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.
That would not apply to SF, which is not on top of an aquifer, and gets all of its water from surface sources. Most of the Bay Area water(85%) comes from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which fills up a valley that was considered more beautiful than Yosemite. The remainder comes from run off captured in area reservoirs.
So sprawl is better for the water crisis? I don't think so.
So sprawl is better for the water crisis? I don't think so.
If the water supplies for the Bay Area do not come from the Bay Area, but from 260km away, does sprawl matter? If you increase the density of the Bay Area, and thus have more people, and there is already a water shortage, it's not going to be better for water. I can agree that parts of cities like San Antonio, which is built on top of an aquifer, ought to be off limits to development to keep the aquifer from losing its water recharge source.
In Houston, nearly all of the water is surface water stored in Lake Conroe and Lake Houston. We stopped using aquifer water because it was causing subsidence issues in some parts of town. Sprawl had nothing to do with that, it was the nature of the unconsolidated sands that caused the subsidence.
We need civil engineers in full bloom. We need hard hats in full bloom. We need new roads, tunnels, bridges, dams, buildings, locks and levees and other needful construction projects.
Civil engineers pave the way to the future!
We need electrical infrastructure that doesn't blow down in the wind and burn down entire towns! The latest casualties were outside of Denver. Two entire suburbs of people rendered homeless! There's no telling where it will happen next.
If the water supplies for the Bay Area do not come from the Bay Area, but from 260km away, does sprawl matter?
No it wouldn't, but it would still matter elsewhere and for CA in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
If you increase the density of the Bay Area, and thus have more people, and there is already a water shortage, it's not going to be better for water.
Some researchers think it can be handled.
"Still, at least one Bay Area group believes the housing challenges can be tackled with long-term planning.
"So we took a look at this question of whether the Bay Area could grow the way it's expected to grow, build the housing that it needs to build, and use no more water than it presently does, or even less," says Laura Feinstein, Ph.D., director of sustainability and resilience at the public policy non-profit SPUR.
In a recent study with partners at the Pacific Institute, the group found that existing solutions could have a major impact.
"And we found that just with using available technology that's on the shelf right now for people's homes and businesses being able to consider continue to get more efficient as they have been of late, the Bay Area could add 2.2 million new homes in the next 50 years and use no more water or even less than it does today," says Feinstein." Researchers optimistic about new housing despite California drought
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRM20
I can agree that parts of cities like San Antonio, which is built on top of an aquifer, ought to be off limits to development to keep the aquifer from losing its water recharge source.
In Houston, nearly all of the water is surface water stored in Lake Conroe and Lake Houston. We stopped using aquifer water because it was causing subsidence issues in some parts of town. Sprawl had nothing to do with that, it was the nature of the unconsolidated sands that caused the subsidence.
I love (not really) how this thread derailed from being a discussion on infrastructure improvement to building compact and dense cities.
Which is the solution to the infrastructure crisis. There will never be enough money to fix the infrastructure, as long as it is designed to serve sprawl. Even the latest record infrastructure package is only going to fix a tiny fraction of the existing infrastructure and they are still going to build even more of it they will never be able to maintain properly. Don't you think, we should debate the deeper causes of the current state of infrastructure in the US?
No it wouldn't, but it would still matter elsewhere and for CA in general.
Some researchers think it can be handled.
"Still, at least one Bay Area group believes the housing challenges can be tackled with long-term planning.
"So we took a look at this question of whether the Bay Area could grow the way it's expected to grow, build the housing that it needs to build, and use no more water than it presently does, or even less," says Laura Feinstein, Ph.D., director of sustainability and resilience at the public policy non-profit SPUR.
In a recent study with partners at the Pacific Institute, the group found that existing solutions could have a major impact.
"And we found that just with using available technology that's on the shelf right now for people's homes and businesses being able to consider continue to get more efficient as they have been of late, the Bay Area could add 2.2 million new homes in the next 50 years and use no more water or even less than it does today," says Feinstein." Researchers optimistic about new housing despite California drought
I am doubtful that the Bay Area could add 2.2 million people with no additional water supplies. Especially since water supplies are dropping. And, the farmers are not going to lose their share. Some of that could be solved by charging more for the water, and prohibiting the growing of water intensive crops like alfalfa and cotton. As the water supplies for Los Angeles, especially from the Colorado River, LA will start taking water from other areas. Even if it takes force - they've done that before.
Houston sprawl is a fact, and it's not going to go away. There will be more sprawl, because not allowing development will not get past the Legislature that makes the laws for the State. Plus, where are you going to put the projected growth population? It' snot feasible to just take 1,000 acres of housing and build a compact suburb, and theree are no large areas of land in Central Houston where that would work either.
Social justice spending is just another way to steal taxpayer money. Where is the justice in that?
It’s a very profitable grift - someone who is paid $1B to build a bridge and does not deliver a bridge will be in the world of hurt. Someone who’s paid $1B to fight racism(tm,) on the other hand, does not need to deliver anything and can ask for $10B instead because racism is really hard to eradicate, and next time demand a full $100B.
Half-jokes aside you’re absolutely right, very large chunk of those taxpayer billions earmarked for infrastructure will end up in the bottomless pockets of all the derays, shaunkings and khancullorses out there with absolutely nothing to show for it other than very fat foreign bank accounts and very large mansions.
It’s a very profitable grift - someone who is paid $1B to build a bridge and does not deliver a bridge will be in the world of hurt. Someone who’s paid $1B to fight racism(tm,) on the other hand, does not need to deliver anything and can ask for $10B instead because racism is really hard to eradicate, and next time demand a full $100B.
Half-jokes aside you’re absolutely right, very large chunk of those taxpayer billions earmarked for infrastructure will end up in the bottomless pockets of all the derays, shaunkings and khancullorses out there with absolutely nothing to show for it other than very fat foreign bank accounts and very large mansions.
Do you have any evidence for these very serious allegations?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
