patrick.net

wthrfrk80 says

Who exactly decided it would be a good idea to build big cities in deserts? I don't understand the attraction. Is it the sunshine? The lack of humidity? The scorpions?

Since it's land that sucks for farming, why not use it for residential usage and just bring in water from someplace else? It's not like you can't run a pipe ot the Great Lakes or use the vast desert for solar desalinization.

leoj707 says

Maybe, but what technology are we talking about? Sure, consumer electronics has exploded over the last 40 years. When was the last big advancement in agriculture that allowed for a huge increase in production? (HINT: it has to do with nitrogen and happened over 100 years ago)

I'd say drip irrigation but then I read this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/11/farming-with-dr.html

zzyzzx says

Since it's land that sucks for framing, why not use it for residential usage and just bring in water from someplace else?

If it sucks for framing, how are you going to BUILD houses? Or did you mean farming?

I moved away from Phx about five years ago. Check out the water marks on the Hoover Dam. I remember talking to a lady who ran a gas station somewhere between Vegas & Phoenix - the water table was dropping and her well had failed.

Cotton farmers in AZ have lost some of their water to the cities. Rightfully so, IMO. That's an idiotic crop to grow in a water-scarce environment.

Interesting no one mentioned the golf courses. I remember scoffing at the pleas for citizens to curb their water usage - golf courses dwarf residential water use.

Also, Palo Verde reactors were using effluent water for their cooling back in the 90's. I think they started losing out as cities wanted to recycle the water for their own use.

Man, the Phoenix water tastes nasty...

"I'd say drip irrigation but then I read this:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2008/11/farming-with-dr.html"

That is an idiotic article: "While drip irrigation can require half the water that flood irrigation does, plants absorb more water with drip, crop yield increases and more water is lost to evapotranspiration. Because drip is more efficient, there is also less overflow to seep back into aquifers or wash into nearby streams or rivers.

That means less water for downstream users and future generations dependent on the aquifers. "

So he's arguing it wastes water because it doesn't use too much water???

chris3637 says

Interesting no one mentioned the golf courses. I remember scoffing at the pleas for citizens to curb their water usage - golf courses dwarf residential water use.

Are you suprised that the 'little people' have to sacrifice but the rich people don't?

chris3637 says

So he's arguing it wastes water because it doesn't use too much water???

He's probably being paid by an interested party to say it.

He is pointing out a well accepted principal of water use. The amount of water passing through a system is irrelevant. The amount of water removed from the system is important.

So, the 'water use' of the Hoover Damn should be the amount that is evaporated from the reservoir, not the amount that passes through a turbine.

The 'water use' of the farm is the net amount removed from the water source. Drip irrigation systems increase the net water use per acre. They do this through increasing yield, so water use per unit product is not increased.

"The amount of water passing through a system is irrelevant. "

Interesting. I guess your water isn't metered, or is free?

If I have a 5 gal. bucket full of water & use it all , does quibbling about how I used it fill the bucket again? LOL

if i have a five gallon bucket and i pour the water into another 5 gallon bucket, then pour it back into the first bucket, have i used any water?

YesYNot,

Where can I get another bucket? Forget it. I would still have an empty bucket.

Hey You. Are you serious? Did you read the article?

YesYNot says

The 'water use' of the farm is the net amount removed from the water source. Drip irrigation systems increase the net water use per acre. They do this through increasing yield, so water use per unit product is not increased.

Either way, who's bright idea was it to do farming in a friggin desert?

^They started when they found a big underground aquifer in 1903. Probably someone back then. It really wasn't a bad idea at the time. I'm sure that they will do less and less as they run out of water.

Roberto has a point that the farming will be cut before the cost to residents is driven sky high.

YesYNot,

I can't read. Sorry you missed the symbolism that Arizona might be looking at an empty bucket.

They already cut water to Imperial county farmers and routed it to San Diego residents. Though I wonder why they can't build a pipeline from say WA and/or OR and bring it down here. MS and LA too have surplus water-they could route it to TX-that is reeling under a drought.

Oops-I guess public works/big govt??

HEY YOU says

I can't read. Sorry you missed the symbolism that Arizona might be looking at an empty bucket.

OK, I guess I still am not sure exactly what you were talking about, but that is fine.

“the Southwest must cut its water use by about SIXTY percent to bring water supplies into balance, given projections of longer, deeper droughts in the decades ahead”

http://www.paysonroundup.com/news/2012/sep/21/studies-show-southwest-faces-water-shortage/

WAH WAH WAH doomers QQQing about everything? Listen up!! Take the time you post all this water stuff in the LAND (real estate duh) section and instead spend it FANTASIZING about your future riches from buying as many houses as you can and renting them out to idiots you will be rich in no time. You gotta trust the duck on this one, it’s a can’t miss strategy! CHOOBACHOOBACHOO (Also Patrick please delete this thread it is Liable!)

"Increased groundwater pumping to support population growth in south-central Arizona (including the Tucson and Phoenix areas) has resulted in water-level declines of between 300 and 500 feet in much of the area."

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html