Slashdot Mirror


Western US States Using Up Ground Water At an Alarming Rate

sciencehabit (1205606) writes A new study shows that ground water in the Colorado basin is being depleted six times faster than surface water. The groundwater losses, which take thousands of years to be recharged naturally, point to the unsustainability of exploding population centers and water-intensive agriculture in the basin, which includes most of Arizona and parts of Colorado, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Because ground water feeds many of the streams and rivers in the area, more of them will run dry.

377 comments

  1. ALL RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Soon the Department of Water and Power will control all the water and have all the power.

    1. Re:ALL RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He who controls the water, controls the universe!

    2. Re:ALL RIGHT! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      But where will the US get its supply of mutant kangaroos?

    3. Re:ALL RIGHT! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the fun things about Seattle is we actually own the entire watershed here. All of it. So the suburbs basically have no water rights.

      They either buy it from us at a premium to what our citizens (who own it) pay or they buy it from someone else (at a higher premium since it has to be trucked in).

      Capiche?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:ALL RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Better dig up your roller skates and stat! The E-Protectorate comes after the orb.

    5. Re:ALL RIGHT! by alen · · Score: 1

      most property deeds out there already exclude water and mineral rights. this has been a periodic problem going back hundreds of years

    6. Re:ALL RIGHT! by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Everett is setup the same way with a lot of it sold to SnoPUD (also public.) I love our public utilities! My water in on Tulalip Bay comes from a Tulalip Utilities well and water tower about a half mile away. The east end of the rez last year put in a 30" pipe to Everett to get more water for the Quil Ceda Village area.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    7. Re:ALL RIGHT! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Our smug-as-hipsters-in-a-coffeeshop Seattlite neighbors aside (yeah, I live in one of those suburbs), we actually have really good, reasonably priced water here, unless you're of the opinion that fluoride is poisoning your kids, I suppose.

      Our water is very soft and some of the best tasting water around. Whenever our family drove our RV down to California (this was obviously years ago when gas wasn't priced like now - it was cheaper than flying + renting hotels), one of our most precious resources was our on-board supply of Washington water. We couldn't stand the hard stuff you'd get down there, especially in the LA area.

      One day, as we drove the RV over a driveway curb, the water cap got knocked off. We panicked, trying to put the cap back on to save our precious water as though it were liquid gold. Our hosts, who's driveway we were watering, couldn't understand our consternation. Don't worry, they said, you can just refill your tank with our water. But, we protested, this is Washington water! They looked at us like we were nuts.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    8. Re: ALL RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next stop: Fallout-New Vegas.

    9. Re:ALL RIGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great shades of Dune, Batman!
      People may have to revive the Japanese method of drinking their morning urine to recycle vitamins and water!
      Of course the Japanese that still do this, don't filter it or blow the head off the top of the glass.

    10. Re:ALL RIGHT! by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Where I lived in the SoCal desert, the water was so high in calcium that for those drinking tap water (which mostly came from deep wells), there was no such thing as calcium deficiency. It was largely a retirement community, and you never saw so many 80 year olds with ramrod-straight spines. You could actually spot older folks who drank bottled water -- by their curved spines.

      And it's good-tasting water. Personally I don't like soft water, it tastes like dust.

      When you get bad water in SoCal, it's usually not the water -- it's the pipes. Plastic pipes react with chlorine and the result tastes like a corpse. Let the water run til fresh stuff from the mains reaches the spigot, and suddenly you have good water again.

      Now, northern plains water from shallow wells, that's nasty stuff -- too much magnesium so it tastes like Epsom salts, or occasionally like rotting plastic. Drill down to a deeper water layer, tho, and the problem usually goes away.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  2. Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you thought the wars and environmental harm over oil was bad, we ain't seen nothing yet.

    1. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Water water everywhere and not a drop for me.

    2. Re:Peak Water by alen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      US military does periodic defense reviews and the ones i saw back in the late 90's predicted wars over water shortages

    3. Re: Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bye food.

    4. Re:Peak Water by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Well, predicted as in considered the possibility of, right?

    5. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's their job (and porkloin) to predict war over everything, that way they can tell Congress they need big $$$ to be prepared for every contingency, real and imagined.

    6. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, predicted as in considered the possibility of, right?

      No. Predicted as in we already see the wars being fought over the economic conditions arising from a lack of it elsewhere.

      Believe it or not, you can live without Internet, oil, air conditioning or even meat. But if drinking the local well water is gone, or "just" poisons you, you can't survive. You'll kill not for gold or ideology, but for water to drink, or to prevent your kids/wife/etc from dying of thirst. The ironic bit is we will poison the local well water via fracking for gas, so we can have "cheap" oil to fight for farther distant oil fields.

    7. Re:Peak Water by alen · · Score: 2

      yep

      but then every war has been about resources and religion or anything like that

    8. Re:Peak Water by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Civil wars?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And food riots that topple governments. We've seen that already with the Arab Spring. That guy wasn't wearing bread on his head for nothing.

    10. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The ironic bit is we will poison the local well water via fracking for gas, so we can have "cheap" oil to fight for farther distant oil fields.

      Fracking doesn't poison ground water*, but disregarding that piece of mis-information, and assuming it to be true; we have technology for water purification and if it takes less energy and costs less to decontaminate the water for the few people affected than the large value and energy from frack-gas, then it totally makes sense to carry on, and for the frackers to supply the people affected with water purification systems.

      You can take water, add cyanide (or arsenic, or barium sulfate, or whatever), remove the cyanide, and drink the water with no ill effects. Poisoned or contaminated ground water is not really a big deal when you have access to technology and energy to operate that technology. In fact in a lot of places the ground water is naturally poisonous.

      * The chemicals used in fracking are detergents, they probably don't taste good, but they aren't poisonous. Fracking is also not done to the water table, but far below the water table to fossil water which is often poisonous due to contamination with arsenic, uranium and other heavy metals. One possible way that fracking can poison ground water is if the casing supplying fracking pressure to the well breaks leaching poisonous fossil water into the water table, though I don't know of any instances of this actually occuring.

    11. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a small scale look at what happens... look at Lester Washington. Now a ghost town owned by Tacoma water. There was actual shooting in the streets..... it gets bad!

    12. Re:Peak Water by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The world isn't overpopulated.

      There is one very simple option to prevent overuse....let the price rise naturally until water usage decreases enough that you aren't draining aquifers. Currently the local governments (CA,especially) artificially decrease the price of water for farms in the desert, so of course you get this entirely predicable (and predicted by economists in the past) result.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    13. Re:Peak Water by MrNaz · · Score: 2

      Yea! We don't need no stinkin' ecosystem! We got technologies! Raaa!

      --
      I hate printers.
    14. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because conservatives only care about energy, and don't realize that gas at 1.00$ a gallon won't help if water is the same price. you can't drink gasoline (not more then once anyway).

      and burning fossil fuels to make more potable water, and then wrecking even more potable water to get the fossil fuels is just daft.

    15. Re:Peak Water by xdor · · Score: 1

      The worst of fracking is that it brings up naturally occurring Radon from underground.

      Though I'm pretty sure this is easily handled by aerating the water.

    16. Re:Peak Water by xdor · · Score: 1

      I think you missed the bit where he says poisonous water is naturally occurring in some places.

    17. Re: Peak Water by Asha2004 · · Score: 1

      You may be unaware of this but lots of water used for fracking actually comes back up as part of the process. This is then transported and pumped into the ground elsewhere. The wells used for this are not as deep as the fracking sites. Hence the many quakes in Oklahoma.

    18. Re: Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea man. Poison water is natural so what the hell is all the fuss about mine runoff and chemical spills into rivers.

      People like you have probably never left the city. You probably think that the food grows right there in supermarket shelves.

      It's the ignorance of city idiots like you that is killing us.

    19. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the root cause of the Gaza conflict, all of the aquifers are under Palenstine hence why Israel is so bent on controlling that territory.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_Palestinian_territories

    20. Re:Peak Water by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? Even back in 2011, Israel was planning to have most of their water from the ocean, and has been at the forefront of desalinization for decades. Try again.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    21. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kashmir.

    22. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in PA they have poisioned the drinking water at locations in 24 counties.

    23. Re: Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

      Seriously, if it's not poisonous to humans, why is the industry at large so protective of this formula of liquids used in the process? Seems to me the burden of proof is on the side injecting a classified cocktail of liquids into the ground.

    24. Re:Peak Water by pepty · · Score: 1

      What natural price are you talking about, exactly? The natural price for ground water is the cost of digging a well on your property and pumping the water out from under your (and your neighbors') property. The price only goes up to the extent you drain the aquifer and need to dig a deeper well.

    25. Re:Peak Water by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      The natural price of a commodity is the clearing price, AKA the price where the available supply matches the available demand when those in the market for that commodity aren't prevented from agreeing on a mutually satisfactory price.

      The government agencies setting the price artificially (which is why the reference to naturally) have tended to set it too low. That results in a shortage of water as more water is purchased for immediate use (vs among other things, storing for sale later, in forms such as an aquifer) than would be if the price were higher.

      We've been using prices to ration scarce goods for thousands of years. They work very well at it. They lead to the situation where the most economically efficient use is made of the resource.

      If you think the only cost of ground water in the west is digging a well and pumping it out, you likely don't live in the west. Essentially all the water in most western States is used by whomever owns the water rights. Most of the water rights are currently owned by government agencies, water boards, etc... which have been accumulating them for a long time (If you don't use your water rights continuously, the government will take them and add them to their own rights. If there is a water rights title dispute, the government purchases them for pennies on the dollar because then they can legally resolve the dispute in their own favor and claim the water rights, where a private citizen couldn't, etc...). They then turn around and sell the water at artificially low prices to the politically powerful. In CA, that's the farmers.

      I happen to own (along with 500 acres with a well on it) a significant portion of 860 acre-feet of water rights in a rocky mountain state and I grew up in CA, so I'm fairly familiar with the way water works out west.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    26. Re:Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fracking doesn't poison ground water*...Fracking is also not done to the water table, but far below the water table to fossil water which is often poisonous due to contamination with arsenic, uranium and other heavy metals.

      And that further contaminated water is extracted and things like this are done with it:

      Road Spreading
      Production brine from conventional, low-volume fracking in New York State is currently allowed to be spread on roads for de-icing, dust control, and road stabilization purposes. If not properly controlled, this waste can run off into adjoining property and ultimately could contaminate rivers, streams, and underground aquifers that feed local drinking water supplies. - See more at: http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/safeguard/gas-drilling/the-facts-about-new-york-and-fracking-waste/#sthash.vsCX1o1B.dpuf

      Also decontaminating water at an agricultural scale on an ongoing basis after the contamination of groundwater would be extremely energy intensive.

    27. Re:Peak Water by pepty · · Score: 1

      I happen to own (along with 500 acres with a well on it) a significant portion of 860 acre-feet of water rights in a rocky mountain state and I grew up in CA, so I'm fairly familiar with the way water works out west.

      If you think the only cost of ground water in the west is digging a well and pumping it out, you likely don't live in the west. Essentially all the water in most western States is used by whomever owns the water rights.

      Surface water is regulated and priced that way in CA, but California law gives the groundwater rights to whoever owns the overlying land.

    28. Re:Peak Water by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      you said:

      "Fracking doesn't poison ground water".

      Weird, taking a second and googling "fracking poisoning groundwater", the top hit was this:

      http://www.scientificamerican....
      " Records from disparate corners of the United States show that wells drilled to bury this waste deep beneath the ground have repeatedly leaked, sending dangerous chemicals and waste gurgling to the surface or, on occasion, seeping into shallow aquifers that store a significant portion of the nation's drinking water.

      In 2010, contaminants from such a well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park....."

      the second hit was this:
      "...How can drinking poisoned water be safe? Numerous scientific studies have concluded that fracking poisons the local water supply by adding carcinogens and radioactive materials. According to Dr.Sandra Stenigraber, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College and Science Advisor to Breast Cancer Action, there have been over 1,000 different cases of water contamination near fracking sites."

      So um where exactly do you get this bit of logic? oh from the oil/natural gas companies you shill for? that would be my guess.

  3. Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Water Wars have only just begun.

    1. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a proposal to built a freshwater pipeline from Lake Superior. I'd prefer to see growth limited to sustainable levels before they start pumping water out of the Great Lakes...but moneyed interests will probably get their way...they usually do.

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    2. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by xfizik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pumping out of the Great Lakes would not make Canada happy.

    3. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The water in the great lakes are already starting to drop. The great lakes consortium states would do just about everything to stop other states from coming in and taking their water. It would be the equivalent of Wisconsin trying to forcibly move all the wealth of silicon valley to green bay.

    4. Re: Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dropping?
      Maybe according to the IJC projections.
      But not reality-
      NYT June 28th:
      Lakes Michigan, Huron and Superior are at least a foot higher than they were a year ago, and are expected to rise three more inches over the next month. Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are seven to nine inches higher than a year ago.
      http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/us/creeping-up-on-unsuspecting-shores-the-great-lakes-in-a-welcome-turnaround.html?_r=0&referrer=

    5. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that they care about what happens out here in flyover country? They'll steal our water one way or another. Eventually, nobody in America will be even be able to own a rain barrel without a permit because some tycoon out west bought the rights to the water. You know they won't conserve a drop of it, either.

      As far as I'm concerned they can ask us for our water when they've tamed their own consumption, but that was never our decision to make. We're just rednecks out here, what do we know?

    6. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by ahaweb · · Score: 1

      Why not pump from rivers instead of lakes?

    7. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by pkinetics · · Score: 0

      No problem. Just give them another NHL hockey team. They'll be too distracted to notice the water disappearing.

    8. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a treaty with respect to water in the Great Lakes. Not sure how that would affect things.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    9. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      moneyed interest? aka people that your tax dollars subsidize to fornicate and reproduce at unsustainable rates while also allowing an influx of people from outside the country? oh yea. 'moneyed interest'

      Funny, I thought it referred to corporations buying public water at pennies on the dollar to sell for nickels to another corporation.

      I say, tax the water and gas and KWh at a 50%+ rate, and use those funds to build sustainable resources. Thermal solar powered water desalination plants, PV car chargers, etc. Don't run our natural resource principal down to zero in the name of corporate profits.

