[brk]

Not an expert, but a more-than-casual-observer as someone who has lived on the water (literally and figuratively).

A core part of the problem is things like the farming in California that uses excessive amounts of water, which is already brought in from very distant regions.

I don't think there is a way to distribute the fresh water supply equitably if you have various regions and industries that insist on being highly inefficient and wasteful. California is certainly not the only example, there are lots of places trying to grow crops in illogical places, water supplies being polluted by industries, etc.

[rayiner]

The problem isn’t just farming in the desert. The problem is all those people living in the desert in the first place. There is a reason the Spanish then the Mexicans did almost nothing to settle and develop California. It was massive water projects by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that made modern California possible.

[estearum]

I'm no fan of cities in deserts, but farming is by far the much, much, much larger problem.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Agriculture in the SW uses 75% of all water that flows through and/or falls upon the landscape.

Residential use is 7%, about the same as evaporation and retail/commercial/power-production.

The people living in the desert are not the problem when it comes to water.

[brk]

It's really intertwined. While California exports a LOT, people need to eat and the economies of scale lean towards eating locally grown crops. Living in a desert creates some degree of demand for local crops.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

What the other reply said, plus ...

1. crops in the desert are generally OK if they are directly for human consumption. The problem is growing alfalfa and other crops intended to feed livestock - they are incredibly thirsty crops, and the end result is not a lot of food in terms of nutrients or calories. Plus the little detail that a huge amount of the meat produced in the SW is exported to Asia, and so it might "look local" but actually isn't

2. even human-consumption crops are a lesser problem if the farms use the old techniques collectively known as "flood irrigation". Farming in the SW needs to switch to drip irrigation, which requires a significant capital investment by farmers, and I don't think they should be required to bear the whole (and perhaps not even the majority) of that cost.

[estearum]

> economies of scale lean towards eating locally grown crops

No this goes the other way. Massive economies of scale easily outweigh the economies of local agriculture.

[bilbo0s]

California isn't even the problem. They're rich enough and big enough, (and fortuitously situated enough), that they just crank up desal plants and go happily on their way.

What about the rest of the west?

Arizona? New Mexico? Nevada? etc etc

Water needs to be brought in from somewhere? Who's going to pay for that? How do you do it safely, sustainably. And on and on.

I know people forget the rest of the west a lot. (Or maybe they just don't care about us as much?) But it's actually more of an issue in those places than it is in California.

A personal illustrative story. I used to live in Scottsdale. The water issue is such common knowledge out there that people started trying to get into the magic zip code. (Phoenix sits on like a gazillion years worth of water that they squirreled away.) I had moved into the magic zip code just about 1 year before everything went crazy. As it happened, about 18 months after we moved to that zip, we decided to move back to the Great Lakes region. Fully expecting to lose money on the house. But the word had got out on that zip code, and the final offer was over 60% more than we'd paid just 18 months prior.

That gives an indication of how even individuals are thinking. It just kind of felt like a lot of people, governments and organizations know there will be an issue, but money is gating everyone's ability to do anything about it.

Whereas of course, money's not as much of an issue in California.

I think large parts of the west will need help in the future. Or people will need to pay significantly more in taxes to live in those places.

It can't go on forever the way it has been. That much is certain.

[razingeden]

>Phoenix sits on like a gazillion years worth of water that they squirreled away

True, but most of the groundwater under phoenix was contaminated by three superfund projects . Article [0] is from 2019 and says it’s “delayed”. They hit some targets in 2024, supposedly working on it with review due sometime this year [1]

[0] https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environme...

[1] https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment/superfund-sites-...

Some of the suburbs haven’t been reached by the groundwater plumes, but phoenix itself was 2/3 in scope. So you don’t have a supply issue in maricopa city (which is a whole separate water district.. and an expensive one too: $100 bill even if you don’t use a drop), city of Scottsdale, etc

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> Water needs to be brought in from somewhere?

Only for agriculture. Residential water needs are 7% of the available water.

Also, the aquifers under/near Phoenix are not segregated by zip code.

Also, higher taxes don't make water when there isn't any.

[bilbo0s]

They're not segregated by zip, they're segregated by city.

If you live in Scottsdale, not in a certain zip, and the ish hits the fan water-wise, Phoenix is not giving you water. It's up to Scottsdale to provide you services.

That's why they call it a "magic zip". Not because of the zip itself, but because you get Phoenix services in that zip.

It's actually really important to know things like that when buying property down there. Some places have aquifers and reserves and others don't. Who is providing your services can have a critical impact on not only your quality of life, but also your property value.

Also, higher taxes is what it takes to create the new infrastructure to bring in water.

You gonna do a deal with California to get in on their desal plants? The infrastructure to pull that off will cost money. You gonna go the other way and desal through Texas? Even more money. Gonna continue to trust the Colorado and upgrade that infrastructure? Probably cheapest, but still a lot of money.

Essentially, whatever solution you come up with, it will cost money. Either the feds will have to pay it, or, as I said, the people who live in those areas will have to acclimate themselves to paying significantly higher taxes.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

What you're describing is an artifact of the current political structure of the Phoenix area. When the shit hits the fan (which it might, and it might not) that political structure is going to be amended.

I don't think that moving water from CA is a part of the future for Arizona. If it was, then sure, taxes will play a role in that.

Even the solution I prefer - massively reducing agricultural water usage - will require money, but money is not going to create water near Phoenix IMO.

[brk]

Everything I've read about desalination is that it is not really economically feasible. Has that changed? I don't think CA can "just crank up desal plants" in a practical sense.

[bilbo0s]

Yes it has changed.

But when I was in Scottsdale, I still considered it a long shot. The hot idea down there at that time was that giant Arizona desert PV farms would feed California electricity. They would send it back in the form of water.

Definitely works on paper. Only gets cheaper to operate the solar farms over time. But enormous capital costs.

Who's paying all that? I don't really think most of the people down in Arizona have the money it would take for that up front charge.

That's what I meant. California can float those kinds of costs. So for a place like California, it's definitely something they can do if the issue is pressed on them.

Places like Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, I don't think they can? Maybe? But I don't think so. That's why I believe if the issue is pressed in western states outside of California, you would see much higher taxes that would likely make some people have to move.

[handedness]

> California can float those kinds of costs. So for a place like California, it's definitely something they can do if the issue is pressed on them.

That's correct. For reference, the simple upfront build cost of the desalination plant in Carlsbad in 2015 worked out to approximately $300 per county resident, which was peanuts to become effectively impervious to drought conditions in a populated and economically prosperous desert. San Diego had an over-$200B economy at the time, over $300B now.

[handedness]

California already has:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsba...

https://www.sdcwa.org/study-shows-carlsbad-desal-plant-offer...

California absolutely has the resources and ability to desalinate, it's just a question of priorities and political will.

[jimnotgym]

How much has the infrastructure improved since then? I see on TV that some of California has snow and flash flooding. Are there attempts being made to capture that, or soak it into the ground? Or is it cheaper to keep using the old projects?

I see on YouTube that there are parts of Texas you can buy for peanuts because ranching doesn't work there any more. I gather that the cows eat so much of the ancient grassland away that the soil washed away and now we have flash flooding? Then I see terrible flooding in the main rivers. I wonder if it is because governments are (or were) good at big centralised water projects, but spending for thousands upon thousands of swales and check dams to be built is harder, and less sexy?