Colorado River basin states reach agreement on water cutbacks (San Diego: appointed, homes)

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Take the build-o-rama to Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, or some other less populous state -- we're at capacity. Well, actually, we're beyond capacity, and have been for a long time. So happy trails -- go east, young man, go east...

Why we continue to build here during a drought that's gone on for years is a mystery.

Why are so many homes being built during a drought?
https://www.abc10.com/article/entert...e-33a1d21a4ee8

Researchers optimistic about new housing despite California drought:
https://abc7news.com/bay-area-drough...date/11403831/

And we're given such BS answers.

“It’s the first question I’d always get,” said Jeffrey Kightlinger, who until last year ran the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the agency that delivers the water ultimately used by half the state’s population. “How in the world are you approving new housing when we’re running out of water?”

The answer, according to Kightlinger and other experts, is that there’s plenty of water available for new Californians if the 60-year trend of residents using less continues and accelerates into the future.

Right.
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-hou...20homebuilding.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Why we continue to build here during a drought that's gone on for years is a mystery.

Why are so many homes being built during a drought?
https://www.abc10.com/article/entert...e-33a1d21a4ee8

Researchers optimistic about new housing despite California drought:
https://abc7news.com/bay-area-drough...date/11403831/

And we're given such BS answers.

“It’s the first question I’d always get,” said Jeffrey Kightlinger, who until last year ran the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the agency that delivers the water ultimately used by half the state’s population. “How in the world are you approving new housing when we’re running out of water?”

The answer, according to Kightlinger and other experts, is that there’s plenty of water available for new Californians if the 60-year trend of residents using less continues and accelerates into the future.

Right.
https://www.latimes.com/homeless-hou...20homebuilding.

Well, I'm thinking of the things. Here in San Diego, water consumption is way, way lower per Capita than thirty years ago, so we can accommodate more ppl with the same amount of water. The other is that water infrastructure, at least in our region, is being built out so that between local reservoirs, imports, desal, and recycling, supply won't be an issue. Even now, we're all but guaranteed adequate supply through 2045 -- the only problem is that it's really expensive. And that incentivizes drought tolerant plantings. The last thing is that new homes are being built with tiny yards, not much bigger than a patio, so ppl are barely using more water than they would in an apartment. Personal daily water consumption isn't that big compared to landscape and pool water

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Why are we growing thirsty crops in a desert? Drip irrigation is helpful but some crops just straight up shouldn’t be grown in dry regions either. Not all crops are viable food sources and many food sources are exported

Agreed. There are non-desert areas where some of those crops could be grown, if the winters aren't too severe. Some CA farmers invested in the wrong crops, just as the drought was developing. Now they may get stuck with the results of the wrong investment at the wrong time.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

The 80's was a dry decade, a precursor of the Great Drought. Everyone was urged to cut back on water use. So my parents took military showers the entire decade, and had a bucket in their shower to catch what little splash there was, and use it to water the plants. And they never really stopped doing that. Hauling a big bucket downstairs and out the door to water the plants, taking short showers.

So the question is, how do you cut back any further from that?! There's nothing left to cut!

I remember that growing up in the Bay Area. We were limited to 280 gallons per household per day. Average use in summer with irrigation and pool was normally 1400. We put a cover on the pool, watered the lawns briefly only twice a week just to keep the roots alive, installed low flow shower heads, turned water off in the shower while lathering, and we also filled buckets with the cold water waiting for it to warm up, then schlepped them downstairs to water plants. It felt like for years, our daily lives revolved around water conservation. Luckily, from the mid 90s to mid 00s, it was super wet. Then it got crazy dry again for years until recently.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Well, I'm thinking of the things. Here in San Diego, water consumption is way, way lower per Capita than thirty years ago, so we can accommodate more ppl with the same amount of water. The other is that water infrastructure, at least in our region, is being built out so that between local reservoirs, imports, desal, and recycling, supply won't be an issue. Even now, we're all but guaranteed adequate supply through 2045 -- the only problem is that it's really expensive. And that incentivizes drought tolerant plantings. The last thing is that new homes are being built with tiny yards, not much bigger than a patio, so ppl are barely using more water than they would in an apartment. Personal daily water consumption isn't that big compared to landscape and pool water

I still can’t get an answer from anyone as to why we would want to, should, benefit from, etc - accommodate more people?

[njbiodude]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I still can’t get an answer from anyone as to why we would want to, should, benefit from, etc - accommodate more people?

Flat or decreasing growth isn’t great for a variety of reasons.

If the growth is wealthier people it means more tax revenue and decreasing population typically is associated with public service cuts and less tax revenue for infrastructure upgrades.

Traffic can be dealt with by upgrading public transit etc.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by njbiodude

Flat or decreasing growth isn’t great for a variety of reasons.

If the growth is wealthier people it means more tax revenue and decreasing population typically is associated with public service cuts and less tax revenue for infrastructure upgrades.

Traffic can be dealt with by upgrading public transit etc.

No. Perpetual growth is not possible in a finite paradigm. Address that fact of physics.

Requiring ever increasing revenue is bs. Learn to live on sustainable bases.

Decreasing populations don’t need as many services or levels of support. Virtually every problem humanity wrestles with is solvable by vastly reducing population.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell. “ - Edward Abbey

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No. Perpetual growth is not possible in a finite paradigm. Address that fact of physics.

Requiring ever increasing revenue is bs. Learn to live on sustainable bases.

Decreasing populations don’t need as many services or levels of support. Virtually every problem humanity wrestles with is solvable by vastly reducing population.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell. “ - Edward Abbey

Amen!

[JGC97]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

No. Perpetual growth is not possible in a finite paradigm. Address that fact of physics.

Requiring ever increasing revenue is bs. Learn to live on sustainable bases.

Decreasing populations don’t need as many services or levels of support. Virtually every problem humanity wrestles with is solvable by vastly reducing population.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell. “ - Edward Abbey

Seriously, Tulemutt. How many threads are you going to interject this same thing? I think I've read that same quote you use in about five different threads around here. And the topic of the thread is supposed to be about the water agreement between California and other states with regard to the Colorado River. Yet, here we are again, talking about too many people in the state. We get it. We know there are too many people in the state ... in the country ... in the world.

You aren't saying anything new here that you haven't said before. Sheesh

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

Seriously, Tulemutt. How many threads are you going to interject this same thing? I think I've read that same quote you use in about five different threads around here. And the topic of the thread is supposed to be about the water agreement between California and other states with regard to the Colorado River. Yet, here we are again, talking about too many people in the state. We get it. We know there are too many people in the state ... in the country ... in the world.

You aren't saying anything new here that you haven't said before. Sheesh

There’s no limit to good advice

The real question is: *How many times are others going to insist that the answer to problems is: MORE GROWTH?*

When will you chide them for repeating the same old *grow or die* mantras? Why zero in on me for restating the obvious fact?

You yourself agree and say (bolded above): “there are too many people …”
So, given that acknowledgement of truth, should we just collectively agree to ignore it? ( … at our great peril, I’ll add!)