      80% of fresh water in the US is used by industry/agiculture (1 gallon per almond was the recent figure). That said if you have a lawn and your shower/bath water doesn't provide the primary water to the landscaping, you are part of the problem too.

    10. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't fuck with those Salmon or those northern Cali folk will go nuts.

    11. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since global warming is causing oceans to rise, why not desalinate ocean water and pump it back into the aquifers?

    12. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean where they've been at the highest point in a decade because we now seeing a return to normal winter snowfalls? I remember 8 years ago that they were screaming that the end was nigh because the water levels had dropped. This was because we had unseasonably short winters with no heavy snow packs.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Actually, long-term it's going to be the other way around. California coastal towns have already started desalinating, even though they currently have to use the expensive reverse-osmosis technology. As soon as the nerds at Caltech figure out how to apply graphene, the cost will drop exponentially and the big California cities will be able to make their own water. This will take the strain off inland water sources for a time, after which California will be actually shipping water inland in exchange for the power that it refuses to generate for itself.

      How do I know this will be the next big thing? Look at the major environmentalist sites, and you will see that the flat-earther lobby is already lining up against desalination. Why would they have against a technology that, apart from cost, has no downside? Because they know it will be next big thing for humans to benefit from.

    14. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if all the fucking idiots moving to CO from CA and the east coast didn't insist on having nice green lawns in a dry high altitude climate, lawns continuously watered with potable water, there wouldn't be such a shortage.

    15. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by lagomorpha2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said if you have a lawn and your shower/bath water doesn't provide the primary water to the landscaping, you are part of the problem too.

      If you still believe in the concept of lawns you are part of the problem.

      At what point did people start thinking that spending resources planting and maintaining a monoculture of sterile inedible grass was a good idea? Did golf players do this to us? The same area and resources could be used for everyone to have fresh vegetables growing around thier homes except:
      1) homeowners associations and baby boomers would throw a fit
      2) Americans don't eat vegetables anyway

    16. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm fine with not mowing any lawn at all, but I think the kids would prefer nicely-manicured turf to practice their soccer on.

      Or perhaps you're good with funding a soccer field on every block or two?

    17. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a treaty with respect to water in the Great Lakes. Not sure how that would affect things.

      Not at all. I mean, really...look the US's behavior when there have been inconvenient treaties between it and those with which it shares a continent.

    18. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Commontwist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And yet you have farm, home, and cottage owners living near the shore of Lake Manitoba in the province of Manitoba screaming about the lake getting too much water from the Portage Diversion due to all the recent flooding.

      If all the excess flood water could be piped South to thirsty states every spring that would likely make more than just the Lake Manitoba residents happy. Heck, the capital of Winnipeg has a floodway designed to prevent the city from becoming the center of a lake (check out a satellite image south of the city 1997)

    19. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a proposal to built a freshwater pipeline from Lake Superior. I'd prefer to see growth limited to sustainable levels before they start pumping water out of the Great Lakes...but moneyed interests will probably get their way...they usually do.

      That ship already sailed, and Bill Richardson (as in D:NM) got his ass kicked over it.

    20. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a proposal to built a freshwater pipeline from Lake Superior. I'd prefer to see growth limited to sustainable levels before they start pumping water out of the Great Lakes...but moneyed interests will probably get their way...they usually do.

      Do you want war against Canada? Nobody is allowed to drain that sacred lake without consent of both party. How much you offer?

    21. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Waterfallsoutofthesky, New Zealand, people have lawns, because anywhere you leave an open area of dirt, rain and grass seed falls on it and soon enough you have a lawn whether you wanted one or not.

      Every spring I have to get out in my (raised, boxed in) vege garden and remove the lawn from it before I can start planting. It's not like you have to plant grass for it to grow everywhere.

      -puddingpimp

    22. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Canadian treatment of natives was historically not much better from what I've heard.

    23. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sad thing is Los Angeles is right there on the ocean......they have plenty of water if they would just purify it instead of stealing it from half of the rest of the country.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    24. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, only about 10% of California's water supply comes from the Colorado River. The majority comes from Northern California and the Sierras.

      The other states on the Colorado River don't have a lot of leverage. They are way more dependent on it than California is (Arizona, for example, gets 40% of its water from the Colorado River) and the Colorado River Compact limits the amount they are permitted to use.

    25. Re: Colorado has California over a barrel by Amtrak · · Score: 1

      Better yet just let the maple leaves win the cup.

    26. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because desalination requires a lot of energy.

    27. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do. It's why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea.

    28. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First there is a treaty amongst all the states & provinces bordering the great lakes that prohibits supplying water to any area outside the watershed. Second, it would be cheaper to water the fields of the desert states with Brawndo than to pump water from the Great Lakes.

    29. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by El+Puerco+Loco · · Score: 2

      I live one block away from the Niagara river. Out of curiosity I compared the rate that I pay for water with the residential rates for Phoenix and L.A. My rates are the highest. No wonder the west is running out of water.

    30. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean where they've been at the highest point in a decade because we now seeing a return to normal winter snowfalls?

      That is patently false. 2013 was the lowest point in all of recorded history. It has gone up slightly for the season, as it always does.

      I remember 8 years ago that they were screaming that the end was nigh because the water levels had dropped.

      That is because it did. The trend continues.

    31. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by xfizik · · Score: 1

      You've heard wrong.

    32. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      That is patently false. 2013 was the lowest point in all of recorded history. It has gone up slightly for the season, as it always does.

      Really? Best let environment canada know that their data is incorrect. After all, it appears that the water levels are above the lowest recorded, and in many cases at the highest point in a decade.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    33. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only long-term sustainable growth is zero. Just sayin'.

    34. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1, Redundant

      So, they're not lowest say 10 feet, and are at their highest in ten years, say 12 feet, but what if 25 years ago they were 15 feet?

      A decade is a really short period of time for weather/water levels/ etc.

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    35. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. will simply ignore the treaty, like they ignore all other treaties they have signed once it's no longer convenient to abide by them.

    36. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy is cheap and abundant.

    37. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we nuke Canada until they surrender.

    38. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Water is mostly wasted. Changing to drip irrigation can save a lot of water in dry climates where a lot of it evaporates. Waste water from cities is much easyer and cheaper to treat into potable water than desalination for example.

      We are mostly very wasteful with water because its so cheap.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    39. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure my local HOA board (of which I'm a part) will totally allow me to throw all sorts of pipes around just so I can water my meager garden (5' x 10') from my shower, which has SOAP in it, capable of killing my garden or grass.

      --
      . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
    40. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by John+Da'+Baddest · · Score: 1

      Cite some examples?

    41. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      Don't worry. We'll just take water from our half

    42. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Yes, and with their aggressive nature and huge military force that's something we should really be worried about.

    43. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      You mean where they've been at the highest point in a decade....

      A decade is an awfully small sample size for resources which can have replenishment schedules measured in centuries:

      Natural refilling of deep aquifers is a slow process because groundwater moves slowly through the unsaturated zone and the aquifer. The rate of recharge is also an important consideration. It has been estimated, for example, that if the aquifer that underlies the High Plains of Texas and New Mexico—an area of slight precipitation—was emptied, it would take centuries to refill the aquifer at the present small rate of replenishment. In contrast, a shallow aquifer in an area of substantial precipitation such as those in the coastal plain in south Georgia, USA, may be replenished almost immediately.

      Source: http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleinfiltration.html

    44. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      +1

      Every time I drive through my denver neighborhood and see those lawns I think 'well that looks nice, but what a waste'. I water mine just enough to not have it completely die and piss of the neighbors, which equates to about 30min total for front+back(10min front+5min side+15min back) 3 times a week. Yet I always hear people at work talking about how much their water bill is and everything they do to their lawn and I just think........stop, no one is forcing you to do that but yourself. Who are you really in competition with and does it matter?

    45. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Particularly if all you need is heat. You could potentially build an almost entirely passive desalinization plant fairly readily by building a greenhouse atop the ocean and making the roof slope towards the sides with catch basins that then flow downhill towards the shore. The only thing required is an insane amount of glass (and an insane amount of space to dedicate to it).

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    46. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

      There's another to increase the size of the WAC Bennett Dam in northeast British Columbia, and pipe out of the resulting extraordinarily large reservoir. The proposal is to raise the lake there to at least 1000m above sea level and send the water to California.

      --
      Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
    47. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by airdweller · · Score: 1

      CA consumes about 27% of the river's water so I think your 10% number is a bit an understatement.

    48. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by xfizik · · Score: 1

      Typical american attitude.

    49. Re: Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per the article you linked the water level has been down for about 15 years before that 1 foot came back and the effect it had on the surrounding area while it was low was not ideal. The concern that water levels may not maintain themselves in the great lakes area is a real one. Now, if only the great lakes consortium would consider blocking the rivers where the asian carp will enter the ecosystem, that would be something.

    50. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      So, they're not lowest say 10 feet, and are at their highest in ten years, say 12 feet, but what if 25 years ago they were 15 feet?

      Don't worry if it flies over your head, but the data goes back to 1913.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    51. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At what point did people start thinking that spending resources planting and maintaining a monoculture of sterile inedible grass was a good idea? Did golf players do this to us? The same area and resources could be used for everyone to have fresh vegetables growing around their homes except:
      1) homeowners associations and baby boomers would throw a fit

      HOAs do a lot of illegal things, aided and abetted by a legal profession that has been out of touch with ethics for decades (arguably since the country was founded).

      You can't write a contract to murder somebody, but you CAN write all kinds of contracts that violate fundamental rights, because the legal profession realizes this brings them business. Contract law is their bread-and-butter.

      Putting that in other words, the legal profession is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the nature, scope, and form of contract law. We Slashdotters have discussed this many times, generally in the context of "shrink-wrap" licenses or other abuses of so-called "intellectual property" law.

      Just as contract law has been corrupted in the interests of the legal profession, so too has property law been corrupted. The combination of property covenants and contract allow HOAs to effectively function as yet another level of government (but one that doesn't respect the Bill of Rights).

      If there is a legitimate need to require green lawns, the normal legislative process can be used to write appropriate laws, which in turn will be subject to the Bill of Rights. As a right to act responsibly with respect to the environment arises under the 9th Amendment, such a law would necessarily be quite limited in scope (far more so than HOA authority).

    52. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      By moneyed interests I was thinking more of those whose wealth strategy is based on constant growth. More people, to buy more stuff...even if we have to degrade one region of the country to do it. The folks who will not concede that, maybe, we need to limit growth in areas that can not sustain unlimited growth. Water is just now becoming a very conspicuous symptom of this philosophy, or so it seems to me. I could be wrong. Bur I think there is a least a bit of truth to my observation.

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    53. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      The aquifers are not recharging at a rate that matches our withdrawals.This fact is not much impacted by snowfall trends.... either lower the withdrawal rate to match the recharge rate, or admit you intend to drain the aquifer. Those who depend on wells will be out of luck in that case, snow or no snow.

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    54. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      We can do what we want with Lake Michigan. Canada be damned!

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    55. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by xfizik · · Score: 1

      Because it's disconnected from the other lakes, right?

    56. Re: Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are allowed to water your lawns? England has had a hosepipe ban for decades it seems, especially in areas that had floods...

    57. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      For which they need massive desalination facilities. For which they need nuclear.

      I mean, it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned, but the local eco-hippies might not see it that way.

    58. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I mean, it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned, but the local eco-hippies might not see it that way.

      Local hippies protest solar, and really anything

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    59. Re: Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here we have the battle of uncited claims.

    60. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Grey+Geezer · · Score: 1

      No..cause it's Canada...

      --
      The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
    61. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The big one is Carlsbad, near San Diego, but towns all the way up the coast are installing plants:
      http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...

      And these are all using reverse-osmosis tech, which costs about twice the market groundwater rate. THey represent hedges against the total disappearance of groundwater.

    62. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a proposal to built a freshwater pipeline from Lake Superior. I'd prefer to see growth limited to sustainable levels before they start pumping water out of the Great Lakes...but moneyed interests will probably get their way...they usually do.

      Do you want war against Canada? Nobody is allowed to drain that sacred lake without consent of both party. How much you offer?

      Why yes, yes I do want another war with Canada if they'll come burn Washington DC again.

    63. Re: Colorado has California over a barrel by airdweller · · Score: 1

      ACs are so lazy these days. Couldn't you at least check the Wiki article on the river?

    64. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by riffzifnab · · Score: 1

      But I thought we already thought of this, that's why "Canada Dry" is sold!

    65. Re:Colorado has California over a barrel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may like this link and the comments on it, it's only vaguely related to water, but the economic mechanisms are the same:
      The NPV of grandchildren:
      http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/24/184325/864

  4. Streams will run dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because ground water feeds many of the streams and rivers in the area, more of them will run dry.

    Good. Because if the ground water is such a precious resource, we sure as shit don't need to be hemorrhaging it into streams and rivers.

    1. Re:Streams will run dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Santa Cruz river thru Tucson has been dry for so long, the local joke is the first day that the temp hits 100F, "breaking news, the ice has melted on the Santa Cruz"

      In the 1960's there were pictures of concrete pads on wells that were three to five feet off the ground. Drive I-10 near Pich-a-co Peak (Picacho Peak) and there is a ten foot drop in the highway from ground water subsidence.

      Not new news.....

    2. Re:Streams will run dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      http://www.azheritagewaters.nau.edu/loc_cienega.html

    3. Re:Streams will run dry by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Right, because human consumption is the only thing that matters - once we wipe out all other life on the planet we'll be free to eat each other forever!

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:Streams will run dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck. Are you just being funny or are you just that fucking retarded? Rivers and streams are the sign of a healthy ecosystem.

    5. Re:Streams will run dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, because human consumption is the only thing that matters - once we wipe out all other life on the planet we'll be free to eat each other forever!

      Oddly obligatory XKCD. To rebut your snark, with a minimal breeding pool and sufficient preservation, we could live on eating each other for millions of years. Might as well be forever with those time frames.

    6. Re:Streams will run dry by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      I don't want to live in a world without bacon...

