Now Cap. Get ready for one of my extremely long posts now that I am done. This after skylines is by far my next favorite topic for these boards.
Anyways here goes.
Okay I want to start off with the world population just to give an idea of how fast our world is growing and how dramatical water problems will become in the future.
World Population:
1804: The global population reaches 1 billion this year
1927: The global population reaches 2 billion this year
1960: The global population reaches 3 billion this year
1974: The global population reaches 4 billion this year
1987: The global population reaches 5 billion this year
1999: The global population reaches 6 billion this year
2011: The global population is projected to reach 7 billion this year
2045-2050: The world population is projected to be between 8.3 billion-10.4 billion
We are presently at: 6,861,800,000 people in this world.
The United States reached a population of 309 million this year, and will be crossing to the next million in a matter of 6 months. It is projected to reach a population of 420 million by 2045.
Now seeing that you can derive that the global population has exponentially increased dramatically, to the point where it is only taking 12 years to reach the next billionth person.
That is a lot of water dependency right there and water shortages are becoming a massive problem globally and they are meant to peak in problems come mid this century.
The United States controls 23% of the worlds fresh water source, by the Great Lakes, rivers, & multiple underground aquifers.
This leads to my next theory (just a theory not a fact): The in general for our lifetime and our childrens lifetime the country will be fine, with all the resources and water supply that the United States has it's not going to have a problem. I feel like when it gets to a certain point though that the country will start distributing water within itself from say the Midwest to the Desert Southwest, it may be a hefty cost but economically it is something that places like Phoenix & Las Vegas might want to prepare for.
I think water will lead to the next prosperous industry after oil era is done and washed out, water will be the next big. And there will be a lot of global conflicts for it, high costs and water purification technology will become the next innovative aspect for the global economy.
A lot of that is based solely off my own perception from the things I've gathered from a lot of things that I've read over the past few years. Quite frankly as a country, some parts of the country might want to start showing some concerns but shouldn't get worked up about anything yet. I feel water distributions and handling will become the next major industry. We rely on Alaska & Texas for oil as a country, water will be similar in that regard from any location (Midwest) where it will be an ease of distributions.
Now for Texas I want to go more in depth about water conditions here, Texas has reported that there are water shortages due to growth and that is because of two of the following reasons:
1. Water supplies exist but the technology to retrieve it yet are costly and Texas doesn't feel the need to invest in it just yet.
2. West Texas in the desert region has seen drought and water shortages, mainly El Paso's concern.
Now I hope and pray that Texas does not purchase the adequate equipment to mine water aquifers extensively to retrieve that water source (for the present, in the future its fine if they do), because I feel they would be better off going with current supply without touching that source of water for the moment it would leave more for later.
Here is a map of the large rainfall areas of Texas:
As you can see everything east of I-35 (Houston, DFW, Austin, Corpus Christi (being the exception) & San Antonio) have nothing to worry about as far as rainfall is concerned that it can utilize water form that source. There wont really be a serious case of drought in that area at all, and it can sustain the level of growth Texas is going through.
Another perception of drought in Texas that misguides most people would be that they think it is lacking in water supply due to these droughts and their frequent occurrence in certain areas of Texas. Not at all the water is there but the technology to retrieve that water source does not exist as of yet in the state. If need be when one day it becomes a serious problem it will be retrieved and water mining will become a player for Texas.
Texas has these two cross sections for underground Aquifers that will give it an edge in sustaining population in the future.
The Edwards Aquifer which hosts its location near Austin & San Antonio is presently one of the largest aquifers in the world. And only 5.5%-10.2% of that water source can be reached due to limitations in technology for deep water drilling. Something they might want to look into later when Water becomes a major concern for the population growth.
Edwards Aquifer:
Ogallala Aquifer:
By the way from the picture above, it looks like Texas only has one river lol, thats not true, Texas has a lot of natural rivers that for some reason don't appear on that map.
Here is a list of them if anyone wants to see the rivers Texas has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_in_Texas
There are other smaller aquifers in Texas as well but these two are among the largest ones with the largest presence. They are also among the largest aquifers in the world and carry a rich water source.
With it Texas wont have water problems for the next 76 years with the amount of water it can retrieve from both presently. With advancements it will increase potential to get more water from those two sources.
The surface to Ogallala Aquifer has seen a lot of decrease though due to water dependency but it's deep source for water has not yet been tapped, which is where most of the water supply remains.
And this does not even yet include the rivers and lakes that Texas can rely upon for water source. In general Texas will do fine in our lifetime, our children's lifetimes, and our grand children's lifetime for sure.
I think Southern California is it begins to sustain its population growth in inland empire and Metro Los Angeles will be fine. But they really have maxed out on capacity in Metro Los Angeles, I have read somewhere that certain parts of the city have water consumption restrictions, I might off on that but I read it in some article that people get fined for overusing it in the outer city area. Maybe someone from Los Angeles area can chime in for that. I am not entirely sure on that part.
But Metro Los Angeles grew by quite a bit and hopefully it can start to stagnant because water issues can become a large concern for the region if it continues to grow any more larger than it already is.
