When Phoenix's Population Dies

[Devils_Advocate]

It was the Live Aid food for Africa thingy

I didn’t see you post it before I wrote my comment!

 

[Crick]

I am writing about taking from the Mid-West to feed a society in Phoenix which is not rational nor should be considered ever.

Phoenix is not a region that sustains heavy amount of life and to think we should divert water to that region is ridiculous because as stated by another poster you are not just delaying what will need to be done but you are draining a resource from another area.

So why have a massive city in a region like Vegas, Phoenix and so on when you know the population can not be sustained there unless you draw from other areas of the country and the required resource to build what is needed to pump the amount of water needed is something you are not willing to pay via taxes.

You're not answering the question. If I live 100 meters from the river, I will have to come up with some sort of mechanism to remove water from the river and take it to my property; a location without that water resource. How much negative impact would that have?

The obvious answer is that the further you are from the resource you're tapping, the more likely an undesirable result will occur and the larger in magnitude that result is likely to be. In the universe of artificial water movement, Lake Michigan to Phoenix is a long trip. But 1600 years ago, the Romans built an aqueduct to supply Constantinople from a source 426 km away. The Roman aqueduct systems were functional for over 700 years. It's not impossible and Lake Michigan would not be unduly affected by the drain. If every drop used in Phoenix were provided by the Lake it would divert 0.058% of the lake's total volume (based on Phoenix using 2.3 million acre-feet per year and Lk Michigan having a volume of 1,180 cubic miles).

 

[Devils_Advocate]

I grew up in Michigan, and I have, all my life, been around folks that either owned boats, or had owned property on the Great Lakes.

Every year, they have reports on the lake levels for the past year, and expected precipitation and levels for the coming year.


That affects property owners, and the amount of shipping that can be done on the Great Lakes. Which, like a knock-on affect, chain reaction, will affect how cheaply goods from the entire interior of the nation can be shipped out of Chicago. There are two ways out, either out through the St. Lawerence Sea-Way, or down the Mississipppi. Otherwise, everything has to go out by rail, which is much more expensive.

It also affects the wildlife on the lakes.
In my life, I have known a captain of a tanker of one of these giant freighters, and I have known an wildlife ecologist.

Just the slightest change in the water levels, we are talking, inches ever year, which of course, is hundreds of millions of gallons, has huge impacts, on the ecology, and the economy, all along every town, industry, the wetlands, and the tourism along thousands of miles of shoreline.

Anyone can do a search for tankers on the Mississippi. This type of thing affects folks like them, in major watersheds in the Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri river basins as well. Any talk of diverting that resource? Seems to me, short sighted. But then, I am no expert. The interior does flood nearly every year, so there might be some leeway. But is that flooding necessary to revitalize the soil?

I have no doubt, any significant withdrawals from these watersheds, would likewise, affect the property owners, the wildlife, and shipping along these waterways as well.

I do know, there is a very old law, the Great Lakes Compact, which prohibits the sort of thing, a lot of the folks out west and in the south-west want to do.

The only exception to it, that I know, was the Chicago exception. If Chicago needs increased needs, it is exempt. I can see, sometime in the next century, NYC trying to get in on that same exemption, since NY is part of the compact.

Great Lakes Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That is the problem people want a solution but the solution they are discussing will harm the region you are writing about.

People of Phoenix and other areas like that need to understand they live in an area that can not sustain life at a large scale.

I am not saying we can not do something that might make it viable but it will take time and generations and humanity isn’t willing to experiment on stuff.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

You're not answering the question. If I live 100 meters from the river, I will have to come up with some sort of mechanism to remove water from the river and take it to my property; a location without that water resource. How much negative impact would that have?

The obvious answer is that the further you are from the resource you're tapping, the more likely an undesirable result will occur and the larger in magnitude that result is likely to be. In the universe of artificial water movement, Lake Michigan to Phoenix is a long trip. But 1600 years ago, the Romans built an aqueduct to supply Constantinople from a source 426 km away. The Roman aqueduct systems were functional for over 700 years. It's not impossible and Lake Michigan would not be unduly affected by the drain. If every drop used in Phoenix were provided by the Lake it would divert 0.058% of the lake's total volume (based on Phoenix using 2.3 million acre-feet per year and Lk Michigan having a volume of 1,180 cubic miles).

Read the other poster comment because you are not supplying just Phoenix but also Vegas, L.A., and so on who are having water shortages, so you are just focusing on one area but when you factor in tens of millions of people in multiple regions you then realize you are going to cause damage that will harm the people of the region while not truly solving the issue.