    7. Re:Streams will run dry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A recent xkcd "what if" says we'd be able to survive only about 32 months if all we had to eat was each other.

    8. Re:Streams will run dry by the+phantom · · Score: 1

      People make excellent bacon.

    9. Re:Streams will run dry by Immerman · · Score: 2

      I've been slacking, hadn't seen that one before.

      Sure, given preservation capabilities far in excess of anything the human species has ever accomplished, and a way to exterminate everyone else up front, you could pull it off. Out here in the real world the laws of thermodynamics require that you assume a steadily diminishing breeding pool to pull that off - only the Midgard Serpent can survive indefinitely by eating it's own tail. As is covered just slightly further down that page - assuming everyone is struggling to survive and half the population eats the other half every month to maintain a sufficient caloric intake we'd only last a few years.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:Streams will run dry by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Only the fat ones.

      Conveniently, they're also the easiest to catch.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:Streams will run dry by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Humans, reportedly, taste just like bacon. So you're in luck.

    12. Re:Streams will run dry by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Oddly obligatory XKCD. To rebut your snark, with a minimal breeding pool and sufficient preservation, we could live on eating each other for millions of years. Might as well be forever with those time frames.

      No, It was What If and you are misremembering it.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    13. Re:Streams will run dry by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The Santa Cruz river thru Tucson has been dry for so long, the local joke is the first day that the temp hits 100F, "breaking news, the ice has melted on the Santa Cruz"

      I was there 30 years ago and the "joke" was prevalent then.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  5. Should the United States accept more foreigners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I often hear it said that the United States needs to accept more foreigners from Central and South America, especially in the southwestern states.

    But how can that claim be reconciled with facts like these? How can the United States be expected to provide for these foreigners, if there aren't even enough basic resources for the actual Americans and foreigners who are already living in the area?

  6. Yeah, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's ice at the south pole of the Moon and we can 3D print more water cuz 3D printing. This is obvious because computers got better.

  7. getting worse by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Funny

    And now all the pot farming is going to make it even worse.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    1. Re:getting worse by msauve · · Score: 1

      Beer FTW! Then you're only renting the water.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:getting worse by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but if you smoke the pot, you won't worry about the water any more . . . except for your bong.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:getting worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. We used to use aeroponics, and all of the water and nutrients were recycled. Total use (adsorbed by the plants) was a fraction of the water needed to grow them. We probably reused 70-80% of the water.

      P.S. We used this "high tech" solution (so to speak) back in the early 1980's, and grew some awesome pot in the basement - hash on a stick, you could call it.

    4. Re:getting worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if they grow hydro and don't change out their reservoirs during flower. There's absolutely no need to dump all the water out of your reservoir every 2 weeks and refill it. Stop listening to the hydro store guy and the people that are selling you the nutrients you have to use more of when you refill. *facepalm*

      Serious amount of water wasting going on by growers that don't know how to grow premium quality cannabis.

      Colorado needs to implement some public service campaigns to educate the growing public about water wastage, quality issues and a few other things. Some of the tax dollars they've getting from cannabis sales should do nicely.

      Be kind, no synthetics, no chemicals... and dump your reservoir where the plants in the environment will benefit from it.

  8. Better late than never, Slashdot by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    People have been talking about this ever since (and likely before) T Boone Pickens stole the water in western TX.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nonsense! This is nothing more than a fake liberal crisis by King Obama! Its a conspiracy to turn the country into a commie state and kill capitalism!

      The solution is obviously to give corporations the power to monetize water! Only by deregulating water and allowing the free market to decide things will things be solved!

    2. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by swillden · · Score: 1

      People have been talking about this ever since (and likely before) T Boone Pickens stole the water in western TX.

      Old rancher's saying: "Men fight over land, but they kill for water."

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

      “A man's flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe.” Frank Herbert, Dune

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    4. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People have been talking about this ever since (and likely before) T Boone Pickens stole the water in western TX.

      Texas has uniquely dumb laws that let you suck up whatever water is underneath your land.

      So if you own a couple acres on the edge of a giant underground reservoir that spans several counties, you are allowed to drain the entire reservoir from your property.

      Texas tried to mitigate this by allowing for local water boards, but they get bullied/sued if they don't allow the resource extraction.
      Read more here: http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/print-view/who-stole-the-water-20140623

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    5. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The problem is that people actually believe this. Ie, if the government says anything, it is automatically assumed to be a lie by the same people who use much of that water. Coastal towns which tend to be more liberal start conserving (except San Francisco, since they legally yet immorally own a water shed a hundred miles away). Inland farmers tend to be be conservative and are dubious about it, and a subset of those think it's a plot. Their concern number one is that they might have to let some fields die off. People who are not even farmers express deep sadness that a crop might be lost because of government interference in water.

      On the other hand, some conservation rules are a bit messed up. You get rewarded for saving more water, which means that it you paid the price to put in water saving features in your farm a few years ago that you won't get credit for that today. It's a mess, but the ultimate problems are that so many don't want to bother conserving water, there are stupid legacy laws that grant a few groups of people access to all the water they want, and water is so damn cheap that no one cares. We even have several cities that have no such thing as water meters, they figured water was so cheap that why bother trying to keep track of it.

      The last problem is forgetfulness, no one remembers the droughts once they're over and so the old wasteful ways return or else it's an issue to solve later. It's not like droughts are rare in California and yet people always act like it's the first time.

    6. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by endeitzslash · · Score: 1

      T. Boone actually got beat out by CRMWA, which is the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority. They wanted to sell water to Amarillo, and when T. Boone didn't play ball they started buying up all the land around his (considerable) property. Even an armchair hydrogeologist knows that if you pump along the edges of a property, the water moves along the gradient towards the cone of depression. So T. Boone was forced to deal, and he sold his rights to CRMWA. CRMWA/Amarillo wins, and T. Boone has to mutter to himself while taking his nightly bath in gold coins (thinking Richie Rich or Scrooge McDuck here).

    7. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Aside from the validity of your satire, one of the issues is that water is too cheap. Corporations wouldn't have the right motives (long term enough) but water should be more expensive because price is one of the best ways to control demand. Perhaps it shouldn't be affordable to grow extremely thirsty crops is areas with water shortages when the land could be used to grow less thirsty crops and more demanding crops could be grown elsewhere.

    8. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      You would be hard pressed to find a thirstier crop than meat. Almost half of our water goes to animal agriculture. http://www.onegreenplanet.org/...

      It makes sense to switch to a plant-based diet rather than continue to deplete (and contaminate with manure) our precious water resources.

    9. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ie, if the government says anything, it is automatically assumed to be a lie by the same people who use much of that water.

      Correction:
      Ie, if the government says anything, it is automatically assumed to be a lie by the people who are members of the opposing party and use much of that water.

    10. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Absolutely true, although I'm not sure want the government stepping in and banning all meat production. If water cost something slightly less comically low then we'd see consumption of 'wasteful' products fall due to the price differential. The reason I don't like blanket bans is that in many cases they punish a small subset of negative behaviours. I'd expect the water waste of someone with a huge lawn, or a large open air pool in a hot arid area is wasting vastly more water than someone who eats the odd chicken ;)

      Stop subsidising water and waste will go down, without restricting personal choice or haphazardly punishing certain negative choices and not others.

    11. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's a joke (maybe), but the water monopolies SHOULD raise costs of water. CA is exporting all its water (via food) all over the US/world, and that needs to be reined in. Also, wouldn't hurt to build a big pipe that drains water from all the flooding states on the east coast. Afterall, if we can build a pipe to transport crude oil, I'm sure we can do the same with water (especially when we raise prices on water).

    12. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 1

      And stop subsidizing meat and letting people graze cows on federal lands. Also make factory farms pay the true cost of their waste instead of externalizing to the public. It's a tragedy of commons!

    13. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by pepty · · Score: 1

      Those laws aren't very unique. CA currently has zero laws regulating groundwater pumping, AZ seems to be planning to regulate it - just as soon as the wells go dry.

    14. Re:Better late than never, Slashdot by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      Coastal towns which tend to be more liberal start conserving (except San Francisco, since they legally yet immorally own a water shed a hundred miles away)

      Where are you getting that calumny from? I mean the part about not conserving, not owning Hetch Hetchy. San Francisco has reduced its water usage around 10% in the current drought (although the goal is 20%.)

      The Los Angeles area has actually increased its usage by 8%. Go talk to them about morals.

  9. Not So Top Secret Government Installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go check the fusion reactors powering the Bunker Complex below the Denver International Airport. Also check the coast off of central California where large amounts of possibly nuclear waste water has recently been dumped from within the tunnel complex linking Colorado.to the east and west US.

    1. Re:Not So Top Secret Government Installations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROTFLMAO!

      THanks :)

  10. I'm alarmed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    That headline alarmed me!

    1. Re:I'm alarmed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh baby, your alarm triggers me so good.

  11. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ahaweb · · Score: 1

    The U.S. exports its water now, in the form of food. So your concern-trolling is disproportionate to reality.

  12. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You assume that the reason we should accept more foreigners is for them.
    The reason we should accept more foreigner is that if we get enough of them we will run out of resources which will solve the obesity issue, making America healthier.

  13. Just more alarmism from waterists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Waterist like to pretend water is crucial for life and plant development. These are all fabrications from hydrologists who wish to keep their grant money.

    1. Re:Just more alarmism from waterists by ohieaux · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we should switch to Branwndo

      --
      Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
    2. Re:Just more alarmism from waterists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Branwndo has what plants crave.

    3. Re:Just more alarmism from waterists by jittles · · Score: 1

      Waterist like to pretend water is crucial for life and plant development. These are all fabrications from hydrologists who wish to keep their grant money.

      Brawndo with electrolytes! It's got what plants crave!

  14. Investment strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long water of course; but also deoderants, composting toilets, cacti and succulents, artificial grass, etc.

    Short fountains, Las Vegas real estate, swimming pools, hoses, water themed recreation parks, etc...

    There's a lot of room to conserve in the US, but it's not the American way. Water will get bought up by private companies, who will charge ridiculous rates. People will then move to where it's cheaper. Problem solved, but not without a lot of pain. I've already seen the privatization thing happen very close to me. It's causing a lot of pain. Our water company is a "mutual" with a charter that forbids conversion to such a stock company; but you can't put absolute faith in something like that.

  15. Cancerous tumor. by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some time ago I remember reading about a proposal to building an aquaduct from the Snake River in Idaho to Southern California. It reminded me of the metaphor that when a cancerous tumor grows unchecked it will commadeer local blood vessels for its own use.

    1. Re:Cancerous tumor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How dare those cancer cells try to live. It's like they're alive or something.

    2. Re:Cancerous tumor. by ShaunC · · Score: 4, Funny

      Your post contains words that are known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  16. DEsalination plants should be a priority by geekoid · · Score: 2

    for every state along the cost.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by msauve · · Score: 1

      "the cost."

      Freudian slip?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by DudemanX · · Score: 2

      That would be great as it would require bringing nuclear power back in a big way.

    3. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? If your just talking about the west coast 2 of the 3 states get copious amounts of rainfall and have no water shortages.

    4. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Getting most of the salts out is energy intensive. That last few ppm is probably even harder to get out; but that last few ppm is what will eventually salinate the soil. Unless they've solved that problem, they'll have to ban irrigation in any area that uses desalinated water, and ENFORCE the ban.

    5. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would be great as it would require bringing nuclear power back in a big way.

      Like that's not going to happen? As soon as you tell stupid motherfuckers (who didn't conserve ANYTHING in previous decades) that a) we're going to have rolling blackouts and b) water is going to cost a dollar a gallong, you're going to see nukes and unfortunately coal fired units sprining up like dandelions.

    6. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by mandginguero · · Score: 1

      some are already on the way, but this one, which will be the largest in the western hemisphere, will supply San Diego (pop ~ 3 million) with 10% of its water. It currently imports about 90% of its water from Northern California and the Colorado river.

      So if one of these $1 billion plants can service about 300k people, should just be algebra to figure out how many more we need to service the west coast....

      http://www.utsandiego.com/news...

      --
      i don't know karate, but i know ca-razy
    7. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by oursland · · Score: 2

      We're getting one in Carlsbad, CA, in the north of San Diego County. The upside is that it provides a nice local source of fresh water. The downside is that it costs twice as much per gallon and has a minimum purchase contract, regardless of usage and need.

      California may be experiencing a drought now, but other years this becomes an unnecessary cost that may affect people of differing incomes unequally.

    8. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by oursland · · Score: 1

      No, it wouldn't. Furthermore, we've been deactivated San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) because the penny-wise dickheads at the top cut corners and ended up making some really bad engineering decisions that led to radiation leakage.

      With NIMBYism and the well-known desire of businessmen to make money over safety, I don't imagine we'll be seeing nuclear come into vogue again anytime soon.

    9. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by endeitzslash · · Score: 2

      Actually, the co-location of desalination plants with natural gas power generation is the new rage. I am in TX, so I have a parochial view of it, but this is the near future.

    10. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      That was the point, wasn't it? You can be NIMBY all you want, but when that translates to "no [water] in my back yard", you can bet that a lot of people will suddenly reconsider.

    11. Re:DEsalination plants should be a priority by oursland · · Score: 1

      You seem to think people are rational, or can be forced into rational thinking. This is not the case. For example, even now in times of drought and mandatory water conservation, we have HOAs attempting to enforce lawn watering rules.

      To fight against this specific issue here in San Diego, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales has been pushing for CA AB2104 which would prevent the HOA from imposing rules upon homeowners observing water regulations. It's a sad state of affairs, but NIMBYism isn't rational.

  17. Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by digsbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the things I was looking for in a house was to be able to supply my own well water. I've got the acreage, and the area is fully developed. All 2 acre lots. Never had a problem with the water table, never should. And I won't need to deal with government restrictions over municipal supplies.

    1. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by TheReaperD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You say that now but, when that well runs dry, you'll be screaming "why didn't the government do something about this!"

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by nblender · · Score: 5, Informative

      Until your well collapses one day and you need to get approval to drill a new one and that approval is not forth-coming because there's now a water-coop that you need to join instead; paying them lots of money to run a pipe to your house and charging you per cubic meter...

