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 think most societies find a way of adapting to the threats they face. Japan has big earthquakes with high frequency (much more so than any area in the U.S.) and also faces the threat of major typhoons pretty regularly. But they have developed ways of dealing with that.
There's nothing in Houston in particular that can't be addressed in various ways. Even the wildfire situation out West can be managed, but that's a separate conversation.
In 1994, Albuquerque used 252 gallons of water per capita per day. This includes domestic household use as well as public use (street cleaning, municipal pool, fire fighting.) A year later they were down to 251 gallons. Ten years later the city was down to 172 gallons per day per person. In 2015 it had dropped to 127 gallons and continued dropping. It is down to less than half of what was used in 1994. The city accomplished this while the population was growing. Other cities in the desert southwest have seen similar declines in water use. Tucson dropped 32% in 24 years with population growth.
In 1994, Albuquerque used 252 gallons of water per capita per day. This includes domestic household use as well as public use (street cleaning, municipal pool, fire fighting.) A year later they were down to 251 gallons. Ten years later the city was down to 172 gallons per day per person. In 2015 it had dropped to 127 gallons and continued dropping. It is down to less than half of what was used in 1994. The city accomplished this while the population was growing. Other cities in the desert southwest have seen similar declines in water use. Tucson dropped 32% in 24 years with population growth.
Las Vegas has reduced annual water conception by 26 billion gallons or a per capita reduction of 48% since 2001. Sounds great and all but that does absolutly nothing to help the Colorado being in perpetual drought.
Hoover Dam will stop generating electricity if (or more likely when) the water drops below 950' at Lake Mead. It currently sits at ~1040' from the normal high of 1,225' pre 1983.
Sure we can pat ourself on the back all day long for slowing the bleeding, but it's not addressing the source of the issue.
If humans dont need more water to just live, then it does not matter if they live in desert or rainforest as long as they just dont use that much water.
But here is the real issue. What will those people do out in the desert without much water? Industry and commerce require water. Will they all be doing podcasting, or fitness vloggers? Which I think is now a main source of income in Los Angeles. Or get on American Idol.
How will they pay for all the food to be shipped in? Be cheaper to live near where food can be grown. Electricity however can be shipped further much cheaper. Electrons have barely any weight. Ok there is resistance, but that can be fixed.
Oil and gas and mining are big ones. But research, software, entertainment (movies), business services, finance etc are all things you can do without much water. It's really manufacturing and production and growing things that requires a lot of water. And even then, in places where they have a lot of water, like Iowa, people aren't growing tomatoes, barley and lambs in some self sufficiency drive, it's basically corn / soybean production exclusively.
Regarding disasters, some are easier to mitigate than others. You can cut down trees to prevent a wildfire, you can build better buildings to prevent earthquake deaths, but what do you do to prevent sea level rise or hurricanes? Coasts disasters are much more unmitigatable than inland disasters.
Oil and gas and mining are big ones. But research, software, entertainment (movies), business services, finance etc are all things you can do without much water. It's really manufacturing and production and growing things that requires a lot of water. And even then, in places where they have a lot of water, like Iowa, people aren't growing tomatoes, barley and lambs in some self sufficiency drive, it's basically corn / soybean production exclusively.
Regarding disasters, some are easier to mitigate than others. You can cut down trees to prevent a wildfire, you can build better buildings to prevent earthquake deaths, but what do you do to prevent sea level rise or hurricanes? Coasts disasters are much more unmitigatable than inland disasters.
How many people can get paid to just do R&D or software programmer? Id imagine that will have to be the core industries which will make business services, and finance possible, and be the major determinant of how many people will be employed/to live in said location.
Iowa and similar place shouldn't be the way they are. With all things equal, and all things working the way they should, most people have to live near where their food is made, and water is potable to drink and use. It is the cheapest way and therefore most efficient. Ideally even before all this, much of our population worked in food production for themselves. As much of QOL is about food, and the wages you earn are spent on food, just making your own is most efficient.
What I am seeing now is a mutation. All these people cramming into megalopolises working Amzn warehouse, Doordash, trying to become Youtube famous, being RE agents, opening fine dining hoping for Michelin stars, driving Uber is simply not sustainable and makes everyone involved miserable.
I'm pretty sure anybody who has relocated has thought about a lot of things. Maybe the "water" aspect is not that important to them or they've determined that it's over blown.
I'm pretty sure anybody who has relocated has thought about a lot of things. Maybe the "water" aspect is not that important to them or they've determined that it's over blown.
Many of these "problems" are overblown. Academics don't get grant checks by saying that there's no problem.
Even still, why would post industrial economies move to water stressed areas?
Climate? I know I’m an outlier with how much I hate winter, but there’s a lot of people who also more simply are done with it. And again, water supply isn’t top of mind when moving there, I’m darn sure. It’s just not something that’s anywhere near top of mind.
It seems that the general public truly believes that Big Brother is going to take care of them. No worries about water because the government will figure it out and take care of their water needs. Big Brother will make sure there is always water coming out of the wall whenever the faucet is turned.
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.