The city in general is quite built out and would feel like it is in maximum capacity.
Now onward to the Desert Southwest, read this interesting piece on what is causing a major slowdown in Phoenix. I know I have posted this same thing once before, but I think it will highlight some of the water concerns.
I think they should be fine, but they will start to see a lot of outward migration when and if water concerns grow in the future and the expense for water increases. Trade regulations within the United States will keep the region afloat but it will become pricey to purchase large amounts of water.
Anyways heres the article on Phoenix, I know I have posted this before, but I think it relates to this topic as well.
Quote:
Phoenix may be losing people
Population dip would further strain budget
231 commentsby Michael Clancy and Casey Newton - Jan. 12, 2009 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic .
For the first time in modern history, Phoenix's population could be shrinking.
It's an idea that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, when Phoenix was surging up the list of the nation's most populous cities. Now, a variety of indicators suggest that fewer people are living here than a year ago.
No one knows for sure exactly how many people have moved in or out. But with the 2010 census about to get under way, some indicators suggest Phoenix's population may be smaller than the projected 1,636,170 people.
City records show declining trends in several key areas. Among them:
• Foreclosure numbers have skyrocketed, meaning fewer city homes are occupied.
• Water hookups are down, suggesting the same.
• Some aspects of trash collection have ebbed because fewer people are buying things that produce waste.
• Crime has declined across the city while police are getting fewer calls for services, a possible indicator of fewer people.
• Sales-tax revenues are likely to drop for the second year in a row, with this year's collections off almost 8 percent from last year.
Experts say each trend can be explained in part by other factors, such as the national recession and the bursting of the housing bubble. When consumer spending decreases, so do tax revenues and the amount of trash that people throw away.
Still, an Arizona Republic analysis of the trends suggests Phoenix has anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand people fewer than projected.
"I think the number is minor, but with all these indicators moving down, I think it is real," said City Manager Frank Fairbanks, declining to speculate of the number of people the city may have lost.
Several factors could be behind a population loss, Fairbanks and others say. The state law requiring employers to verify immigration status of their workers is believed to have driven many immigrants out of the state in 2008. The regional decline in construction jobs also could be behind an exodus.
Statewide, growth has slowed to a crawl. A population report released in December showed Arizona grew by 1.6 percent, or about 100,000 residents, in the previous fiscal year - less than half the growth rate of two years prior.
But the possibility that Phoenix has declined relative to other cities has leaders worried.
Tax revenue at risk
Losing any fraction of the city's population could mean less revenue to Phoenix from the state.
Arizona shares 15 percent of its income-tax collections with cities based on those cities' population.
Phoenix's population now represents about 30 percent of Arizona's population. This year, Phoenix got $435 million from the state. That made up 38.7 percent of the city's general fund.
Assuming that the suburbs maintain or grow their current populations, Phoenix's share of revenue from the state could shrink in coming years, compounding the city's budget crisis.
Phoenix already is facing cuts of $270 million, or more than 22 percent, from its budget this year. The city is weighing cuts from community centers, senior centers, libraries, police and fire protection, and other services.
"It's an important, pressing issue for all of our cities here, but Phoenix probably most of all," said Rita Walton, who monitors population for the Maricopa Association of Governments. "They're the biggest and stand to lose the most."
The evidence
Several indicators exist showing that the population could be declining. Among them:
• Water: The number of water-using accounts fell about 5,600 from fiscal 2007-08 to 2008-09. The number of accounts using no water almost doubled, on average, meaning those homes still have water connections but are probably empty.
Tracking population by water hookups is "a good way of watching for population change," said Steve Doig, a journalism professor at Arizona State University who used a similar method to track the return of people to southern Florida after Hurricane Andrew.
Evidence about the increasing number of water accounts using no water and the decreasing number of accounts generally indicates population decline.
|
That is just one example of a desert city that has to deal with some water issues already. I know it can sustain its population as long as it grows at an Earthly level and not rapidly fast. Phoenix overgrowing like the way Los Angeles & Inland Empire could be a major concern as far as water goes.
But they can get through, Phoenix will be fine, but they will have to start paying a larger price for water supply. Phoenix can utilize its current water sources from its region but it will have to slow down in growth to make sure it can preserve its water source for the future. And it has a better shot at it than Las Vegas at that presently.
Just my $0.02 on this whole thing. A lot of it is facts, but the parts where its my opinion or my own theory I noted before and after I said it so that way people would not misunderstand my post and think I am playing opinion as fact. But I did provide facts for Texas, the entire part of the world population and Texas water supply is entirely based off facts. The parts on Desert Southwest and Los Angeles is just what I remember reading about, have seen, or made a theory for. Someone can chime in and add on to that or correct something if its off on that part.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see a lot of hypothetical projections for future population growth in a lot of major cities in the south and western US on these C-D thread. What I don't see people questioning is fresh water supplies, and adequate water supplies to sustain such growth. It makes me wonder how cities like LA, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Florida will supply more water (and also leave enough for agriculture) for future growth. 