      Seen it happen; it's coming.

      My well collapsed and fortunately a permit to drill a new one was a rubber stamp and I have a nice clean (albeit very hard) 10gpm well. Hopefully this well will last until I'm too old to care...

    3. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by digsbo · · Score: 1

      The entire area is fully developed for miles around and hasn't seen aquifer degradation; none of the wells have run dry in the 50+ years they've been operating. We have neighbors who have already had backup wells dug. We're probably in as good a shape as anybody outside a place like Montana could be.

    4. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One of the many advantages of living next to Lake Superior. No worries about water shortage. Now water pollution, that could be a problem, but there will be plenty of toxic water to drink and water your veggies with!

    5. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Until your well collapses one day and you need to get approval to drill a new one and that approval is not forth-coming because there's now a water-coop that you need to join instead; paying them lots of money to run a pipe to your house and charging you per cubic meter...

      Seen it happen; it's coming.

      My well collapsed and fortunately a permit to drill a new one was a rubber stamp and I have a nice clean (albeit very hard) 10gpm well. Hopefully this well will last until I'm too old to care...

      I've never gotten a permit to drill a well.
      There are some things the government can't regulate because they're impossible to regulate.
      Granted, I'm lucky that I live in an area where I know people that will borrow me the equipment to do such things. If you're living in the middle of town the rig might become obvious...

    6. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      You have to choose carefully. Watertable is a shared resource, and if it's not replenished then eventually you might find yourself without access to water once a large farm nearby sucks all of it to water plants. Getting information about watertable boundaries is surprisingly complicated.

    7. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I might be misunderstanding, but how does having a well protect you from people depleting the groundwater? If the groundwater is depleted, doesn't your well go dry?

    8. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by JimSadler · · Score: 3, Informative

      What usually happens is that the well water starts getting nasty and the well must be drilled a bit deeper to get decent water. There are places out west where good water used to be had at 200 ft. and now the wells have been extended down to 450 ft.. The energy used to lift that water gets more and more expensive.

    9. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by JimSadler · · Score: 1

      Have you seen film of the houses in Florida falling into sink holes? That is what happens when you suck too much water out of an aquifer. When the underground maze of tunnels is filled with water the land above is stable. But when the water level drops and the caverns have air pockets the caves collapse and everything above comes tumbling down quite suddenly. We had one fellows home split in half and he perished when his bed fell into the pit. They could not even retrieve his body so he is now part of our drinking water. Ah, the special tang of a fermented corpse in the water fountain makes a trip to Orlando so interesting and it hasn't harmed Mickey Mouse one bit.

    10. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Old Sam Kinison joke, about starving kids in Africa: "These kids don't need food. What these kids need is luggage. We have deserts in America, too. WE JUST DON'T LIVE IN 'EM!!! AHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

      Except that we do. And we farm vast deserts, too.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    11. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Rain. The rain falls and seeps in because of the lack of pavement, and in the rainy season in the spring, you can see the water seeping from the bottom of the hill about a half mile from us, which is about 50 feet below my house, and about 70 feet above my well pump. I'm not too worried.

    12. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      When the underground maze of tunnels is filled with water the land above is stable.

      There aren't any caverns or tunnels full of water. Aquifers are composed of sand gravel and other particles mixed with water. When that water is removed, a void begins to form as the space the water once occupied is now empty. The void can grow to an open cavern with no roof support as it is all sand and gravel. Once the roof collapses, the effect cascades until it reaches the surface which might be a hundred meters or more. That is how a sinkhole forms.

      Ah, the special tang of a fermented corpse in the water fountain makes a trip to Orlando so interesting and it hasn't harmed Mickey Mouse one bit.

      I've drank the water in Orlando and believe me, the flavor and odor the corpse would impart would be an improvement.

    13. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Also forgot to add that some aquifers consist of caverns that were formed from acidic water slowly eating away at the rock. These are stable until they are depleted which allows more water to migrate into them enlarging the cavity until it collapses. So not so much tunnels but natural caverns.

    14. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      That is what happens when you suck too much water out of an aquifer. When the underground maze of tunnels is filled with water the land above is stable

      No, aquifers are not holes in the ground. They are simply layers of porous rock/sand/gravel that allow water to flow through them.

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    15. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what if someone starts pumping the water out faster than rain is refilling it?

    16. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      In Los Angeles County, what they did about it was confiscate all the private wells. Consider that a well out in the north county costs around $50,000 (give or take 10 grand) and you'll see it's not a minor taking. After a major flap they graciously ceded 3 acre-feet back to each landowner. I haven't heard how they plan to enforce this; probably by making everyone pay for a limiting meter on their well.

      It's actually much cheaper to hook up to a private water supplier: about $15,000 and water costs about 1/4th as much per gallon. (Well water is not free if you pay for diesel or electricity to pump it. At current electric rates, domestic water is about 1 cent per 10 gallons.) However, private water companies only serve very limited areas, and are not an option for most people... but they're trying to grab everyone they can reach, and have gotten county law changed to enforce this... I was told that to my face by the owners of two different private water companies out in the desert. Guess who has wells down into the deep aquifer, and were not affected by the confiscation.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    17. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people that will borrow me the equipment to do such things.

      lend and borrow are not interchangeable words.

    18. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hopefully this well will last until I'm too old to care..."

      Nice to know you care about the society around you, your descendants, and the general welfare. Thank you.

    19. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by digsbo · · Score: 1

      That could happen anywhere. Given that the area is fully developed, and not a growth area like the southwest, it seems unlikely that this would suddenly occur.

      Anything's possible, of course, but I still think I'm better off than the vast majority of people on municipal supply, or anybody in the southwest.

    20. Re:Why I'm on a well in a sustainable aquifer. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      sustainable aquifer

      I was just listening to NPR.. maybe Science Friday, and the 'expert' made the point that we don't know how much water is going into aquifers, and we certainly are not recording how much is being pulled out. At least in California (what the show was about). I suppose other states may have some way to record private well use... but there is no way that I know of to accurately determine how much water is going back into an aquifer.

  18. Pot farmers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colorado and California are legal growing states. They gotta feed those plants to make all that medicine.

    1. Re:Pot farmers. by istartedi · · Score: 1

      The drug war is bad enough, but when the DEA waits until just before harvest to destroy fields they know about... really gripes my cookies. They let it consume all that water, *then* they destroy it. And of course they'll destroy small backyard grows that don't even push people into the next water usage tier. When Joe Sixplant's grow is pushed over, where does he buy weed? From big growers illegally diverting.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  19. It's the oil boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Drilling and fracking take huge amounts of water. The oil well density in this part of the country is truly unbelievable and growing rapidly. You want your domestic oil production, you pay in water (and quality of life). Yes, the population and agriculture are part of the problem, but the petroleum industry is a huge part of this. Why wasn't this called out ?

  20. Get the popcorn by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    I'm personally kicking back and waiting to see what the end game of this all is.

    Is a pipepline going to be created? Massive desal plants powered by...who knows what? Mass exodus? Ghost towns? Agriculture prices skyrocketing leading to global food riots?

    Interesting times indeed.

    1. Re:Get the popcorn by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The problem with using desal plants supplying the Great Basin Desert would be that the process doesn't eliminate the sodium in the water, it only reduces it to potable levels; sodium builds up in the soil and eventually becomes toxic to the plants. How long this takes depend on how much salt is left in the irrigation water and how much rain actually falls to wash out the excess salt.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    2. Re:Get the popcorn by fizzer06 · · Score: 2
      From this article: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/09/26/us/houston-s-great-thirst-is-sucking-city-down-into-the-ground.html/,

      Subsidence, as geologists call the phenomenon, is just one of the unanticipated consequences of rapid growth that have come to plague Houstonians. The city's roads, services, and even the very land beneath it, have been unable to sustain it all.

      and: Moreover, downtown Houston is sinking fast, too. A recent computer simulation of the process suggested that it could sink 14 feet more by the year 2020 if nothing but ground water was used to satisfy future demand.

    3. Re:Get the popcorn by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      Mild salt content is not a problem if there's at least some rainfall. Salted ground becomes a problem if you rely ONLY on irrigation.

    4. Re:Get the popcorn by aquabat · · Score: 1

      Popcorn may not be the best snacking choice for a water shortage.

      --
      A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
    5. Re:Get the popcorn by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      Floating desalinization plants off the California coast use solar power to pump sea water through Nanoporous Graphene.

  21. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obesity isn't caused by having "too many resources". It's exactly the opposite. Obesity is endemic within the poorest of society, while it is rare within those who are well-off.

    Americans in general have gotten fatter because Americans in general has gotten remarkably poorer, especially since the 1980s and Reagan's disastrous economic policies. A larger proportion of the American population living in poverty or near-poverty has resulted in a larger proportion of Americans being obese.

    Take a city like New York City. It's rare to see fat people in Manhattan and Astoria, where the average income is much higher than the local and national averages. Yet as you move into the poor or very-poor areas like Harlem, The Bronx, and parts of Brooklyn, it is very common to see overweight people. And this plays out on the national stage, where the obesity rates in the more prosperous northeastern states are much lower than the rates we see in the Deep South and other poverty-stricken areas of the nation.

    It's exactly the same problem that is happening in the UK, too, where wealth inequality has shot through the roof thanks to Thatcher and her disastrous economic policies. More Britons are fatter than ever thanks to being poorer than ever.

    Bringing in more illegal aliens into the US, most of whom have absolutely nothing to their name (less than even the most impoverished living in Alabama and Arkansas), won't do anything to decrease the obesity rate. In fact, it will send it higher than it already is.

  22. Nature will find a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of the usual means will address the problem; war, famine, plague, pestilence. Too many humans, not enough water.

  23. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by trout007 · · Score: 1

    Poverty doesn't cause obesity. There is a correlation in the modern world because food is cheap and the ability to delay gratification leads to poverty and obesity.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  24. we are experiencing something similar by Espectr0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    in northwestern Venezuela we are having the biggest drought in 60 years. We only have 57 days left of water, and that's including with limited use (1 and a half days of water per week!)

    Our water comes by the way of reservoirs, and we depend heavily on rain. Can't remember the last time it rained and we are getting extremely worried

    1. Re:we are experiencing something similar by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sounds like it's time to sacrifice some virgins to the rain god. There are plenty on slashdot if you are recruiting.

    2. Re:we are experiencing something similar by ShaunC · · Score: 2

      Serious question: why isn't Venezuela trading tankers of oil for tankers of fresh water? Doesn't have to be 1:1 of course. Surely there are nations that can provide excess water in return for cheap oil, at least for the time being.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:we are experiencing something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question: why isn't Venezuela trading tankers of oil for tankers of fresh water? Doesn't have to be 1:1 of course. Surely there are nations that can provide excess water in return for cheap oil, at least for the time being.

      10:1 ?

    4. Re:we are experiencing something similar by jittles · · Score: 1

      in northwestern Venezuela we are having the biggest drought in 60 years. We only have 57 days left of water, and that's including with limited use (1 and a half days of water per week!)

      Our water comes by the way of reservoirs, and we depend heavily on rain. Can't remember the last time it rained and we are getting extremely worried

      Ah I used to live on Margarita and the pipe that would supply water from the main land broke. We had no running water for over 2 weeks. They brought it over in tankers and it got incredibly expensive, very fast. It was not a pleasant time. Good luck to you. I miss Venezuela.

    5. Re:we are experiencing something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Southeast Brazil is going to the shitter too.

      The reservoir that supply my neighborhood is almost dry, 26 years and I had never seem the bottom of that lake, now it is almost dry.
      We had a couple of rainy days which did nothing but some extra mud.

  25. Silicon Valley will just make an app for that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's no biggie. It's just water. Silicon Valley will produce some mobile apps and software-as-a-service for dealing with it. The new flat designs we're seeing out of Microsoft, Apple and Google are going to render this whole water issue irrelevant. These designs look really great, and they're really usable, too. I know some UI designers out there, and they're as hip as ever. Their glasses don't have lenses, they were fedora hats and they like to hold up fake paper moustaches on sticks under their noses. It's cool, they're cool, and I know their apps will take care of this problem.

  26. And you think it's sustainable why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    All of those 2 acre lots are a tiny spot on the water table map that they lie on. Everyone else is sucking up your water and you don't even know it.

    1. Re:And you think it's sustainable why? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I drink your milkshake!

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  27. We only accept them if they're not from Cuba by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kids from Cuba get sent home at gunpoint.

  28. We need mutant kangaroos and Lori Petty now! by OzPeter · · Score: 1
    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:We need mutant kangaroos and Lori Petty now! by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      i'll settle for lori petty by her pretty self

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  29. Complicated background by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    When I took a geography class focussing on the western US, one of the things the teacher mentioned (which I haven't verified independently, but it was his job) was that the Colorado River water rights were allocated based on how much the Colorado River was running in roughly 1920, which happened to be an unusually high flow rate period, so ever since then there hasn't been enough water to satisfy everyone. (Water rights are allocated by time priority: first person who used it gets to take the entire amount that person is entitled to, then second person, and so forth.) So it's 100% spoken for, forever. The shortfall is made up for by pumping out groundwater, and when they allocated the colorado river water rights, they also decided that they were going to make a 100 year plan for water usage, meaning that after 100 years they would have used up pretty much all the available aquifers. Since then we've discovered some more aquifers, and are willing to drill deeper and run more expensive pumps, but that's only somewhat covering the shortage. We're pretty much collecting exactly what we planned 95 years ago. There are still semi-serious proposals to divert and pump chunks of the Columbia River over into the upper Colorado River basin... which is sort of funny, as much of the original water projects in the upper Colorado River basin were, and are, pumping water from it through the Continental Divide over to the eastern slope to fulfill Colorado, Kansas, Wyoming, and Oklahoma water needs.

    The same instructor also noted that depending on how you define your terms, the category of western state water rights was by quite a bit the most common lawsuit that ended up in the US Supreme Court, showing up every couple of years in one form or another.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  30. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Food is not cheap. Taking inflation into account, food prices are at an all-time high on a global basis. They're even higher than they were during World War II, when rationing was in place.

    The price of food increasing far faster than wages has in fact resulted in more poverty, which has in fact resulted in more obesity is many nations around the world.

  31. An old Colorado Saying about water applies here: by bobbied · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting.

    This applies to all of the southwest and a lot of the plains. Land is useless for anything but energy production without a supply of water, so you drink your whiskey and fight over the water. This has been true for centuries and will continue to be true for many more.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  32. PBS covered this by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the local farmers said "I expect when we run out this next decade, everyone will be very angry over the decisions we made to plant water-intensive crops in a very arid land for so many years".

    It's like Global Warming.

    It's coming for you whether you believe in it or not.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:PBS covered this by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      that's what happens when you don't let water cost what water costs. planting crops in arid regions wouldn't be viable if water were not subsidized. same with population explosion.

    2. Re:PBS covered this by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for him:

      "I expect when we run out this next decade, everyone will be very angry over the decisions we made to plant water-intensive cities in a very arid land for so many years".

      I suspect the water diverted and used by Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Phoenix considerably exceeds the water used by all western agriculture combined. (And remember, ag use tends to return water to the soil. City use tends to flush it into the ocean rather more directly.)

      A very good example is the Owens Valley. Old-timers have told me it used to be rich in water and lush with crops and livestock. Then Los Angeles took its water, and the Owens Valley became a desert dustbowl. (There are still a few isolated oases, where some spot doesn't drain to the Owens River.)

      http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    3. Re:PBS covered this by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly, no. The vast use of water is for water-intensive crops and for industrial and commercial uses that tend not to be in cities per se.

      Should people in cities use less water to maintain lawns of non-native plants that they water during the day when the water evaporates? Sure.

      Will doing so radically alter the water usage? No.

      The primary drivers are the water-intensive crops (largest) and the commercial and industrial uses of water (second largest).

      When doing triage, look at the biggest sources, not the smallest. If you don't fix the hole in their heart, they can't pump enough blood even if you patch the small leaks in the limbs.

      Blaming others (e.g. LA vs farmers) is easy and fun, but it frequently accomplishes nothing.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:PBS covered this by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Los Angeles or San Francisco, but Phoenix's water usage has been dropping as a result of replacing citrus orchards with subdivisions.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    5. Re:PBS covered this by Reziac · · Score: 1

      And I have to wonder how that's being figured... consider the Owens Valley to see how Los Angeles' water use far exceeds what was formerly extensive ag use with plenty to spare.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  33. Water? Like out of the toilet? by Maltheus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why don't they just use Brawndo? It's the thirst mutilator.

    1. Re: Water? Like out of the toilet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plus, it has electrolytes. Plants crave those.

    2. Re:Water? Like out of the toilet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's got what plants need.

    3. Re:Water? Like out of the toilet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's got what plants crave.

  34. Re:Oh really? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So what alarmist hyper-environmentalist news stories are we to believe? Last time I checked, we had environmentalists screaming that fracking thousands of feet down leaks chemicals (sand, light hydrocarbons) through thousands of feet of permeable geological layers. If these layers are so permeable and the alarmists are telling the trough, how come it takes `thousands` of years to recharge the aquifers?

    The act of fracking, or fracturing, creates many tiny cracks.

    Here's a thought experiment: Stick your head under a bucket of tightly packed soil (mostly clay) in a bottomless bucket and fill it up.

    Now try the same thing after you use a spade on the soil in the bucket for a few minutes.

    Get the picture?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  35. Lumping everyone together.... by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I really hate when they lump everyone together. The fastest draining aquifer is the Ogallala, which is in the middle of the country, not the west. What this article claims is absolutely not true in 99% of the areas included in that list of states. My state, Utah has one of the most highly regulated water systems in probably the world. We have strict regulations on wells and draw rates that are reviewed and approved by state regulators that will halt all pumping if they detect subsidence in the aquifer. The aquifers are almost uniformly carefully monitored to ensure water levels don't drop, and in some areas near the salt lake they monitor to ensure positive pressure into the lake is maintained so salt water isn't sucked back into the fresh water.

    Yes there are bad situations out there, Las Vegas and Phoenix are terribly managed water systems IMO, favoring growth over conservation. We shouldn't have 6 million people living in a desert that can barely naturally support 1/10 that many. And pumping several hundred thousand acre feet of water over a mountain range for Phoenix is a terrible waste of water, not to mention the water lost to evaporation in the process and the power used.

    But this blanket inclusion of all the western states in this indictment is stupid. Those of us with scarce water resources have carefully managed them for the most part. Utah's been managing water use far longer than most states because it's a scarce commodity and always has been. There is a river in Utah where every single drop is used 7 times before discharge into the Salt Lake and the river isn't very long.

    If you want to talk about water misuse, talk about the areas misusing water and stop lumping the rest of us in with them.

    1. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Most of the country doesn't have a problem. The people living in the Arizona desert watering their Golf courses are running out of water... well surprise surprise. Let them run out. They can move... pretty much anywhere else in the country to avoid that problem. The solution to this problem is simple... ignore it.

    2. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with ignoring it is that those people watering their golf course permanently destroys the aquifer. Long after they are dead, that aquifer will be unavailable for anyone else. They will have reaped all the benefits and will have delivered the shaft to all future generations. fuck that. Furthermore, their damage extends far beyond the borders of their property.

    3. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by slinches · · Score: 2

      We shouldn't have 6 million people living in a desert that can barely naturally support 1/10 that many. And pumping several hundred thousand acre feet of water over a mountain range for Phoenix is a terrible waste of water, not to mention the water lost to evaporation in the process and the power used.

      I get it, you don't like the Central Arizona Project, but without it what would Arizona do with it's share of the Colorado? I think it's better to deliver it to where it's needed (i.e. Phoenix) than sell it to southern California or let it flow into Mexico unused. The areas nearest the river are poor areas for development anyway.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    4. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is Wyoming. We should get rid of it.

    5. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you let the free market just do it's "thing"? If deregulation is the answer to everything, why not this also?
      It's not like ideology has stopped you before (Reagan, 1980s, Bush, etc.)

      Captcha: freedom

    6. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get it, you don't like the Central Arizona Project, but without it what would Arizona do with it's share of the Colorado?

      Sell it to California

    7. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      than sell it to southern California or let it flow into Mexico unused.

      Because those dirty Mexicans couldn't possibly also need water to survive.

      Racist prick.

    8. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by slinches · · Score: 1

      This is an obvious troll, but to clarify, there's an agreement in place to ensure that a set amount of water will flow into Mexico. You can read more about it HERE. I was implying that if Arizona didn't use or sell its share that it would flow across the border in addition to what is guaranteed by law.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    9. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by wiredog · · Score: 1

      better to deliver it to where it's needed (i.e. Phoenix) than sell it to southern California or let it flow into Mexico unused.

      Because God forbid we actually let those dirty beaners get the water we promised to them by treaty, right?

    10. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by slinches · · Score: 1

      I responded to a similar comment by an AC earlier, but allowing Arizona's share to go unused would be in addition to the amount agreed to go to Mexico.

      --
      Knowledge Brings Fear
    11. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Colorado River Basin is looking pretty bad, given the 'bathtub ring'. As you said, Vegas and Pheonix aren't thinking this through because of money. And apathy.

      As I'm looking to move somewhere around the US permanently, this subject is factoring greatly for my longterm decision.

    12. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Despite which, Utah is one of the greener western states -- even in its desert ag areas. Methinks when you actually manage your water, you also get more use of it. And contrary to city-slicker belief, there is no one more conservation-conscious than farmers; it's their very livelihood.

      And on your list of cities, don't forget that California diverts a great deal of water to its major metros, with scant regard for what becomes of agriculture. I guess city folks don't need to eat.

      I rant about that somewhere above, but here's an example:
      http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    13. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      We're fairly green because we've spent billions building reservoirs in our mountain ranges to catch the rather abundant winter snowfall and extend the runoff from one big purge in April to an extended even flow all summer/fall. For most of the state the discharge point is the salt lake, which is devoid of almost all life and essentially a big evaporating pond, and much of the rest flows to one of the "temporary" lakes that simply evaporate the water. Because almost all our water evaporates anyway we don't have a problem using it all in a more effective manner.

      We had an 11 year drought where annual rain/snow was significantly below average for 11 years. We drained most of the reservoirs by the end of the 11 years. But because of that the urban areas implemented water conservation programs that cut urban use by almost 20% and we could if need be cut it even more. But as long as we are maintaining our summer water flows with impounded water in the reservoirs there's little reason to conserve as it all just evaporates anyway. I've seen the Vegas water authority lady on TV several times talking about how Utah wastes all it's water with green lawns, which makes her think she's entitled to steal water from the driest basin in the country. Something that will likely create the biggest dust bowl ever created that will be an environmental disaster because of the contaminants and alkaline soil which will be blown all over Nevada, Utah and Colorado. Such is her ignorance, if we don't use the water it just evaporates anyway.

    14. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      That's a good point -- stored water might as well go into the ground (and be used) as into the air (which one might argue becomes rain somewhere to the east, but that does Utah no good, and Utah needs it a lot more).

      In the process of moving back to Montana from SoCal, I made numerous trips along both I-15 and routes further west, and I was quite struck by how the states that scream the loudest about conservation and that do the most enforcing against common use of resources... are also in the worst shape. Utah looks the best both agriculturally and industrially -- it seems to have a great deal more local industry than any other western state, yet it looks the most pristine and green, and sports a healthy ag sector. Montana and the agricultural parts of Nevada are also in good shape, as is much of Idaho. But you can just about draw a line around CA and OR solely by the poor condition of what used to be good graze and forest land, and now looks a great deal more drought-stricken than do drier areas further inland.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    15. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico used to use the water that flowed into it.

    16. Re:Lumping everyone together.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or let it flow into Mexico unused.

      God forbid us to let a river run it's natural course!

  36. Pot farming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're wasting the electricity and water on weed at an alarming rate.

  37. FRACKING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FRACKING FRACKING FRACKING!

    This is why fracking is BAD. It too uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of potable fresh water to do its thing and all we get for it is fuel to cook food we aren't growing, boil water we're pissing away, and oh yeah, power the air conditioners that are running even more in all this heat from global warming.

    1. Re:FRACKING by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Umm..... not so much. While you're on the rant though, any other things you want to blame on fracking?

      The energy obtained by it is pretty much the only thing keeping the U.S. currency viable, for starters. That's a *bit* more of an issue than getting "fuel to cook food we aren't growing".

      I'm not really sure why the fracking process requires clean, fresh water either? Seems to me any water would do -- including salt water from our oceans. If they use fresh water, it's probably because it's cheaper and easier than obtaining the alternative -- which in turn, indicates there must not be THAT much of a water shortage in those places. Otherwise, the scarcity would dictate a higher price.

    2. Re:FRACKING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd check whether the water is actually being bought at market price -- the Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of Engineers are famous for selling water at completely artificial prices (usually low, occasionally high).

  38. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Poverty does not cause obesity. It causes unhealthy diets which can cause obesity. Stay home and eat a 7 dollar lean steak or a 12 dollar healthy omega3 rich fish fillet with about 4 dollars in trimmings or get filled up with a 6 dollar super sized big mac meal and not have to fix the crap. Fill up between meals by snacking on 6 dollar nuts or have a 3 for a dollar twinky. These are choices not limited to the poor. But the better off have a more easy time not making them.

    There are even some people who think the problem with obesity is solely contained within our switch from real sugar to high fructose corn syrup in the 1970s. They make convincing arguments if the arguments are factual. I have never had the time to bother checking them. A lot of obese people get thin also when they go gluten free. I think it has a lot to do with food containing gluten also having HFCS in them but that's just a guess.

    I also wouldn't say Reagan or Thatcher's economic policies were disastrous. In the US, Carter's policies likely were worse. They certainly threw a lot more people into poverty than when Reagan was president. But I'm sure you will spout some half cocked theories that don't line up with reality so I'm not bothering with it. I do agree that illegals will increase the obesity rates, but not because of poverty- because they will make the same poor food choices and be subjected to the mass marketing that many Americans already are.

  39. Re:Oh really? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Because they don't have a giant fucking hole drilled strait through the middle of them?
    The waters at 1 PSI and the Frack well is at 15,000 PSI.
    The Fracking solution is designed to erode those very geologic structures...
    Should I go on? or are you getting the idea?

  40. Well let them drink Coca-cola by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Where is that person that wanted to buy the world a coke when you need them?

    But seriously, if polar bears are happy drinking coca-cola to cool off in the global warming, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Well let them drink Coca-cola by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      but Brawndo's got electrolytes...it's what plants crave!

    2. Re:Well let them drink Coca-cola by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      what do you mix with the coke ingredients to get the liquid part?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:Well let them drink Coca-cola by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Rum, of course. Or, if you prefer, vodka.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  41. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You ask it like you don't know we 'll be taking yours.
    You're funny.

  42. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or eat $1 beans and rice, and don't get fat

  43. Is California populated by idiots!!! by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    California is sitting next to the largest body of water on the planet, all they need to do is set up some desalination plants to make it potable

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by suutar · · Score: 1

      I know, right? I wish someone with money and land rights would set up a nice solar or nuclear desalination plant. Of course, getting through the environmental review would probably take the rest of this decade.

    2. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by DudemanX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. Now let's work on the hard part of your plan which is convincing people not to be against new wind farms and nuclear plants along the coast.

    3. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by GNious · · Score: 1
    4. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      California is sitting next to the largest body of water on the planet, all they need to do is set up some desalination plants to make it potplantable

      That should help spread your idea.

    5. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please do not imply that regulations are a limitation to anything - regulations make you free! How could you be free in a free society? You have to have a regulated society to be free!

    6. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds simple doesn't it? Except where do you put all that salt?
                        see:Impacts via Scientific American
      And where do you get all that energy for desalination and at what cost?
                        see: Cost of Desalination
      Also the quantity water for agriculture and industrial use is HUGE. The flushing of soil by natural water flow is one of the basic ways we flush salt from overused fields
                        See: Salt and Agriculture

           

    7. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Cut off their water supply.

