Los Angeles bleeds the Colorado dry; Arizona is far behind in Colorado River water rights (and first to take cuts to its supply).
Phoenix was founded on the Salt River for a reason. The previous Hohokam settlement on the site did indeed succumb to drought (or at least that's the prevailing theory), but they lacked the technology to build damns upstream to manage the water supply over years and decades; the multiple reservoirs that modern Phoenix has are doing very well, even after about a decade of drought, even while Lake Mead dwindles.
Further, I read years ago (sorry, no lmddgtfy.net citation link) that the international agreements were already in place for Arizona to desalt and pipeline from the Gulf of California when the need finally arises. Currently, conservation and reclamation have meant that the Phoenix metro area uses less water today, even with massive population growth, than it did 20 years ago. (Most water use, 69% (http://arizonaexperience.org/people/arizonas-water-uses-and-sources) is still agricultural; when an alfalfa farm becomes 250 single family homes or such, water use actually drops.)
Phoenix's water future is actually pretty well secured; remember years ago when Atlanta was facing a full-on water outage? Non-desert cities naturally don't feel the urgency to plan for water shortages, but Phoenix knows it will always need to carefully manage an eternally thin margin. All the claims of "unsustainable" seem to start from the premise that cities must be sufficiently supplied by the rain that falls on them; Phoenix was always predicated on relying on the rain and snow upstream.
Lake Mead is almost in single-digit feet range now of the level that will automatically trigger cuts. It will likely happen soon, and Arizona will be first in line for those cuts. 39% of Arizona's water currently comes from the Colorado. But do the math; if Arizona cut its farming in half, that would almost cover the loss of ALL Colorado River water, and the cuts don't start with "all".
>Well, there is good evidence that blindly hiring to a quota raises productivity more than blindly selecting the "best" applicants, for a start.
First, "can" in the published article seems to have been promoted to "does" in the comment. Second, the article cited makes no mention of 'blindly selecting the "best" applicants' -- indeed, it calls out the NON-blindness of such selections as the rule to be improved upon with quotas. While gender quotas certainly would address real (though hopefully unintentional) sexual discrimination in such selections, surely a truly "blind" selection would trump even that for absolute fairness.
I don't find the argument and conclusions of that article convincing or compelling either, as they seem to be built on an implicit assumption that the differences between the sexes are negligible across all occupations (which I find sadly naive). Equal opportunity and equal treatment will not magically produce equal numbers or equal outcomes when natural differences exist, and though quotas can achieve the latter two political goals, they do so only artificially, and at the cost of the former two moral principles.
Oddly, I moved from the Detroit area to Phoenix a few years ago, and my water bill dropped significantly.
When the need becomes sufficient, California (and Arizona, and even Nevada by proxy*) will pay for desalting. The average home's water bill might "only" increase by about $50 or $60 a month. Note that that figure is based on current technology, not on whatever amazing breakthroughs are predicted over the next few years, either.
*Las Vegas obviously wouldn't ship (pipeline) desalted water from the Pacific, but they could (for example) pay for a few desalting plants *for* LA in exchange for (some of) LA's share of Colorado River water. Phoenix probably could pipeline up from the Sea of Cortez (the appropriate treaties with Mexico are already in place, I understand), but the proxy arrangement might make more sense there, too, as the Colorado already feeds the state-wide canal systems (Central Arizona Project, or CAP), which would greatly simplify delivery.
Arizona actually has banked a 5 to 6 year supply of water, even after years of drought; remember in 2008 (?) when Atlanta had less than a 30 day supply left? People who bemoan Phoenix's supposed water-unsustainability tend to do so out of ignorant assumptions; for instance, local surface rainfall has never been sufficient for Phoenix (and thus Phoenix never depended on it), but most water-sustainability studies start from that or similar assumptions that don't apply to Phoenix's situation, and never have. Meanwhile, Tucson, with a much worse natural water supply profile, is one of the world's best studies in urban water management and conservation.
Arizona also requires developers to prove a 100 year supply before they can build new neighborhoods. This is typically done by purchasing guarantees of future Colorado River allocations. (This does present a potential "shell game" problem based on where the water is bought and where it is used, but it's a problem that has been recognized and can be solved.)
Desalting is the final ace up the sleeve, but there's still no imminent sign of needing to play that card, and in the meantime, the expected price tag will almost certainly continue to shrink.
LA lives like it'll never have to pay for desalting, but Phoenix lives like it wants to delay having to pay for it as long as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Los Angeles bleeds the Colorado dry; Arizona is far behind in Colorado River water rights (and first to take cuts to its supply).
