No groundwater, no new homes, as Arizona severely restricts new housing
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Cities like Phoenix may have robust contracts for access to water, but courts move a hell of a lot slower than dehydration. At least there's not much fuel to feed a wildfire in Phoenix?
Upvote
75
(77
/
-2)
The fact the population has surged this much but water usage has gone down over that period is quite miraculous.
Upvote
283
(283
/
0)
Yeah, that's really impressive. The downside, though, is that it probably means that they've already captured all of the low-hanging fruit, and further reductions will be more difficult and increasingly painful.
Upvote
186
(186
/
0)
There is more than enough water available for municipal/residential use in Arizona. What there isn't enough water for in Arizona are alfalfa farms, pecan orchards, and golf courses.
Also, no, there are no "humid" climate zones in Arizona.
Upvote
314
(317
/
-3)
People don't use much water. Landscaping does. Agriculture uses much more.
For California, the rule of thumb is 80% of the water goes to agriculture, and 20% to the cities. Of the water that goes to the cities, 80% of that goes to landscaping.
EDITED TO AD
Turns out "80% goes to landscaping" is too high for recent years. California has cut landscaping water use considerably. https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Webs.../June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf : "Even before the latest drought, per capita water use had declined significantly—from 231 gallons per day in 1990 to 180 gallons per day in 2010—reflecting substantial efforts to reduce water use through pricing incentives and mandatory installation of water-saving technologies like low-flow toilets and shower heads. In 2015, per capita use fell to 146 gallons per day in response to drought-related conservation requirements. Much of the recent savings came from reducing landscape watering, which makes up roughly half of all urban water use." Thanks to msadesign for doubting at the right time.
Last edited:
Upvote
224
(228
/
-4)
Some years ago, Cambria, CA, near Hearst Castle, stopped issuing water meter permits. I do not know if they have relented on that.
Also, Hearst Castle is worth a visit. Take the "kitchen" tour. It is stunning that one man had so much money and such bad taste.
Also, Hearst Castle is worth a visit. Take the "kitchen" tour. It is stunning that one man had so much money and such bad taste.
Upvote
56
(60
/
-4)
I'm no expert but I have a feeling that building a city like it's in the middle of a desert instead of making artificial canals like in the lead photo so that rich suburbanites can pretend they're in Florida might have some impact on water use. And of course alfalfa etc. last time I was in Arizona it seemed like many of the farms weren't even using efficient irrigation systems, just spraying water out into the arid air to evaporate.
Upvote
140
(146
/
-6)
A very forthright case of limited resources limiting growth. Any and all growth. Extrapolate.
Upvote
-6
(16
/
-22)
This article and the article I saw in the Times miss the forest for the trees. 70% of Arizona's water goes to agriculture, 1% of their economy. They're effectively exporting 70% of their water in the form of alfalfa and other agricultural products. Building more houses would actually decrease water usage if built on agricultural land. Stop subsidizing uneconomic farms and this problem goes away.
Upvote
338
(339
/
-1)
And of those uses, you could keep the golf courses if they stopped growing water-intensive crops in a desert.
Upvote
89
(89
/
0)
Simply too many people and activities…all activities…for the region and its available water supply.
Upvote
2
(22
/
-20)
“It’s not about stopping growth,” said Haley Paul, Arizona policy director for the National Audubon Society.
It sounds like it should be about stopping growth, since the region's resources can't really support its current population as it is. But I guess anything other than "line go up" is commie talk.
It sounds like it should be about stopping growth, since the region's resources can't really support its current population as it is. But I guess anything other than "line go up" is commie talk.
Upvote
62
(83
/
-21)
Ding ding ding. They trimmed all the fat. The next cuts are going to have to go deeper, and rock-ribbed conservative constituencies who are going to be very angry that the government will necessarily stop subsidizing their free enterprise with low-cost water from public water projects.
Upvote
100
(103
/
-3)
I get that desert and near-desert agriculture is part of what allows us to have fresh fruits and vegetables year round, but why do the farmers grow such a thirsty yet low value crop as alfalfa? Is it needed for nitrogen fixing of the soil, or is water just so underpriced it's economic for them to grow it?