    8. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think Canadians were bad when you needed our oil just wait till you need our water. Easy street, here we come!

      Anyway, I remember when I was a kid (ummm . . . the '60's) a science newspaper wrote about the possibility of damming James Bay and eventually sending excess water down the Mississippi to our thirsty friends to the south. I think it was to be pumped with all the cheap nuclear power we were to have by now.

    9. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by suutar · · Score: 1

      yep. Though I could wish for it to be bigger. And maybe thorium reactor based. And while I'm at it, I'd like a pony :)

    10. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Larry Ellison

    11. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by TechnoJoe · · Score: 0

      :Is California populated by idiots

      Yes, just look at who they vote for.

    12. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by type40 · · Score: 1

      And while I'm at it, I'd like a pony :)

      Does the pony have rocket boosters and ion canons?

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    13. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do that... It's incredibly energy expensive, and I suppose at the moment it's cheaper to purchase water from the upstream states.

    14. Re:Is California populated by idiots!!! by suutar · · Score: 1

      I sure hope so :)

  44. Proportionate response? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 2

    California Gov Brown Urges a %20 voluntary reduction in usage. The media coverage has been moderate. In a world where something as mundane as a celebrity tweet is news I have to wonder if this is being downplayed to avoid panic? Is there some broad based assumption that somehow next year or the year after is going to be different? I'm concerned that if the next three years are like this one it could be a serious problem to say the least. +1 Brawndo has electrolytes.

    1. Re:Proportionate response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      voluntary reduction = not gonna do shit

    2. Re:Proportionate response? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      All the farmers in California are digging deeper/bigger wells. So they feel ok for the next few years. Of course it drains the aquifer, but no one seems to care about that, for some reason.

      I kind of feel like every story is sensationalized so much, whether a celebrity tweet or a war in Iraq, that people have trouble remembering what a true crisis is like. It's just another story, I need to water my lawn and the water still comes out of the hose.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Proportionate response? by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      We certainly don't know how to approach a crisis that isn't immediate and dramatic. I wish that instead of messaging like asking for voluntary %20 reduction they could have said that is a serious problem and everyone should use as little as possible. There's no need for fear and emotional overreaction, but there isn't much harm in being overly cautious on consumption.

    4. Re:Proportionate response? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I fear it's more a problem of 'being out of touch with reality'

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  45. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    That's what Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse said.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  46. Out Of Sight Out Of Mind by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    If there's no water no one will notice it's gone.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  47. Why would they conserve? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    What is the real incentive for any one to conserve the ground water? If some one owns a square inch of land, he/she gets to suck out as much as he/she can out of the "his/her" ground. It is private property rights, stupid. If the owner did not do so, the neighbor will do so. So all it takes is a few short term "my property, my way, you go to hell" people, and it will be a race to the bottom in the earnest.

    Half the congress is corrupt and is paid to keep quiet. The other half makes some half hearted noises and then it too keeps quiet. Gutless administration is not able to arrest and throw in jail a defiant scofflaw who did not pay taxes for decades, who owes millions of dollars and a few rag tag militia with some rifles drove off the BLM officials.

    How can there be any water conservation?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  48. And what's even funnier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what's even funnier? Seattle water is fluoridated

    1. Re:And what's even funnier by mirix · · Score: 3, Informative

      Oh no! Kids in Seattle must not have rotten teeth. The horror!

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    2. Re:And what's even funnier by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      As it should be.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    3. Re:And what's even funnier by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      than slowly poisoning yourself

      "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison." -Paracelsus

      The addition of fluoride to drinking water in the USA is well below the rates required for fluorosis. Oh and the fluoridation of drinking water has been recognised as one of the 10 major advances in public health of this century along the likes of vaccinations, linking of smoking and cancer, and vehicle safety.

      A more interesting study of the human psyche is that the population at large couldn't be arsed doing something as simple as rinsing after eating making the fluoridation of drinking water such a success.

    4. Re:And what's even funnier by flyneye · · Score: 1

      "The addition of fluoride to drinking water in the USA is well below the rates required for fluorosis."

                  Well someone says so anyway, gosh doctors are always right aren't they. Especially the ones paid to say so. They also seem to prescribe more medicine than is necessary, that also cause more symptoms than they cure, but that facillitates prescribing more medicines. Uhm, yeah major public advancements, you can keep them to yourself, thanks. I prefer not to be a gullible dumbass.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    5. Re:And what's even funnier by crimson+tsunami · · Score: 1

      I didn't realise how backwards American healthcare was. The rest of us had those things last century.

  49. BUT . . . .Re:getting worse by StefanJ · · Score: 1

    If everyone is stoned they'll hang out on the couch and won't wash as often, saving on shower water.

    Also, they won't have the initiative to go out for a round of golf.

    So, you can let the water-hog golf courses turn back into habitats for ground squirrels and coyotes.

  50. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or culturally aspire to being fat as a sign of status.

  51. Once again, resource shortages come down to energy by brambus · · Score: 1

    There's plenty of water on this planet, more than we could ever hope for, the only trouble is, it needs expensive desalinization, which ultimately comes down to having the energy available to perform the process. We have the technologies to do it more cheaply, but we're choosing not to use them - high temperature nuclear reactors can desalinate water by using waste heat from the reactor and end this water problem once and for all. I wonder if our future descendants will look at us with as much pity as we do at the first cave men who were struggling with mastering fire.

  52. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food prices are high, but all of my meals (which are nutritious) cost $1-$2 max, usually closer to $1. You just have to know how and where to shop. Of course, this is the US, which is a first world country...

  53. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I also wouldn't say Reagan or Thatcher's economic policies were disastrous. In the US, Carter's policies likely were worse. They certainly threw a lot more people into poverty than when Reagan was president. But I'm sure you will spout some half cocked theories that don't line up with reality so I'm not bothering with it. I do agree that illegals will increase the obesity rates, but not because of poverty- because they will make the same poor food choices and be subjected to the mass marketing that many Americans already are.

    National Debt as a percentage of GDP went from ~35% to 55% under Reagan. About a 60% increase relative to itself (35/55)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#mediaviewer/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg

    The minimum wage for the same period went up about 20%. Viewing national debt vs minimum wage, the 99% of people who make less than 10x minimum wage, saw their real wealth and purchasing power vanish relative to the previous generation.
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1XGxaCoCsEM/Thpo5i4qCQI/AAAAAAAAEPQ/M7ipG6E2gO8/s1600/a-us-minimum-wage-1980-2012.png

    Whatever faults you may, rightly or wrongly, saddle Carter with, he got F-ed by OPEC and the malaise from Vietnam, neither of which were his fault. The pattern is that Repubs break stuff, the Dems clean it up and then The Repubs campaign on "stop cleaning! Things are clean enough? Let's party!"

    As for Mr. Bean below, genuinely poor urbanites often don't have access to an oven or full size refridgerator, much less a store that sells 25# bags of rice or beans for less than a buck a pound. I do, but every place I can reasonably walk home from without milk spoiling on a hot day confines itself to 4 serving portions. The closet don't even carry gallons of milk, just quarts or maybe half gallons at times. For $7 a half gallon. Not everyone has access to direct bus routes, much less a car and Amex for Costco runs. Your reality is not the same as theirs.

  54. Re:Oh really? by Nethead · · Score: 1

    Ya know Will, you can be really depressing at times.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  55. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by sumdumass · · Score: 2

    Have you ever seen a recipe for bean soup in the US? half pound of bacon, ham, or smoke jowl, boil the shit out of it, put 2 pounds of soaked navy beans in and boil until tender adding salt and butter to taste at the end. The good tasting recipes will have at least an inch of lard coagulating on the top when the left overs are put into the fridge. But if that didn't sound bad enough, it's usually eaten with fried potatoes and buttered corn bread. (god I'm getting hungry..lol)

    as for rice, the only rice dishes I am familiar with that have any flavor are drenched with something else like General Tso's chicken or sausage of some sorts with peppers, onions, and mushrooms sauteed in butter first..

    Again, poor food choices. But yes, in theory, I would agree with you. I just don't seem to think it would happen in practice often. Americans like flavor.

  56. Like out of the toilet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get what all this fuss is about. Water doesn't even have the electrolytes that plants and humans crave. I mean I watched this documentary about the future and they didn't even use water all that much.
    http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/

  57. Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator by pipingguy · · Score: 1

    Go 'way, 'batin!

    1. Re:Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Idiocracy, great flick.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  58. I Welcome This by sexconker · · Score: 1

    As someone living in California, I can't wait until the Sideways bunch are forced to grow their grapes in a different fucking state.

  59. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by sumdumass · · Score: 0

    National Debt as a percentage of GDP went from ~35% to 55% under Reagan. About a 60% increase relative to itself (35/55)

    Has nothing to do with the population getting poor. Does not even denote any disaster either.

    The minimum wage for the same period went up about 20%. Viewing national debt vs minimum wage, the 99% of people who make less than 10x minimum wage, saw their real wealth and purchasing power vanish relative to the previous generation.

    And this was happening long before Reagan got into office. Inflation was a bitch under Carter and there were more unemployed.

    Whatever faults you may, rightly or wrongly, saddle Carter with, he got F-ed by OPEC and the malaise from Vietnam, neither of which were his fault. The pattern is that Repubs break stuff, the Dems clean it up and then The Repubs campaign on "stop cleaning! Things are clean enough? Let's party!"

    Stop sugar coating it. Carter couldn't even get a democrat controlled congress to pass his crap most of the time. The rest of your rubbish is just that- likely formed from your lack of or inability to see the world for what it is. Now note, I am not saying republicans are any better or worse. I'm not even going to tread into those waters. I'm just saying Carter screwed the pooch so much worse than Reagan ever did.

    As for Mr. Bean below, genuinely poor urbanites often don't have access to an oven or full size refridgerator, much less a store that sells 25# bags of rice or beans for less than a buck a pound. I do, but every place I can reasonably walk home from without milk spoiling on a hot day confines itself to 4 serving portions. The closet don't even carry gallons of milk, just quarts or maybe half gallons at times. For $7 a half gallon. Not everyone has access to direct bus routes, much less a car and Amex for Costco runs. Your reality is not the same as theirs.

    Something I completely agree with. Sometimes a bus isn't even an option because there are no regular bus lanes in the area.

    I'm lucky in that where I live now, you can get a gallon of milk for $3.50 to $5 in a gas station convenience store. You can also find 1 pound bags of beans and sometimes rice in them too. But I have been in those spots you describe and if it isn't a candy bar, some sort of prepared sandwich, or a boxed meal item with an expiration date a year past, it likely isn't in the store as far as food goes for several miles of highway walking.

  60. Stop building in the desert! by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    Duh!

  61. Re:Oh really? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Ya know Will, you can be really depressing at times.

    The bizarre thing is I'm actually an optimist, I just don't get bothered by all the stuff I know.

    It was very useful when I did counter-terrorism - a lot of people get ultra cynical after that.

    Look, everyone tries to freak you out. The engineer part of me always hears them say "choose A or B" and I choose to realize there are mixtures of choices between A and B and besides A and B, some of which are "better" and some of which are "worse" and that choosing something other than A "bad" is probably better than not choosing B "good".

    If 1000 people in cities who drive very little and have little environmental impact due to energy etc change a lot, it may be less than 10 people in rural areas changing a small amount. Just alter time of day for watering, use less water dependent crops (rice etc), and you'll be right as rain. Pay attention to native crops and plants and animals and shift towards those and away from non-native ones.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  62. More Building Permits by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    These communities need to shout growth, growth, growth and issue oodles of new business and housing permits. That way these dummies will die from lack of water and stop their economic madness. Oh! And they need to make oodles and oodles of babies also. After all, growth is their god.

  63. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He said beans and rice sumdumass, not bean soup with lard and rice covered in butter.

    As to the OP. People are fat because they choose to eat unhealthy and they are lazy. Blaming it on the economy or the fact they are "poor" is an excuse because they do not take personal responsibility for their actions. It is ALWAYS easier to blame someone else. We do it with smoking, drugs, gambling, blame someone else because they can not get ahead, and the fact someone works at Wal-Mart and can't support their 3 kids on the salary. Every single one of those cases is preventable is people had self control and looked to themselves as the source of the problem and not everyone else. Birth control is cheap and or free and you don't need to have a top rated suburban high school education to know it can prevent a pregnancy. You can tax or make large fountain drinks illegal but those drinks are not the real problem. I eat at Mcdonalds on occasion and you know what I drink? Unsweetened tea. That fking choice is there for everyone. So is cold bottle of water and you can get refills of cold water from that little side button on the self serve soda machine. Stop taking away peoples personal responsibility and make them responsible for their actions and maybe they will not make the decisions they do.

  64. Market pricing. by hsthompson69 · · Score: 0

    The only way people are going to change their water habits is if you change what you charge them. Cheap water bills means people use lots of water. Expensive water bills means 5 minute showers and brown lawns as people pinch pennies.

  65. Free market demands profitability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's inevitable, the free market compells us to be unsustainable!

    Yet, so many people bow down at the shrine of Mammon.
    Even when knowing every single penny is manifactured from thin air and empty promises, they still dance to it's pipe.

    Pathetic.

    Captcha: fueled

  66. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    And I said how people eat beans and rice in the US.

    I know exactly what he meant. It's just not likely to happen that way as I already said. "I just don't seem to think it would happen in practice often. Americans like flavor"

    As for the rest of your comment, I agree except with the birth control thing. Granted, people shouldn't be having kids they cannot afford but it is not our place to tell people they can or cannot have kids. And I'm not about to let a kid suffer because their parents are imbeciles so I guess it is a catch 22. Make it available, but it's their choice.

  67. AND AIR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will breath all the air. And the tress. They will have all the bio-domes.

  68. Re:Oh really? by Cyberax · · Score: 1

    Most of the rainwater runs off into rivers or evaporates. Only a small fraction filters through into the aquifers. You can accelerate it by drilling wells and pouring water into these wells - and some cities actually do this.

  69. Connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Almost all of the bottled water at the Target in my town was GONE.

