> It's all FUD. If anything, agricultural land uses more water than residential land, and agricultural land is what's getting converted to residential. So every acre converted means less water use. This is not a typical LUG convo, but this one really peaked my interest. I grew up around the farming community, and still have family members who are heavily involved in water discussions as their livelihoods depend on it. To categorize this as FUD, is naive at best. History lesson time, with broad generalizations and without sources (I care, but not that much): The metro phoenix-tucson area, as a Western construct, was built around water, and canals, and farming, with a little bit of mining support for Eastern AZ. You bring water in, you farm, and you ship out your harvest. Arizona has good soil, and (for farming) an amazing amount of sunshine, we grow some of the finest cotton (Pima) in the world because of the heat, and access to irrigation. There are two main canal systems, listed below with their start dates 1903 - SRP (Salt River project): Salt and Verde Rivers 1986 - CAP (Central Arizona Project): Colorado River They both provide millions of acre feet per year for the state's water supply. The Salt and Verde are tributary and snow melt fed, mainly in AZ, but also in Western New Mexico. The Colorado from snow melt in the Rockies, and is governed by compact among the states that border it. Both have produced the water necessary for AZ to grow, and supply residential, industrial, and agricultural needs. The pecking order has been residential/industrial and then ag. Ag for years has received that allocation of surplus and distributed it using irrigation districts to farmers who then grow crops with it. CAP, relying on the drought-affected Colorado River is topped out. SRP, with its multiple reservoirs and groundwater sources, has managed to maintain a more stable supply. Residential and industrial usege has completely taken over the CAP allocations (they were designed that way), but SRP still will provide for some time. Arizona builders have to secure an AWS certificate saying that they've secured ground water for 100 years for their builds. The drought and increased water pulls from all sides have made that situation tenable for the moment, but if AZ continues to grow, there's a question of for how long. Long term - I don't think the growth curve AZ is on is sustainable without burying the water transport (converting canals to pipes) to avoid evaporation from the exposed surface, but that has it's own set of issues as well. Short term - it scares me. The situation is tenable, but it's on a razor's edge, and if there are issues with the dams/reservoirs, and the supply, it's going to hurt. A lot. Best Regards, -Thomas Scott On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 7:39 PM Eric Oyen via PLUG-discuss wrote: > > Hey guys, > > Actually, our current lack of water (and the current drought were in), as part of a 550 year-long cycle. This particular cycle started somewhere between 1982 and 1986 with one of the driest years we had, sometime in the last 10 years. And yes, this heat wave that we’re suffering through is actually part of that. The same Sometime in the last 10 years. And yes, this heat wave that were suffering through is actually part of that. The same thing happened from 700 years ago which pretty well deep populated the entire desert Southwest (that would explain all those ruins all over the place that date back to that time). Also, as far as human interaction on the environment is concerned, it’s mostly local (take a look at the heat dome over Phoenix as it only exists over the valley of the sun and not much else except for maybe Tucson). Those are pretty well localized effects and, they do have an impact. > > As for agricultural use of land, this environment is perfect for growing some kinds of foods that will not grow in other places. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t seem to realize that food is needed, and there are better ways to water those fields instead of using just irrigation. Yes, we do have a waterfall here, and yes, it is going to get worse. I give it another 500 years or so before we’re back into wet cycle (and yeah, all the allocation of the Colorado river was made during a period when there was substantially more rainfall than there is now). > > I have done a lot of research on this, so I pretty well know what it is. I’m talking about. BTW, welcome to the drought that is normal for this part of the world (California tree study confirmed this quite some time ago, and you can actually look it up). > > – Eric > From the central offices of the Technomage guild, Environmental research department > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 21, 2024, at 6:20 AM, Keith Smith via PLUG-discuss wrote: > > > > Interesting topic. I wonder how it will workout. > > > > I read an article last year about a couple in Tucson that are capturing rain water and that was enough to supply their needs. I did some research and there is a formula based on roof space and rain fall that will determine the amount of water you can harvest. The article did not match my research. > > > > I'm not going to deny we have a potential for a water short fall. > > > > When people talk about Global Warming and/or Climate Change I always ask about the Mini Ice Age. Seems the weather has been changing for a long time. Long before fossil Fuels. > > > > Not saying something is not happening, just saying there is more to the story. > > > > And what about those supply chain issues? I studied Just-in-Time in 1989 or so. We have the Just-in-Time so tightly rapped that the supply chain is very fragile. There is hope. I've read the capitalists are figuring out how to fix the problem. Shipping containers are being built in China so the container does not have to be shipped back empty. > > > > And much to our benefit in the area of the I-10/303 there is massive building going on. Tons of warehousing is being built in that corridor. > > > > So how do I deal with it for now. I have a 2 year plan and a 5 year plan that includes Linux and PHP. I'm trying to not pay too much attention to all this. > > > > Keith > > > > > > > > > >> On 2024-06-20 20:11, Matthew Crews via PLUG-discuss wrote: > >> On 6/20/24 6:16 AM, Ryan Petris via PLUG-discuss wrote: > >>>> And what are you guys going to do about the coming lack of water? > >>> It's all FUD. If anything, agricultural land uses more water than > >>> residential land, and agricultural land is what's getting converted > >>> to residential. So every acre converted means _less_ water use. > >>> I think they're making a big deal out of it to make sure we don't > >>> lose some water rights from the Colorado river, as California is > >>> trying to take a larger portion of it. > >> I disagree that it is FUD, but there is certainly a lot of blame to go > >> around. > >> The fact of the matter is, the Colorado River has been drying up due > >> to both over-consumption and drastically reduced snowmelt caused by > >> global heating, and it's affecting the entire region. One wet winter > >> does not magically undo a couple decades of drought (Lake Mead still > >> isn't even remotely close to pre-2000 levels). Just as significantly, > >> other major sources of water in the geographical area are also drying > >> up (word is that the Great Salt Lake will become the Great Salt > >> Puddle, then the Great Arsenic Flats, in less than a decade). > >> Underground water tables are being pumped like there's no tomorrow > >> (similar to oil), with very limited means of replenishing them. And > >> did I mention that snowmelt over the long term and rainfall over the > >> long term are WAY lower than historic norms? > >> Wreckless and wasteful water use by agriculture is a major problem, to > >> be sure, and certainly the low hanging fruit that we can attack. But > >> to say that agriculture should be taking the brunt of it, and not > >> addressing ALL sources of increased water consumption, is foolish. > >> Maybe the impact won't be as high, but it's still meaningful in > >> aggregate. Per-capita, Arizonans consume more water than most states, > >> and we must do better as a state.[1] And of course California, Nevada > >> and Utah need to do their part too. > >> 1. > >> https://mapazdashboard.arizona.edu/article/arizonas-water-use-sector > >> And depending who you ask, Phoenix (and Las Vegas) should not exist at > >> all! Having lived here my entire life, I'm starting to agree with that > >> sentimet. > >> But that's just my 2 cents. > >> --------------------------------------------------- > >> PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > >> https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > > --------------------------------------------------- > > PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > > https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list: PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: https://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss