Arizona that allows alfalfa growing in a desert to provide feed for cows in Saudi Arabia.
A lot of this is political will. There are ways to use water in a sustainable way.
Re:Contrast Phoenix and Las Vegas (Score:4, Informative)
Metro Phoenix uses about 33% less water than it did in 1980, despite massive population increases.
Phoenix has also voluntarily decided to leave 150,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Mead and Lake Powell over the next three years, an effort to delay exhausing those resources.
Compare this with California, which so far has refused to:
- Reduce allocations
- Build desalination plants, actually rejecting proposed plants
- Recover and recycle rainwater, despite Gov. Newsom's executive order this year, and the many plans, very little rainwater is collected in California. Most is runoff into the ocean, and flooding/landslides occur regularly with no response other than 'sorry, too bad' from governments.
As so often happens, California cannot make good decisions, lets the fringes decide for the rest, and avoids responsibility for the problems of its own design. From electrical power distribution to homelessness and mental illness, to rampant petty crime being undeterred, California should have enacted building restrictions a decade ago due to the failing water supplies, though it has effectively limited especially home building through impenetrable permitting processes. And watch, California will resist making concessions to at least hold the Colorado River deficiencies to current levels. They will demand all others accept their senior water rights and cut, while making no serious effort to do so themselves.
California is not the only problem with the Colorado River exhaustion, but they are the largest, and the greatest opportunity to make real progress.
Fair disclosure, I live in the Basin, Gilbert AZ, and water is a big deal. It's become obvious we need further conservation, and these housing limits will be expanded. Loopholes need to be closed, and it will mean Phoenix cannot grow as it has over the last 15 years or so. Ok. And farming is being further restricted, watch as the alfalfa farms and others are required to reduce water use. That will be either improved irrigation methods or laying fallow. The Saudi example will not readily be repeated, and it is the basis for new and future restrictions. We got that.
Re: (Score:3)
Reduce allocations
This is a real problem. They need to take water away from rice and almond farmers. But GLWT. Water rights are some of the most serious legal issues that there are. And if you look at the attitude of the federal government towards them, you will see that that attitude is "fuck you, I'm drinking." They're aiming to put a rail line along the Colorado river that has the potential to destroy the water supply for multiple states, because Big Oil wants it. If Big Money wants to use all the water, the law will prot
Re: (Score:2)
"take water away from rice"
Water used to flood rice fields is not consumed by the rice. Flooding fields is used for weed suppression, so you can either recycle the water or use a non-flooded field method.
The water that is actually consumed in growing rice is comparable to other grains.
Re: (Score:2)
Water used to flood rice fields is not consumed by the rice.
Right, it evaporates, and water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and oh yeah increased temperatures due to AGW increase evaporation.
In any case the state can't bear the water use, and the rice production also produces little income for the state. Given the water problem it's a net negative. Same for the almonds. And they've mechanized most of the labor out of both, so they're not even jobs programs. And if they were, they wouldn't be jobs programs for citizens, anyway. They wouldn't pay enough for them to live on
Re: (Score:2)
The main problem is growing animal feed such as alfalfa and corn with irrigation in low-rainfall areas like in California and Arizona.
For human feeding crops some are more water intensive like rice and almonds but they still end up being relatively efficient because the food is directly consumed by humans. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of water needed to grow animal feed for meat and dairy. Cows (beef and dairy) are unfortunately the most water inefficient at turning irrigation water into
Re: (Score:2)
California cannot make good decisions, lets the fringes decide for the rest, and avoids responsibility for the problems of its own design.
One of the key problems California faces is that of senior rights, i.e., whoever got there first gets privileges that newcomers don't get. This concept is seen in many areas. Senior water rights allow the rights owners to use unlimited amounts of cheap water. Proposition 13 allows homeowners who bought their homes many years ago to pay a small fraction of what new home owners pay.
It doesn't matter these policies hurt the majority of citizens. In California, 80% of water consumed by humans is used by far
Re: Contrast Phoenix and Las Vegas (Score:2)
Yet conservation and recovery efforts are nil. That's something senior rights can't impact.
Agricultural use to have to be addressed, but California should be doing all other things as well. And most of those are merely money and NIMBY problems.
Re: (Score:3)
"but those are both problems we solved a long time ago"
Global warming and no water to bring, so it was solved in a few points in time. However, time changes, you may have noticed that...but I doubt it. More air conditioning is making more air conditioning necessary. It is called a feed forward loop. And the West is under a 23 year drought, there's no water at hand to get it to the entire West.
Re:Desert is not good for living (Score:5, Insightful)
Chicago (and Boston, and Denver) are terrible places to live. They have plenty of water, but the cold temperatures require huge amounts of energy to keep all those 100 year old houses warm.