Upvote
140
(140
/
0)
Upvote
18
(32
/
-14)
Golf courses and unnecessary crops qualify as unnecessary activities.
Upvote
56
(64
/
-8)
Exactly. If you talk about natural limits and growth-limiting factors, people lose their shit in places like Arizona. It's like you've suggested that Antifa and the resurrected ghost of Che Guevara should personally put them and their whole families against the wall and shoot them.
Upvote
53
(62
/
-9)
In drought-stricken Arizona, fresh scrutiny of Saudi Arabia-owned farm's water use
In Arizona, worsening drought has brought renewed attention to a farm owned by a Saudi Arabian company and whether the state should be doing more to protect its groundwater resources.
www.pbs.org
Upvote
122
(122
/
0)
A dose of reality. Our actions on this earth have consequences that we can’t ignore.
Upvote
39
(43
/
-4)
Yeah. The Colorado River and groundwater in arid places just needs to stop being used for agriculture and golf. There is plenty, plenty of farmland in other parts of the U.S. that can support all the nuts, sprouts, vineyards, and more. Let people in California and elsewhere have more water for their homes, schools, and places of business instead of using all of it to make wine & almonds.
Upvote
74
(78
/
-4)
Upvote
72
(72
/
0)
Arizona laws allow unregulated access to the watershed, to the point where people in some towns don't have access to tap water. It isn't about cuts. It is about a fundamental change to how Arizona has structured its economy.
Upvote
59
(61
/
-2)
Sprawl is pretty bad. But perversely sprawl that replaces agriculture use can decrease water usage (if that agriculture is poorly planned/implemented).
Especially if the sprawl at least makes minimal concessions to the conditions, with xeriscaping.
Upvote
49
(49
/
0)
The perfectly kept grass lawn needs to die. It only became a thing in the post-war period suburban housing boom.
Upvote
99
(102
/
-3)
Saudi Arabia needs to feed cows.
I don’t think the one farm is solely responsible (if it is, WTF) but it certainly raises a few questions and eyebrows.
Upvote
52
(52
/
0)
Let's be real - they were highly incentivized to build out in that desert state. The state government and the Federales made it very lucrative to go out into the desert and build a state there for a long, long time.
Now the incentives need to be lined up the other way. That's going to be hella-painful for the folks who have profited from being incentivized to go into the desert and turn it into farmland. To actually fix the problem a lot of very wealthy people with political clout are going to have to lose a lot of money. It's far more likely that they'll try to find ways to make the non-wealthy people without the political clout deal with it instead, even though there's no way to actually do that and solve the problem.
Good luck to Arizona - I hope they can figure it out.
Upvote
62
(62
/
0)
I'm going to be that guy: "mi·rac·u·lous; adjective: miraculous; occurring through divine or supernatural intervention, or manifesting such power."
This is a result of government policies that used evidence from science, math, and engineering practice to make better choices than the otherwise would have. We need to highlight when such things work because many refuse to believe there is a role for government or STEM in our lives.
Upvote
52
(59
/
-7)
Pricing necessities is always difficult ethically... now if you did it just for commercial uses I'd get behind that. It's kind of wild Arizona limited housing before farms in the desert.
Upvote
49
(49
/
0)
If you've got 25 minutes, John Oliver had a great segment on water rights, spending some time on how much water is dumped in the desert Southwest so that people can pretend they're living in an oasis.
Upvote
69
(70
/
-1)
When I lived in Phoenix the golf course near me used gray water to water the course. What I wish they’d ban are the massive grass yards that are everywhere. The HOA where one of my friends lives mandates that they have a certain amount of grass. It’s beyond stupid to force people to plant grass instead of using native desert plantings.
Upvote
132
(132
/
0)
Gold courses are only "unnecessary" if you consider recreational activities as "unnecessary". Golf isn't my thing, but gaming PCs use a lot of power, and could be considered "unnecessary". Ski resorts use a lot of water, even with on-site capture and recycling. Hiking & camping contribute to degradation of nature and result in forest fires. And so on.
IMO, recreation > inappropriate crops
Upvote
-16
(40
/
-56)
I cant speak for the entire state but last time I was there pretty much all the houses were xeriscaped I didnt see any with grass lawns.
Upvote
42
(43
/
-1)