Phoenix was founded on the Salt River for a reason. The previous Hohokam settlement on the site did indeed succumb to drought (or at least that's the prevailing theory), but they lacked the technology to build damns upstream to manage the water supply over years and decades; the multiple reservoirs that modern Phoenix has are doing very well, even after about a decade of drought, even while Lake Mead dwindles.
Further, I read years ago (sorry, no lmddgtfy.net citation link) that the international agreements were already in place for Arizona to desalt and pipeline from the Gulf of California when the need finally arises. Currently, conservation and reclamation have meant that the Phoenix metro area uses less water today, even with massive population growth, than it did 20 years ago. (Most water use, 69% (http://arizonaexperience.org/people/arizonas-water-uses-and-sources) is still agricultural; when an alfalfa farm becomes 250 single family homes or such, water use actually drops.)
Phoenix's water future is actually pretty well secured; remember years ago when Atlanta was facing a full-on water outage? Non-desert cities naturally don't feel the urgency to plan for water shortages, but Phoenix knows it will always need to carefully manage an eternally thin margin. All the claims of "unsustainable" seem to start from the premise that cities must be sufficiently supplied by the rain that falls on them; Phoenix was always predicated on relying on the rain and snow upstream.
Lake Mead is almost in single-digit feet range now of the level that will automatically trigger cuts. It will likely happen soon, and Arizona will be first in line for those cuts. 39% of Arizona's water currently comes from the Colorado. But do the math; if Arizona cut its farming in half, that would almost cover the loss of ALL Colorado River water, and the cuts don't start with "all".
OmniCrypt, to highlight the cross-platform feature? Probably taken...
Sure, I'll do your logical analysis for you...
>Well, there is good evidence that blindly hiring to a quota raises productivity more than blindly selecting the "best" applicants, for a start.
First, "can" in the published article seems to have been promoted to "does" in the comment. Second, the article cited makes no mention of 'blindly selecting the "best" applicants' -- indeed, it calls out the NON-blindness of such selections as the rule to be improved upon with quotas. While gender quotas certainly would address real (though hopefully unintentional) sexual discrimination in such selections, surely a truly "blind" selection would trump even that for absolute fairness.
I don't find the argument and conclusions of that article convincing or compelling either, as they seem to be built on an implicit assumption that the differences between the sexes are negligible across all occupations (which I find sadly naive). Equal opportunity and equal treatment will not magically produce equal numbers or equal outcomes when natural differences exist, and though quotas can achieve the latter two political goals, they do so only artificially, and at the cost of the former two moral principles.
Um... sarcasm, right?
You may have your subtlety knob turned up a bit too high for me.
If you're serious, I'd love a credible source citation!
Oddly, I moved from the Detroit area to Phoenix a few years ago, and my water bill dropped significantly.
When the need becomes sufficient, California (and Arizona, and even Nevada by proxy*) will pay for desalting. The average home's water bill might "only" increase by about $50 or $60 a month. Note that that figure is based on current technology, not on whatever amazing breakthroughs are predicted over the next few years, either.
*Las Vegas obviously wouldn't ship (pipeline) desalted water from the Pacific, but they could (for example) pay for a few desalting plants *for* LA in exchange for (some of) LA's share of Colorado River water. Phoenix probably could pipeline up from the Sea of Cortez (the appropriate treaties with Mexico are already in place, I understand), but the proxy arrangement might make more sense there, too, as the Colorado already feeds the state-wide canal systems (Central Arizona Project, or CAP), which would greatly simplify delivery.
Arizona actually has banked a 5 to 6 year supply of water, even after years of drought; remember in 2008 (?) when Atlanta had less than a 30 day supply left? People who bemoan Phoenix's supposed water-unsustainability tend to do so out of ignorant assumptions; for instance, local surface rainfall has never been sufficient for Phoenix (and thus Phoenix never depended on it), but most water-sustainability studies start from that or similar assumptions that don't apply to Phoenix's situation, and never have. Meanwhile, Tucson, with a much worse natural water supply profile, is one of the world's best studies in urban water management and conservation.
Arizona also requires developers to prove a 100 year supply before they can build new neighborhoods. This is typically done by purchasing guarantees of future Colorado River allocations. (This does present a potential "shell game" problem based on where the water is bought and where it is used, but it's a problem that has been recognized and can be solved.)
Desalting is the final ace up the sleeve, but there's still no imminent sign of needing to play that card, and in the meantime, the expected price tag will almost certainly continue to shrink.
LA lives like it'll never have to pay for desalting, but Phoenix lives like it wants to delay having to pay for it as long as possible.
Although "Mosquito McMuffin" does have a certain ring to it....
Hey! That's my drag name! Where's that DMCA thingy...
The penis mightier than the sword...
Cheap and easy, with quick and friendly response to questions.
"Thank you for calling Iceland Registry, my name Peggy..."