Oklahoma and much of the rest of the midwest are terrible places to live. The storms and tornadoes kill dozens of people yearly, and almost every house takes up what could be productive farmland. Besides, they probably raise most of the flat-earthers because no one from there can conceive of anything but flat land. ;)
The Gulf Coast and Southest coast are terrible places to live. Hurricanes blowing through have caused more financial damages than any other form of natural disaster in the USA.
California is a terrible place to live. Between occasional earthquakes that essentially destroy a city, and an environment that rocks back and forth between arid and desert yet tries to support a zillion people, it's almost unliveable.
So where's left that I should live? I'm sure I can find those flaws also.
Re: Desert is not good for living (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone who knows anything about science including mid westerners knows the earth isn't flat. That's fucking ridiculous.
It's hollow with an inner sun.
If there wasn't an inner sun then the dinosaurs and Nazis would freeze.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hollow with an inner sun. If there wasn't an inner sun then the dinosaurs and Nazis would freeze.
And Amazon Women...big chested bikini wearing Amazon women are there too... ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah but don't tell everyone that or they'll all want to go there.
Re: (Score:2)
Earthquakes aren't really that bad and seldomly happen to the extreme that buildings or infrastructure is damaged. Wild fires and overpopulation are the bigger problems by far.
I agree with the rest of your post though. Many other places are a lot worse to live.
What took so long to figure this out? (Score:3)
Did the developer bribe money dry up along with the groundwater?
They elected a Democrat Governor (Score:4, Informative)
When folks say both parties are the same they are very very wrong. There's a small community in Arizona that is currently without water finding that lesson out the hard way.
Re: (Score:1)
Dude, wearing tinfoil in that heat isn't good for your brain, you're obviously baking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Was Hillary wearing tinfoil when she said for years (and still does) that Trump stole 2016 from her with Russian help?
Wrong timeline (Score:2)
So try again with your time machine, maybe you'll find your own timeline someday where those things you said happened the way you think they did.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop lying! Its just makes you look stupid.
Facts:
Multiple representatives objected to the votes from several states! - In MSNBC vernacular, engaged in denial-ism and attempted to steal or democracy!
Events like the women's march resulted in a good deal of property destruction and were a direct response to the election as were initial BLM events etc..
#resistance happened - insubordination within the executive branch. One might even call it an attempted coup by factions loyal to the outgoing administration!
th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So you had a kid when you were 15?
Isn't that the future the Republicans are now actively trying to create with their child marriage laws? There was a chick trying to get me to not use a condom when we were both 15 or 16, next person who screwed her impregnated her. It could have been me!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on Martin. All Mexicans are some perverted form of Catholics. She wanted a big family.
I've never had sex with even a Mexican-American, let alone an actual Mexican, unless I count myself (and I am only the former.)
I'm just glad you never actually spread your seed.
Me too! Children are expensive and my family is shitty so I have no support team. It would have been a nightmare.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you are definitely missing out. They make great lovers! In San Diego, you get plenty of opportunities!
relatively low housing costs?! (Score:2)
Arizona (Score:5, Interesting)
Arizona is otherwise great for development. Flat plains as far as eye can see, and even further. "Manageable" climate. Overall very friendly group of people.
However for the current cities water is and will always be a problem. The article mentions farmers, which actually take about three quarters of the state's water supply. Yes, there is agriculture in Arizona. Where do you think those delicious watermelons are coming from: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Quic... [usda.gov]
And most people don't realize, but Arizona has vast amount of forest land, just North East of Greater Phoenix Area. And Flagstaff (more North) is a ski destination, covered in snow long periods of the year.
Why am I telling all these? Arizona can still continue to grow, but they need to change the direction from going further into the desert to more temperate parts. It might involve giving up flat surfaces for some inclination, but it can be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I lived in Arizona for more than a decade (left in 2014) and I can assure you that there are tracts in Phoenix where the covenants (HOA terms) that mandate green grass lawns. Also, there are laws that limit the cost of water to the cost of delivery of it, not of the intrinsic value. That means that the utilities can't charge what the resource is worth.
When I moved to Chandler, a suburb of Phoenix, we had to drain our pool to do some repair and acid wash it. I was terrified as to what that would cost, and tr
Re: (Score:2)
In Phoenix, you buy water from the City of Phoenix., not a utility [phoenix.gov]
While making some allowances for low income households, the City charges you extra for using too much water [12news.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Kalyfornya is otherwise great for development. Flat plains as far as eye can see in the Central Valley.
Maybe you should think about playing with a sea level rise tool.
Desalinate some seawater (Score:1)
There's no shortage of water, there's plenty of it in the sea. Build some nuclear power plants and water desalination facilities along the Pacific coast and there will be enough water for the southwest USA.