 

[MisterBeale]

Read the other poster comment because you are not supplying just Phoenix but also Vegas, L.A., and so on who are having water shortages, so you are just focusing on one area but when you factor in tens of millions of people in multiple regions you then realize you are going to cause damage that will harm the people of the region while not truly solving the issue.

Crick is an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about on anything.

He makes a fool of himself daily in the Environmental forums.

If we all just start paying a few bucks a day in an international carbon tax, the global elites can control the climate!!!!

 

[MisterBeale]

That is the problem people want a solution but the solution they are discussing will harm the region you are writing about.

People of Phoenix and other areas like that need to understand they live in an area that can not sustain life at a large scale.

I am not saying we can not do something that might make it viable but it will take time and generations and humanity isn’t willing to experiment on stuff.

IMO?

I think the best solution, is large arrays of solar panels in Baja California, connected to desalinization plants, and this, if Ocean currents are favorable?

Giant Deep Ocean Turbine Trial Offers Hope of Endless Green Power

Tested in one of the world’s strongest ocean currents, a prototype generator could herald the start of a new stream of renewable energy

www.bloomberg.com

www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-05-30/japan-s-deep-ocean-turbine-trial-offers-hope-of-phasing-out-fossil-fuels
Using the dessert sun, and the Ocean water will be the future. I just don't think the ruling oligarchs want to use cheap energy to produce water. I think they would rather use it on smart grids, and data centers to control everyone instead. There is a limited supply of energy, and using it to produce water, I don't think is in the cards for the folks that lord over us. They plan to make everyone, "eat the bugs," instead.



IN the end though, the only hope, may be, to increase the costs of using that resource in those parts of the world, and to discourage use and growth in those areas of the nation that are not suitable to human habitation.

Which? Is essentially what the OP is bitching about, only the "rich," having the ability to live in a hostile environment, where folks should not be living, because it is too expensive, and energy intensive to live in, to begin with.

The cost of living, where I live, is dirt cheap, compared to the rest of the nation.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I got a brother thst lives out there,I don’t know he does it.i will be seeing him in September for the first time in like 25 years.will get a reminder what it’s like.

 

[Crick]

Read the other poster comment because you are not supplying just Phoenix but also Vegas, L.A., and so on who are having water shortages, so you are just focusing on one area but when you factor in tens of millions of people in multiple regions you then realize you are going to cause damage that will harm the people of the region while not truly solving the issue.

You're right. The area is populated well beyond what the available resources can support. I'm not literally suggesting that Phoenix (or anywhere else in the SW) get fed their water from Lake Michigan. My point was that anyone, anywhere removing water from a source will have an impact. There's no magic line separating good water use from bad. Southwestern cities should have begun discouraging folks from moving in decades ago but more people mean more tax dollars. I've spent most of my life in Florida and the apparently irresistible attraction developers present to community planners is a thing to behold.

 

[Crick]

Crick is an idiot who has no idea what he is talking about on anything.

He makes a fool of himself daily in the Environmental forums.

If we all just start paying a few bucks a day in an international carbon tax, the global elites can control the climate!!!!

If we DON'T do something, AGW will control the climate and the cost will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. If you think that makes economic sense... well, it doesn't. You'd have to be an idiot to think it does.

 

[Failzero]

60 k new Illegals by New Years will strain the system ?

 

[Care4all]

It has always been a hot & dry area.
They can't do anything about the heat but they can divert water from areas with an abundance if they just had the intestinal fortitude to take on the eco-fascists who always try to stop the type of massive project it would require to pipe in the water supplies

I think they'd be ok with water pipelines....? The objectors were mainly to the oil pipelines carrying a poisonous substance, where a spill could spoil aquifers and or their land for centuries....

Something needs to be done, if it can.....

Maybe they could truck the water from bountiful places with it? It could cost a lot....and add a bit to their cost of living there?

 

[Failzero]

Lake Powell & Lake Mead are pathetic , how is Havasu ???

 

[petro]

If anyone thinks the upper midwest will put up with the literal pipe dream of taking water from the Great Lakes to feed desert cities of the southwest, are frankly delusional.
You chose to live in an uninhabitable environment.

Why should we supply the water to fill endless swimming pools and water golf courses?
Screw that.

 

[Failzero]

If anyone thinks the upper midwest will put up with the literal pipe dream of taking water from the Great Lakes to feed desert cities of the southwest, are frankly delusional.
You chose to live in an uninhabitable environment.