  70. Steady state economy needed (root cause) by echtertyp · · Score: 1

    If you follow the pros and cons around stuff like this down to the nub, it comes down to "but we have to grow the economy." Thankfully, a Plan B has been worked out over many decades and it's pretty appealing actually. I highly recommend reading up on Steady State Economics, either books or http://steadystate.org/

  71. Fusion by Euler · · Score: 1

    The answer to just about all of our problems. Yet how much effort are we really putting in.

    1. Re:Fusion by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Putting a lot into it, just not getting as much out of it. Congress is cutting funding for ITER because it's way over budget and like any International project it's got too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak. A lot of higher ground research is going on overseas and the US is starting to lose ground in key areas including nuclear energy and particle physics. I'd rather see $20 billion put into those research areas than the F35 for example.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:Fusion by Euler · · Score: 1

      True. My only criticism of projects like ITER, NIF, etc. are that they are more academic than deliberate in achieving energy generation anytime this century. Granted, you have to work out the fusion part first, but then what? Do we wait another 50-100 years for the anointed project scientists to build a working power plant? We need tons of engineering going into this - now.

      The ROI of fusion research is unimaginable if it ultimately works out. $20 billion _per year_ should be the least we could do. We should keep throwing ITER a bone _and_ triple whatever domestic (USA) programs we have currently. Get multiple projects in the pipeline, humanity cannot wait much longer.

      Ending energy scarcity forever is _the_ most important thing humanity will have done up to this date. Wealth, poverty, hunger, and greed will have very little meaning when energy is virtually free. On the other hand, there is much political denial since it would certainly be a game changer for those in power.

      The same effort that went into the Manhattan project, or the Apollo program should just be a given here. Being over-budget is rather meaningless; you could be over-budget by 10x, and I wouldn't bat an eye. The Manhattan project built multiple enormous facilities in parallel. Laying foundations for enrichment refineries that weren't even designed yet. That took some leap of faith.

      You have to take a lot of false paths and then breakthroughs can happen unexpectedly. But we won't get there by not trying at all. Until it is proven to be impossible, the risk of dropping a few tens of billions a year to end energy scarcity forever is a reasonable gamble.

    3. Re:Fusion by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      You bring up Manhattan and Apollo and both of those have one thing in common. A united country that wasn't bickering about petty shit and actually wanted to accomplish something. Regrettably, the attitude and budget issues means that there's more bureaucracy and fragmentation on getting anything accomplished. Sure, private industry could take up the engineering challenge but they won't without sufficient incentives, such as tax credits or other things to properly make their "investment" worth something. I really want to see sustainable Fusion power but we also could be doing a hell of a lot more with Geothermal as well as Fission reactors and solar, all of which help reduce CO2 and promote jobs both in operationally and construction/engineering. That way we get people more interested in those professions rather than being a Walmart greeter.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  72. Re:An old Colorado Saying about water applies here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plentiful energy + pipes = water.

    Problem solved.

  73. Because we try to water what is naturally dry by SDPost · · Score: 1

    We call these places deserts for a reason.

  74. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean PROCESSED food, stuff that comes from McDonalds, or stuff high in cheap fillers and crap like corn syrup.

    REAL food, is pretty damn expensive unless you have the luxury of your own garden. Even with meat, there is a reason why pink slime and steak glue exist... and that isn't to make something more tasty.

    Of course, there is the GMO can of worms and how potentially dangerous splicing random shit into an ecosystem because it makes something cheaper can be.

  75. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck 'em. They should have spent their money on something more practical than spinning hubcaps. Darwinism in action.

  76. PBS covered this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, just like the AIDS crisis. /shrug

  77. Proportionate response? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, in CA a "water emergency" is you only water your lush green lawn and trees 3 days a week and you *gasp* can't let the hose run full blast into the drain the whole time you wash your car (you have to have a nozzle that shuts off when not in use). Amazing. Let's be clear: the house I live in DOES NOT HAVE A WATER METER. It used to cost more to measure the water than to just use as much as I like. New houses have water meters, but mine sure doesn't. Ask yourself how bad can the emergency be then? I'm going to go put a nozzle on my hose now and save 20%... heh

  78. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Food is not cheap. Taking inflation into account, food prices are at an all-time high on a global basis. They're even higher than they were during World War II, when rationing was in place.

    The price of food increasing far faster than wages has in fact resulted in more poverty, which has in fact resulted in more obesity is many nations around the world.

    The parent post should have said developed countries instead of modern world, because in developed countries food certainly is cheap. In 1900 families spent 43% of their money on food, while in 2003 it was 13%. Food is incredibly cheap by historical standards, about a third of the cost of food 100 years ago. source

    Poverty only correlates to obesity in areas where food is abundant. Then the same incapability to delay gratification that causes poverty also causes obesity. One does not cause the other, they have the same root cause.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  79. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 1

    You mean PROCESSED food, stuff that comes from McDonalds, or stuff high in cheap fillers and crap like corn syrup.

    REAL food, is pretty damn expensive unless you have the luxury of your own garden. Even with meat, there is a reason why pink slime and steak glue exist... and that isn't to make something more tasty.

    The only places where processed food is significantly cheaper than processed food is in food deserts where a gas station is the only nearby place to buy food. In your standard supermarket, vegetables are incredibly cheap compared to what you would even find at McDonald's. For those with access to a supermarket, a combination of lack of time, lack of education, and lack of ability to delay gratification that causes people to eat junk food. Not money.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  80. over 250 golf courses in Phoenix/Scottsdale by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    There are over 250 golf courses in Phoenix and Scottsdale. Yup, that's some good use of water there.

  81. Peak Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Umm, the world is overpopulated. We are using resources at a rate greater than natural replenishment. You have two choices:
    1) Stop using
    2) Die
    It's very simple.

  82. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by David+Jao · · Score: 1

    Food prices are high, but all of my meals (which are nutritious) cost $1-$2 max, usually closer to $1. You just have to know how and where to shop. Of course, this is the US, which is a first world country...

    It is not enough to know how and where to shop. You also, generally, need a kitchen and appliances (stove, refrigerator, etc.) in order to produce nutritions $1 meals. Many poor and even lower-middle class families simply don't have these things. The kind of housing that you can get for cheap is going to be one-room boarding houses with limited access to food preparation facilities. You're lucky to have even a shared kitchen. As for appliances, they're not actually very expensive -- an iPhone costs more -- but poor families generally move far too often (usually involuntarily) to maintain possession of bulky items.

  83. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by David+Jao · · Score: 2

    For those with access to a supermarket, a combination of lack of time, lack of education, and lack of ability to delay gratification that causes people to eat junk food. Not money.

    None of the above. For most poor and even lower-middle class families, the limiting factor is lack of access to food preparation equipment and facilities. Low-income housing often lacks a kitchen. Even if you have a kitchen, one often lacks appliances; trying to subsist on unprocessed food without a refrigerator or a stove is difficult to put it mildly. Families near the poverty line move from place to place a lot, often on short notice in response to evictions. There's no way they could maintain possession of bulky appliances under such circumstances, not to mention an adequate inventory of cookware.

    Poor families are really living on the edge, much more than you realize. Once you get to the point where you can't afford a security deposit for an apartment, a lot of options close off. Food preparation is one of them.

  84. Lawns, Veggies, other ground cover by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Most vegetables are seasonal, not perennials, and in most climates you'd want year-round ground cover. It's ok if that's grasses that go dormant in the summer or winter, as long as they still prevent erosion and mud, but growing zucchini not only won't do the job, but you won't be able to find enough grocery bags to leave it all on your neighbors' doorsteps. Most of the SF Bay Area isn't quite right for desert-style xeroscaping (even though prickly pear cactus grows really well here), but there's a lot of low-water native vegetation that does ok.

    HOAs would have a fit. But boomers were the hippie generation - we approved of healthy food, organically grown veggies, all that stuff. (As long as somebody else does the hard work :-) In my case, I don't have ground-level dirt of my own, just pots on a balcony, and the squirrels have already stolen both tomatoes, but I liked doing extensive gardening back when I had a yard. And with a yard full of zucchini, I wouldn't have to tell you kids to get off my lawn.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  85. Most of Cal's water is for farms, not homes by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Residential rates matter a bit if you're trying to get people to install low-flow toilets or drought-tolerant non-grass landscaping, but if you live near the Niagara river, you can afford a lot more land than almost anybody in LA (except the folks on unstable hilltops.)

    But that's not where California's water goes. 80% is for agriculture, and about half of that is for feeding cattle. It's at subsidized prices one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than residential water. There's also a good chunk of it going to industry.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  86. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    High-usable-protein, low fat, balanced carb food is expensive. Junk food is cheap. So yeah, poverty does cause obesity, spiking just before your income reaches famine levels, at which point you begin to take the look of a Sahel or Biafra refugee.

  87. And then there's fracking by courcoul · · Score: 1

    If water demand weren't bad enough, the profitable quest to squeeze the last possible drop of oil/gas from the ground via hydraulic fracturing (fracking) wrecks the whole underground structure that configure the acquifer, not to mention making it totally unfit to drink or use due to contamination. So now the natural underground currents that replentished the groundwater supplies are gone and whatever is left is ruined. Bravo for Capitalism, hope that cheap gas you got in return tastes good, cause it's the only liquid you're gonna get.

  88. Can't understand it by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    Where is all that water going?

    www.golfarizona.com/courses/

    "Few would dispute that Arizona, with golf-rich cities such as Scottsdale and Phoenix is one of the world's premier golf destinations. Arizona's golf courses are as diverse and spectacular as its landscape. Across the state there are more than 300 courses, From traditional links-style layouts to target courses, Arizona possesses an obscene number of courses to challenge your skills and provide you with some unbeatable vacation leisure."

    ;-)

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  89. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 1

    None of the above. For most poor and even lower-middle class families, the limiting factor is lack of access to food preparation equipment and facilities. Low-income housing often lacks a kitchen. Even if you have a kitchen, one often lacks appliances; trying to subsist on unprocessed food without a refrigerator or a stove is difficult to put it mildly.

    Are you just making this stuff up? 97.7% of poor households have a stove and oven. While there are certainly people like the ones you describe, they do not make up a significant part of the problem.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  90. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As for the rest of your comment, I agree except with the birth control thing. Granted, people shouldn't be having kids they cannot afford but it is not our place to tell people they can or cannot have kids. And I'm not about to let a kid suffer because their parents are imbeciles so I guess it is a catch 22. Make it available, but it's their choice.

    Unfortunately it's too late. A lot of the time religion has already made the choice for them, for others it's conservatives.

  91. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by N1AK · · Score: 1

    Poverty does not cause obesity. It causes unhealthy diets which can cause obesity. Stay home and eat a 7 dollar lean steak or a 12 dollar healthy omega3 rich fish fillet with about 4 dollars in trimmings or get filled up with a 6 dollar super sized big mac meal and not have to fix the crap.

    Not an overly persuasive argument when thought through. It isn't hard to eat cheap and eat healthily. Swap the massive coke in that McDonalds meal with a sugar free drink (or if you don't trust sugar alternatives stick with water) and for no extra cost you've just made a huge difference.

    Poor people tend to be fatter for many reasons, ranging from being less bothered about societies opinion of them to being less educated on the risks. Yes money is relevant (how many poor people can hire personal trainers or decent gym memberships for example) but you could easily take an unhealthy diet and make it vastly better without spending more.

  92. Drainage! by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    "All night long, I drink the blood of the lamb."

  93. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The higher the prices of food items the more restricted the items are in the shopping cart and not just in size but in quality and variety, Corporate food production is not working out for the public at all. I am in one of the numerous areas that has a problem with wild hogs, I am able to buy a whole hog, butchered and ready to cook, at a very low price. The shocker is that the wild hogs taste a lot better than commercial pork. They do not have bacon as the bellies are lean but the quality of the meat is superior. We have no choice but to have hunters collect the wild hogs as they are rather dangerous and can do amazing things to a lawn in just a few minutes of foraging. I am hoping that the wild hogs will be able to eat a few of the pythons that are too common in Florida now and conversely if a python eats a hog that means a pet or somebodies kid will not vanish.

  94. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by David+Jao · · Score: 1

    First of all, the number claimed in your link is 95%, not 97%. Second of all, try making even basic efforts at fact checking. For example, your article claims 99.7% of poor families have refrigerators. This is plainly untrue -- homeless people don't have refrigerators, and they make up 10% of poor people. The numbers in the article are clearly unreliable and agenda-driven, which is not surprising, considering the source.

  95. Re:Oh really? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

    So what alarmist hyper-environmentalist news stories are we to believe? Last time I checked, we had environmentalists screaming that fracking thousands of feet down leaks chemicals (sand, light hydrocarbons) through thousands of feet of permeable geological layers. If these layers are so permeable and the alarmists are telling the trough, how come it takes `thousands` of years to recharge the aquifers?

    The act of fracking, or fracturing, creates many tiny cracks.

    Here's a thought experiment: Stick your head under a bucket of tightly packed soil (mostly clay) in a bottomless bucket and fill it up.

    Now try the same thing after you use a spade on the soil in the bucket for a few minutes.

    Get the picture?

    Let's hope he actually tries your experiment - and without a spotter.

  96. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article does say "poor households". Someone who's homeless isn't really a household.

  97. Well-owner in the Colorado basin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I have property in Arizona that is subject to some pretty strict restrictions. It's also true that there is virtually no real enforcement. I got a permit in 2006 and had a well drilled to 500 feet in order to access the aquifer in the Coconino sandstone layer. This water is high in iron, but low in sulfur. I have a half-dozen neighbors within a mile of my place who also have wells. I sometimes pump as much as 3000 gallons a month from the well, and most of the other users in my area probably pump a bit more than that, but a few pump only 500-1000 gallons. There have been years where I only pump 3000 gallons a year. We could pump a lot more if we wanted, but it costs money for propane or diesel to run the generators that power the three- to twelve-horsepower pumps necessary to lift the water that far with any volume. We are all very far from the grid. Some folks have pumps 1 HP that run off solar, but the delivery rate is ~1 to 2 GPM and they run basically all day. As another factor, we all are pretty community minded and won't waste water.

