ysabetwordsmith (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2021-06-03 08:22 pm
ysabetwordsmith) wrote2021-06-03 08:22 pm
Entry tags:
Interstate Water Fiasco
Some people are calling for a massive pipeline to move water to the dry southwest. This is a terrible idea.
First, look at the damage done to western ecosystems by water extraction. It has all but destroyed the rivers and their anadromous fish, once the richest ecosystem of Turtle Island. The Mississippi River has enough challenges from humans walling off its floodplains; it doesn't need to be drained of water on top of that.
Second, infrastructure is expensive and it fails. Build it now, cover up the problem of water shortage, and that just makes matters worse 5-10 years down the line when the system starts needing significant repairs. And America loves building but hates repairs, so you can expect a water system to reach the shitty condition of the roads and bridges in very short order.
A civilization must live within its water budget. That means each region gets only what its rain, rivers, etc. can provide. If you don't like the restrictions, move somewhere with more water, because there is only so much that technology can do to cover up the shortage.
Things that would actually help, that people don't want to do:
* Ban commercial drainage of aquifers. Reserve that for local use.
* Stop watering lawns, golf courses, and everything else.
* Reforest the uplands to store water from seasonal rains and release it through year-round runoff.
* Only grow crops whose water needs match the availability of local water resources.
* Encourage people to move from low-water to high-water areas.
* Study measures in other countries to conserve water, since America uses several times as much as the more frugal countries do.
First, look at the damage done to western ecosystems by water extraction. It has all but destroyed the rivers and their anadromous fish, once the richest ecosystem of Turtle Island. The Mississippi River has enough challenges from humans walling off its floodplains; it doesn't need to be drained of water on top of that.
Second, infrastructure is expensive and it fails. Build it now, cover up the problem of water shortage, and that just makes matters worse 5-10 years down the line when the system starts needing significant repairs. And America loves building but hates repairs, so you can expect a water system to reach the shitty condition of the roads and bridges in very short order.
A civilization must live within its water budget. That means each region gets only what its rain, rivers, etc. can provide. If you don't like the restrictions, move somewhere with more water, because there is only so much that technology can do to cover up the shortage.
Things that would actually help, that people don't want to do:
* Ban commercial drainage of aquifers. Reserve that for local use.
* Stop watering lawns, golf courses, and everything else.
* Reforest the uplands to store water from seasonal rains and release it through year-round runoff.
* Only grow crops whose water needs match the availability of local water resources.
* Encourage people to move from low-water to high-water areas.
* Study measures in other countries to conserve water, since America uses several times as much as the more frugal countries do.
Yes ...
Not far from here, there's a small but fast-growing city. Remember, we live on reclaimed swampland that nature regularly disputes possession of. So that city's always had a problem with flooding, and it's been around a long time. All the underpasses have depth measures on them so people know when the water's too deep to drive through. They are, at present, building small skyscrapers that add massive water/sewage burdens to old pipelines that need repair and were never designed for so much volume. Sure, when they tear up a street, sometimes they update the infrastructure underneath it. But that doesn't help because it's a localized patch job; the rest of the system is still too old and too small to sustain the added weight. So the flooding gradually gets worse.
Now at the same time, climate change is making storms more aggressive. So we have these buildings taller than everything else around them, facing storms that often produce ferocious windwalls, and are increasingly prone to dumping lots of water in a sudden deluge. Sooner or later they're going to get hit with a bad storm and have a major disaster on their hands. This does not seem to me like an advisable situation. If I really wanted a city on a reclaimed marsh, I'd pick one of its several areas of sprawl where the building is vigorous, and I'd put the skyscrapers there to create a new activity hub where I could install new infrastructure to support it.
A lot of people's problems are foreseeable and preventable, but people either don't think ahead, or can't maneuver around them because the incentives drive them toward stupid actions.