UAE figured this out.
https://www.oilandgasmiddleeas... [oilandgasmiddleeast.com]
https://www.oilandgasmiddleeas... [oilandgasmiddleeast.com]
Re:Desalinate some seawater (Score:5, Insightful)
LoB
Look I get that you're a little behind the times (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had no idea Arizona was on the Pacific Ocean and was wondering how they would find "alternative sources" of water. The solution is easy now that they have the Pacific to draw water from. THAT was too easy.
Learn to Swim
See you down in
Arizona Bay
Re: (Score:1)
You DO realize that building nuclear reactors on/near a major fault system (like the one California sits atop) is generally a Very Bad Idea. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
They are concerned with the dumping of the salt back into the ocean. To much salt will cause the area to become brackish and poisonous to the local environment. If we could find a better way to get rid of the salt that would probably be a great idea though.
TSMC + Arizona People (Score:5, Interesting)
Why / how did this end up on /.? (Score:2)
Not seeing the "news for nerds" angle.
Re: (Score:3)
Not seeing the "news for nerds" angle.
Those of us who are human and real are in the physical world, take up space, and require food, clothes, and shelter. Fuckin' chatbots, I swear.
But Saudia Arabia is never mentioned (Score:5, Informative)
While this is about construction around Phoenix, I don't see Arizona figuring out who the corrupt state officials were that allowed Saudi Arabia to pump unlimited amounts of groundwater [cbsnews.com] essentially for free, so they can grow alfalfa to ship back to Saudi Arabia for the kingdom's horses.
Re:But Saudia Arabia is never mentioned (Score:5, Interesting)
So here's the thing about that. There are no laws at either the Federal level or the State level to prevent foreigners from buying land in the United States. Saudi Arabia decided to invest into farmland that had preexisting water rights. They found it was much more affordable to buy the land with water rights, grow their animal feed and ship it home.
All of this was done without needing any bribes to local officials since nothing backhanded was being done. They actually invested into the area and provided a lot of jobs in the process.
We can certainly debate whether we think a foreign entity should be allowed to buy private land but the vast majority of the country is apparently just fine letting ANYONE with enough money buy whatever land in the country they want.
You totally have my vote if you want to force all foreign entities to sell their USA holdings, both commercial and residential. Further that by preventing any future foreigners from buying those same USA assets making them only available for Americans to purchase.
Of course, you'll have to convince Congress and I'm sure you realize that the only thing our government cares about is catering to rich entities, regardless of nationality.
Perpetual growth is NOT necessary. (Score:2)
Perpetual growth is to benefit the rich. Encouraging it is degenerate. Overpopulating areas beyond their water supply is stupid.
It being impossible for the public to understand this until coerced by events, they are now coerced by events. Living in Arizona is a luxury not a necessity. The lie of infinite water sold the idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a troll. Worked for China.
Re: (Score:3)
Technically feasible however likely to run into political head winds.
It would be a repeat of what happened 120 years ago with a 330 mile pipeline where the chief engineer was driven around the bend by the political harassment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (Goldfields Water Supply Scheme)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] (C. Y. O'Connor)
Re:Great Lakes (Score:5, Informative)
Theres a lot of water in the Great Lakes. Just build a canal and connect to the Colorado.
There's less water than you think. Certainly not enough water to squander on irrigating the deserts of the western United States.
Luckily, many years ago all of the states and provinces bordering the Great Lakes agreed on a charter that proscribes just such stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not from the US so I might get this wrong but,
They already did?? The Central Arizona Project? Water from the Colorado River, all the way to Phoenix.
There is not enough water? the Colorado River is dry before it reaches Mexico. Hoover Dam controls the water water management / release so there's a steady supply of water all year round. but the base level of water get really low in dry years because the demand downstream in Arizona and California now exceeds the what can be supplied in dry years.
Re: (Score:2)
a little googling the final stretch to phoenix is apparently called The Hayden-Rhodes Aqueduct.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm of the mind that if someone wants to do something dumb like drain a lake maybe they can start the experiment with Tahoe and see how that goes (probably not all that well). It is not a fix for needing sustainability.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great Lakes (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a very old compact on how water in the river can be used, regardless of source. In a nutshell, California gets to use everything it wants before anyone else gets a drop. So adding water to the flow would simply add more throughput going to California. Arizona would not be legally allowed to get any. The reason for this is the date of the compact and how populations have developed since. You can look into it yourself if you want more information.
There have been many attempts at renegotiating the compact to adapt it to the changed population numbers and environment, but California torpedoed them all for the obvious reason of "why would you agree to give away a massive advantage?". You would need US Congress to come in, declare the compact null and void and only then would you be able to actually redistribute water in a more reasonable fashion for modern age.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like you can google "colorado river compact" and read the actual text and then read the modern events around it. All of it is in fact lies!
Re: (Score:2)
Man, this is just not your day, is it?
You are horrible at trolling usually, but this is bad even by your own standards.