    There has been a big deal recently because of settlements with the various tribal councils in the state and that sort of thing will continue to work its way into the rules and regulations for drilling and operating wells. I am willing to bet that no one really knows how long it takes to replenish each of the aquifers in the area. It could be dozens of years to thousands of years. Also, not every aquifer layer takes the same amount of time. There is plenty of water available at depths much less than 500 feet, but it is not good drinking water. Once that water is pulled out of that layer, it doesn't make it through the filtering layers down to the Coconino layer, so I won't get it. The hydrology is not simple, and it all ends up being a big experiment.

  98. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    There is nothing unfortunate about that. People are free to ignore them all they want.

  99. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only places where processed food is significantly cheaper than processed food is in food deserts where a gas station is the only nearby place to buy food

    Wrong.

    Go to the meat section of any supermarket. look at the 'healthy, low fat, all beef' hot dogs, for example. $3.50 Look at the 'meat' hot dogs. $1.00 But compare ingredients- the cheap ones are willed with fats and fillers and... sugar to make it taste better.

    The cheap food is bad for you.

  100. use surface water instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is wrong with using surface water while the ground water is recharging? I must be missing something.

  101. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by cdwiegand · · Score: 1

    *This*. I am middle class, have all the appliances I could ever want, but since I don't know how to cook, and neither does my wife, we end up eating more frozen dinners or eating out than cooking our own food because we have no idea how, and cookbooks only work when you have more than just the basics.

    --
    . Define sqrt(x) as something really evil like (x / rand()), and bury it deep. Watch your coworkers go nuts.
  102. Stop watering your lawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Srsly... you just look like a dipshit from the 50's watering your lawn... or for some reason a commercial for erectile dysfunction.

  103. Colorado needs water... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colorado needs all that water to grow pot!

  104. your reality is ludicrous by Thud457 · · Score: 2
    No joke.

    The Famous Senate Restaurant Bean Soup Recipe

    2 pounds dried navy beans
    four quarts hot water
    1 1/2 pounds smoked ham hocks
    1 onion, chopped
    2 tablespoons butter
    salt and pepper to taste

    Wash the navy beans and run hot water through them until they are slightly whitened. Place beans into pot with hot water. Add ham hocks and simmer approximately three hours in a covered pot, stirring occasionally. Remove ham hocks and set aside to cool. Dice meat and return to soup. Lightly brown the onion in butter. Add to soup. Before serving, bring to a boil and season with salt and pepper. Serves 8.

    You are correct, they like it with a lot of pork. /snrk

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  105. Water, water, everywhere? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have one thing to say to the West and Southwest, stay the hell away from the Great Lakes. We don't need you pumping all the water out, we do a good enough job with that.

  106. Re:Once again, resource shortages come down to ene by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    Actually if you have some land it really doesn't take much more energy than to run the pumps using direct solar desalinization. There are plenty of areas near the coast that don't see much use currently that could be repurposed for this if we had some sort of rational water policy. Good luck on that though.

  107. Re:Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you stick your head under a bottomless bucket?

  108. Minnesota - Land of 10,000 Lakes by FreedomFirstThenPeac · · Score: 1

    I am a member of two planning commissions in Minnesota and I find it very ironic that here in the Land of 10,000 lakes (or, in the spring, one really big lake), we are having to block ethanol plants and agricultural irrigation because of ground water and deep water concerns. Similarly we are finding that the ground water we do have is slowly being destroyed by run-in from fields covered with chemicals. It does make me an outlier in the Republican party (social liberal wing thereof) when I pose these "tragedies of the commons" arguments to the died-in-the-wool free-market libertarian types. I can show them the specific assumptions in their models that cause them to FAIL (mode critical) and as a mathematician I am often surprised that they do not see how those failures force an external, non-free market solution. But I soldier on.

    --
    "There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
  109. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Then the same incapability to delay gratification lack of employment paying a livable wage that causes poverty also causes obesity. FTFY.

  110. Stop Nestle by Gallomimia · · Score: 1

    Nestle is bottling water out of the very basin being talked about in the OP, and no one cares. It's not even mentioned in the article. They have a huge factory drawing cubic meters at a time out of there, and it's at the height of a drought, yet no one moves to stop them, or even says anything to relate it to the problem. Just fucking perfect.

    --
    Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
  111. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by airdweller · · Score: 1

    "Many poor and even lower-middle class families simply don't have these things."
    Are you talking about some third-world country? Cause if you're talking about the US, you're dead wrong: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/ar...

  112. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 0

    Go to the meat section of any supermarket. look at the 'healthy, low fat, all beef' hot dogs, for example.

    Stop looking at meat. Of course good meat is expensive. But if you are poor, why are you eating much meat at all? Vegetables are much cheaper than meat, and much better for you too.

    When people claim good food is expensive always jump on the price of good meat vs "pink slime"-like meat. But they completely miss that a low income diet should have very little meat at all. And this just points towards the low levels of education and inability to delay gratification that I mentioned.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  113. Pacific Ocean is not far away. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    might as well use the money california dumped into its bullet train into a proper desalination plant that will scale up!

  114. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 1

    *This*. I am middle class, have all the appliances I could ever want, but since I don't know how to cook, and neither does my wife, we end up eating more frozen dinners or eating out than cooking our own food because we have no idea how, and cookbooks only work when you have more than just the basics.

    Which is why I added lack of education to my list. Lack of education doesn't just apply to literature and STEM related fields; it can also apply to more home economic related areas.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  115. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by airdweller · · Score: 1

    You're wrong. By your logic, all poor people in the world would be obese.
    Poverty causes obesity only partly and indirectly. There's plenty of fat middle-class people.
    Average obesity is caused by - in no particular order and overlapping - stupidity, lack of education, laziness, over-processed food, excessive intake of carbs, general overeating, low physical activity, constant psychological stress and a distorted culture of food preparation (or more like the lack of thereof); as well as the imperfect human biology not evolved to deal with all that.

  116. Re:Oh really? by Lord+Lemur · · Score: 1

    There is also the high pressure that the fracking soulutions are placed under, and impropper containment.

  117. problem solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people in that area decreasingly believe in science, and prefer superstition, so as long as they have a supply of religious texts that tell them otherwise, surely they will be OK?

  118. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vegetables are cheap in terms of 'pounds per dollar', but not the more relevant 'calories per dollar'.

  119. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 1

    > Then the same incapability to delay gratification lack of employment paying a livable wage that causes poverty also causes obesity.

    FTFY.

    I was referring to root causes, not the symptoms. The lack of employment paying a livable wage is the effect, not the cause, of other problems in a person's life. It is just about as far from a root cause as you can get.

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  120. Perhaps someone can help me here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. you see, lots of people seem to be complaining about the lack of WATER.

    But, as far as I know, water NEVER gets used up. If you irrigate crops with it, it falls back into the aquifer. If you drink it, it passes right through you and out the other side. If you use it to wash dishes, it goes into a sewer, gets treated, and goes back into the river that it came from.

    Billions of humans have lived on this planet, and yet there is about the same amount of water now as when we started. Ignoring the slow addition due to icy meteorites....

    When people talk about a 'shortage' of water, what they actually mean is a shortage of processing, storage and distribution facilities. Which is a straight investment issue. But for some reason the water companies can avoid paying for a new reservoir by saying 'Oh, there's a shortage of water. Give us more money for a smaller supply..."

    I wonder why...?

  121. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by ranton · · Score: 1

    Vegetables are cheap in terms of 'pounds per dollar', but not the more relevant 'calories per dollar'.

    And there comes the "lack of education" argument for why people are overweight. Looking at 'calories per dollar' is a horrible way to plan a food budget. You should be looking at price per portion not price per calorie. A single portion of broccoli has much less calories than a single portion of Skittles, but not only is the broccoli better for you the extra fiber is probably going to make is just as filling (if not more so).

    --
    -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
  122. Re:Once again, resource shortages come down to ene by brambus · · Score: 1

    Can you provide some figures as to the land use and cost of such a system? The best I could find were pretty depressive numbers. The average US household of three uses ~1000L/d and there are ~115.2 million households. Using solar PV and reverse osmosis one sq meter of solar panel can produce around 200L/d, so ~5sqm per household and 576 sq km of total panel area - just on this alone it's a total non-starter before we even get to the costs of the RO plants, transmission lines, storage systems, etc.

  123. Re:Once again, resource shortages come down to ene by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    You're talking about indirect solar & reverse osmosis, that's a different ballgame. In direct solar basically they pump the seawater into into an evaporation pond that has a transparent ceiling and a gravity collection system for the water. No power involved except the pumps to get the water into the pond.

    I am not an industrial engineer and I'm sure there are many factors to consider, however small scale systems generally have a production value of around 6 liters per square meter of collection surface per day. (http://pure.ltu.se/portal/files/2778020/soa-seawater_desalination.pdf)

    Groundwater usage is only about 20% of total, so about 310,403 million liters per day. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3098/pdf/2009-3098.pdf) I don't think there is any point in trying to replace surface water usage since that appears to be functioning normally. Given that amount we're looking at 51,734 sq. km. worth of collectors. The land area of the US is 9.872 million sq. km. so that's about 0.5%, not nothing but it sounds roughly workable.

    To put some scope on this, lets talk about my home state of Oregon. Just eyeballing the water usage map, we probably use 5,678 million liters of groundwater which is 946 sq. km. of direct distilling capacity needed. If we assume 10 plants (for which there is plenty of room in the near coastal areas) and include some room for overhead you're looking at 3000 acre parcels. Throw in some space for pipelines and solar power generation for the pumps and it looks pretty feasible from an engineering and land use perspective.

  124. And the Facts are these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  125. Re:Once again, resource shortages come down to ene by brambus · · Score: 1

    Surface reservoirs are being depleted as well, but regardless, taking for Oregon, 946km^2, how much would so much building space cost? Remember, this 946km^2 is just the collection area, not the whole thing, but let's have a look at the cost of materials. You'll need a transparent roof for which the article you linked suggests glass. Cost: $10/ft^2, or about $100/m^2. Multiply 946km^2 and you get $94 billion just for the glass, or about 1.5x the size of the entire Oregon state budget. This is just not workable.

  126. Re: Should the United States accept more foreigner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should be, but indoctrination and my team is best I'm going to support them regardless makes it hard for most people.

  127. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other words, homeless people don't deserve to be counted in statistics.

  128. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by David+Jao · · Score: 1

    10% of poor Americans are homeless. That alone renders all of the article's claims nonsensical on their face. There is no way that 97% of poor households have refrigerators.

  129. scarcity versus shortages by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Scarcity is what you discover when you try to look for something, and don't find much of it.

    Shortages are what you get when government sells it below the market price, or requires others to.

    If the selling price was the actual market price, people would use less, use it better, get it from other places, or go other places and use the water there.

    Duh.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  130. Growth without planning by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    That's the rub, you have massive communities being built with no thought to infrastructural issues, like water, roads, education etc. The one thing that needs to be done to take care of long term water demand is desalinization plants. San Diego is now getting one. but that'll solve most domestic uses, large agrobusiness has relied on cheap water, and that's what's made the Imperial Valley and the San Joaquin valleys prosper, without access to it the agriculture will suffer. That's something California doesn't want and it'll push food prices higher in the US.

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  131. Re:Once again, resource shortages come down to ene by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    Well, lets use commercial grade bulk purchase instead the retail price which works out to about $0.91//ft^2 (http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/3mm-19mm-Clear-Tempered-Glass_273110379.html?s=p) With that sort of volume I'm sure you could probably get it even cheaper. Additionally, there is no need to pay for it all up front, issue some bonds and pay for it over 30 years. With that in mind you're looking at $8.6 Billion for the glass total and less than $300 million per year as payments, a large project to be sure but quite doable if we wished.

  132. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by airdweller · · Score: 1

    Yeah, everybody's a sociologist and a statistician on the Internet.

  133. Re:Should the United States accept more foreigners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    National Debt as a percentage of GDP went from ~35% to 55% under Reagan. About a 60% increase relative to itself (35/55)

    Has nothing to do with the population getting poor. Does not even denote any disaster either.

    We disagree there. Taxes fall disproportionately on the poor and even if they didn't spend a penny on SSN, FICA, etc taxes, they get hit with sales tax, even on on food in many areas. National debt or debt service is paid out of taxes, so national debt is bad for them if they don't get a corresponding increase in wealth. A rising national debt is bad for anyone who doesn't see their own wealth/opportunity expand proportionately, which is generally the poor.

    The minimum wage for the same period went up about 20%. Viewing national debt vs minimum wage, the 99% of people who make less than 10x minimum wage, saw their real wealth and purchasing power vanish relative to the previous generation.

    And this was happening long before Reagan got into office. Inflation was a bitch under Carter and there were more unemployed.

    We could go back and forth on this, but it wouldn't be productive or topical anymore, so I won't.

    As for Mr. Bean below, genuinely poor urbanites often don't have access to an oven or full size refridgerator, much less a store that sells 25# bags of rice or beans for less than a buck a pound. I do, but every place I can reasonably walk home from without milk spoiling on a hot day confines itself to 4 serving portions. The closet don't even carry gallons of milk, just quarts or maybe half gallons at times. For $7 a half gallon. Not everyone has access to direct bus routes, much less a car and Amex for Costco runs. Your reality is not the same as theirs.

    Something I completely agree with. Sometimes a bus isn't even an option because there are no regular bus lanes in the area.

    I'm lucky in that where I live now, you can get a gallon of milk for $3.50 to $5 in a gas station convenience store. You can also find 1 pound bags of beans and sometimes rice in them too. But I have been in those spots you describe and if it isn't a candy bar, some sort of prepared sandwich, or a boxed meal item with an expiration date a year past, it likely isn't in the store as far as food goes for several miles of highway walking.

    I'll just comment that I'm not even talking about a dedicated bus lane, just a bus. Mass transit in NYC (Manhattan) is great. It's manageable in most of the other boroughs, but even there you can be looking at a healthy persons, clear weather walk of 20 minutes to get to a 30 min bus to take a transfer to another 45 min bus and walk another 20 minutes. Without extra heavy traffic, and without any wait time for the bus in case it is early/late. That's why good locations go for $2k+/sqr foot, even if in relatively hovellish condition.