Why should we supply the water to fill endless swimming pools and water golf courses?
Screw that.

Fools in So Cal think Lake Shasta & the Sacramento River can save them .

 

[johngaltshrugged]

I think they'd be ok with water pipelines....? The objectors were mainly to the oil pipelines carrying a poisonous substance, where a spill could spoil aquifers and or their land for centuries....

Something needs to be done, if it can.....

Maybe they could truck the water from bountiful places with it? It could cost a lot....and add a bit to their cost of living there?

It would have to be some sort of giant pipeline to supply a huge population. Trucking it in wouldn't be financially or logistically possible.

The pipelines for fossil fuels are many times safer than either trains or trucking so the greenies once again make no sense.
And they would still oppose the new infrastructure simply because that's what they always do

 

[Care4all]

It would have to be some sort of giant pipeline to supply a huge population. Trucking it in wouldn't be financially or logistically possible.

The pipelines for fossil fuels are many times safer than either trains or trucking so the greenies once again make no sense.
And they would still oppose the new infrastructure simply because that's what they always do

Yeah, it likely would be cost prohibitive to truck it, especially with today's gas prices.....

But a pipeline to a specific water source is not a solution either imo....

Because it takes all the water from one place, which will eventually hurt that place.

And trucking it, could be from different places that may temporarily have a surplus.....but still costly.....

It looks like the southwest big cities are doomed!

 

[martybegan]

I grew up in Michigan, and I have, all my life, been around folks that either owned boats, or had owned property on the Great Lakes.

Every year, they have reports on the lake levels for the past year, and expected precipitation and levels for the coming year.


That affects property owners, and the amount of shipping that can be done on the Great Lakes. Which, like a knock-on affect, chain reaction, will affect how cheaply goods from the entire interior of the nation can be shipped out of Chicago. There are two ways out, either out through the St. Lawerence Sea-Way, or down the Mississipppi. Otherwise, everything has to go out by rail, which is much more expensive.

It also affects the wildlife on the lakes.
In my life, I have known a captain of a tanker of one of these giant freighters, and I have known an wildlife ecologist.

Just the slightest change in the water levels, we are talking, inches ever year, which of course, is hundreds of millions of gallons, has huge impacts, on the ecology, and the economy, all along every town, industry, the wetlands, and the tourism along thousands of miles of shoreline.

Anyone can do a search for tankers on the Mississippi. This type of thing affects folks like them, in major watersheds in the Mississippi, Ohio and Missouri river basins as well. Any talk of diverting that resource? Seems to me, short sighted. But then, I am no expert. The interior does flood nearly every year, so there might be some leeway. But is that flooding necessary to revitalize the soil?

I have no doubt, any significant withdrawals from these watersheds, would likewise, affect the property owners, the wildlife, and shipping along these waterways as well.

I do know, there is a very old law, the Great Lakes Compact, which prohibits the sort of thing, a lot of the folks out west and in the south-west want to do.

The only exception to it, that I know, was the Chicago exception. If Chicago needs increased needs, it is exempt. I can see, sometime in the next century, NYC trying to get in on that same exemption, since NY is part of the compact.

Great Lakes Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

NY's water system is currently able to meet the levels of demand, and while we have had less rain than usual, reservoir levels aren't approaching drought warning levels, yet.


Our water comes from the Catskill/Delaware and Hudson watersheds, unrelated to the Mississippi.

 

[martybegan]

It would have to be some sort of giant pipeline to supply a huge population. Trucking it in wouldn't be financially or logistically possible.

The pipelines for fossil fuels are many times safer than either trains or trucking so the greenies once again make no sense.
And they would still oppose the new infrastructure simply because that's what they always do

It would be a massive project, and the best way would be deep tunneling to avoid elevation changes as much as possible.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, it likely would be cost prohibitive to truck it, especially with today's gas prices.....

But a pipeline to a specific water source is not a solution either imo....

Because it takes all the water from one place, which will eventually hurt that place.

And trucking it, could be from different places that may temporarily have a surplus.....but still costly.....

It looks like the southwest big cities are doomed!

The only situation would be in cases of excessive rain/flood conditions, at that point the people along the Mississippi would probably be willing to pay those Desert States to take the water.

 

[Care4all]

The only situation would be in cases of excessive rain/flood conditions, at that point the people along the Mississippi would probably be willing to pay those Desert States to take the water.

The thing is, thirsty Las Vegas has those monsoon floods... Certainly, they could devise a way to capture all that water, with some technical ingenuity?