We who live out here–which puts us in a far more qualified position to judge than someone who presumably lives just this side of the Mississippi River–have a saying: You can either bring the water to where the people are, or you can bring the people to where the water is. Somehow, L.A. and S.F. have managed to co-exist all these years, and I think this is the reason.
[quote=“Blake, post:21, topic:585629”]
It utterly debunked all the nonsense you have posted in this thread.
[quote]
my-my
we are not talking about water fluxes over geologic time scales (care to give exactly what time scale you had in mind?) we are talking about a supposed disbalance between water consumption and two highly qualified sources: seasonal rain volume and ground water.
the OP gives a wrong basic equation. first, there is the geographical issue, as one pointed out. water is transportable and can be transmitted to areas that have neither regular rain nor exploitable groundwater. this means he is implying a global equation which most certainly points to excess capacity. most of the rain falls in the sea so he must mean rain on land. and a lot of ground water discharge is too near the sea to be useful.
so local areas may have shortage issues to begin with (your geology could come in here.) but the correct equation is usage as against access and exploitation. so farms use up the most water. we all know that. qualify it further to mean irrigated farms. rain-fed farms are a no-brainer.
consumption is a function of population growth, which is further qualified according to concentration and disctribution. consumption is also stimulated by certain infrastructure, such as dams and transport/transmission systems. how the output is distributed among the various uses and among various users is close to being a no-brainer since you have peak output as a basic constraint, and seasonal dips being serious considerations.
population and income growth will push that constraint. increased agriculture and industries are needed to feed, transport, clothe and shed light on to that population.
and so we all come to greater usage efficiency. you have better farming technology, i have limiting transmission to households. yours as you said is not yet relevant in the light of cheap water, mine for the same reason.
populations don’t have to be controlled through fewer births. migration is a more plausible solution, since people basically think with their feet. if today people move about due to better income opportunities elswhere, in the future they could move about to find places where utilities are cheaper and more plentiful.
*** I am NOT speaking as a mod here, just as a long-time SDMB member ***
Mac_bolan00, your keyboard has two “Shift” keys on it. If you familiarize yourself with them, it will make your posts easier to read, and you might be taken a wee bit more seriously.
Agreed, Las Vegas and Phoenix should be supporting around 100,000 people each without the Colorado River. Atlanta is another city that has outgrown it’s water/people ratio.
It’s odd you have declining cities like Duluth, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland and Buffalo, surrounded by tons of fresh water, but they are shrinking and the business base declines as population and industry moves to where there ISN’T water.
Areas where the aquifer has subsided resulting in an overall drop in elevation (Mexico City is an example) may be more prone to flooding because they are now lying lower, but that isn’t due to the impermeability of the aquifer; it is just the geometry of lying lower. Most areas that are using water in excess of replenishment rates are using it at a rate massively more than unity.
[quote=“sweeteviljesus, post:28, topic:585629”]
Can you speak more to this?/QUOTE]I could write a book on the methods that could be applied to more efficiently use water, but fundamentally free surface irrigation (particularly basin irrigation) is incredibly wasteful. The use of drip, subsurface, and bubbler irrigation can improve efficiency by an order of magnitude. However, until the real cost of water consumption, unsubsidized and based upon the use of water as a finite resource, is imposed upon users, there is little reason to implement these more labor-intensive and therefore costly measures.
You get your pick of evaporation at ambient pressure, or leakage due to excessive pressure head in the pipeline as experienced in the Great Man-Made River Project.
Stranger
Israel is a small country - about the size of New Jersey. Most of it is within 40 miles of the coast.
Still, desalination is expensive and very energy-intensive*. It’s only a viable option if there is absolutely no other fresh-water supply that can be depended upon. No place in the US is that desperate for water at this point.
*I’ve read that in Australia, there has been concern that desalination would make water problems worse because the energy needed would contribute to global climate change, and further change the weather patterns. So their desalination plants are powered by wind farms.