Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-12-2024, 04:24 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,852 posts, read 17,619,461 times
Reputation: 37788

Advertisements

Interesting responses, with some pretty good ideas.
I join with those who say it will take care of itself. It may be painful, might suck up some people's fortunes, but one way or the other the problem will take care of itself. The rivers only have so much water.



How much is your home worth if there is no water available?........ Nearly nothing. And people will go somewhere else. The government may step in and restrict this or that, or they may pay for relocation but in the end the people themselves will solve the problem. My area, Mississippi, has tons of water. Most of the east does, for that matter. So there may be a few people who will have to forget the stigma of having a southeastern zip code and just go where they can live.


I greatly fear any solution the government may come up with.
FWIW, the US is not projected to lose population for a very long time. So whatever problems we have now will evidently get worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2024, 04:57 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
5,119 posts, read 7,553,139 times
Reputation: 8844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw222 View Post
I’m dismayed by our failure to act and address the water crisis in SW USA. Why is it ignored? Even with the highly progressive reactionary gov in cali, action to better manage and address this crisi is not visible to me? Am I off base?
It is not ignored. If you don't live in the SW, then you don't understand how tightly managed our water is and has been for a long time. I'm not sure what it is that you're dismayed about.

What about cities like Flint, Jackson, and now Atlanta. Isn't failing infrastructure in large cities in wet regions a concern? Living in a place with abundant water is no guarantee that the water is safe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2024, 05:02 PM
 
634 posts, read 343,986 times
Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
Interesting responses, with some pretty good ideas.
I join with those who say it will take care of itself. It may be painful, might suck up some people's fortunes, but one way or the other the problem will take care of itself. The rivers only have so much water.



How much is your home worth if there is no water available?........ Nearly nothing. And people will go somewhere else. The government may step in and restrict this or that, or they may pay for relocation but in the end the people themselves will solve the problem. My area, Mississippi, has tons of water. Most of the east does, for that matter. So there may be a few people who will have to forget the stigma of having a southeastern zip code and just go where they can live.


I greatly fear any solution the government may come up with.
FWIW, the US is not projected to lose population for a very long time. So whatever problems we have now will evidently get worse.
In this world of fed bailouts at every turn, I’d prefer those choosing to live there pay not spread across all of us. The love of love humidity should come with an cost to make low humidity areas have sufficient water for life and uses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2024, 05:03 PM
 
634 posts, read 343,986 times
Reputation: 952
Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
I think it's unreasonable to expect politicians to do anything. Especially something big like that in your lifetime.

Do what families have done for centuries, move where there is water.
I’ve seen them act on agw in my life time. I see the issue as present and clearer than agw. It’s a matter of priorities and dealing with a tough expensive matter to fix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2024, 08:46 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,852 posts, read 17,619,461 times
Reputation: 37788
.... And, anyway, what could the feds possible do? The river system only has X amount of water.
But they will study it (at great expense), mandate this or that, but I can't imagine what any legislation might actually do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2024, 02:55 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,469 posts, read 5,396,641 times
Reputation: 18258
The Feds are already involved, displaying their usual heavy handed over reach with Draconian regs. https://www.google.com/search?q=epa+...obile&ie=UTF-8

It's the Army Corp of Engineers that has ruined almost all our natural riparian ecosystems and are responsible for the increasing Dead Zone InThe Gulf (it's not the P & N ; it's the irroded soil, no longer dumped behind on the delta thanks to dredging to keep the river navigable)...The Feds ruin everything they get involved with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2024, 06:09 AM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,191 posts, read 2,151,026 times
Reputation: 11733
Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to US woman Elinor Ostrom in 2009 “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.”
What Ms. Ostrom studied and wrote about was how management of common assets such as land and water and fishing was best done by the people who lived in and used those "commons".

Most of US commons management is being done behind the curtain by large corporations. Voters and residents aren't hands on due to many reasons. All the average voter cares about is keeping prices on what they consume low. Until the well runs dry I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2024, 07:40 AM
 
10,013 posts, read 7,948,982 times
Reputation: 25120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw222 View Post
I’ve seen them act on agw in my life time. I see the issue as present and clearer than agw. It’s a matter of priorities and dealing with a tough expensive matter to fix.
You want the government to act on AGW or provide more water in over populated dry regions?

Every region has benefits and drawbacks. I'm not sure what your real question is.

A trade off may be moving to a place with more water and less sunshine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2024, 10:46 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
7,469 posts, read 5,396,641 times
Reputation: 18258
Quote:
Originally Posted by twinkletwinkle22 View Post
Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to US woman Elinor Ostrom in 2009 “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.”
What Ms. Ostrom studied and wrote about was how management of common assets such as land and water and fishing was best done by the people who lived in and used those "commons".

Most of US commons management is being done behind the curtain by large corporations. Voters and residents aren't hands on due to many reasons. All the average voter cares about is keeping prices on what they consume low. Until the well runs dry I guess.
I agree with the economist....Most US farms & farmland is owned and operated by small families. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm...ip-and-tenure/

We get the impression Big Business is in charge because almost all the farm productioon is sold to just a couple large processors (Archer Daniels Midland, etc)....The Feds are the single biggest owner of US land, and they act like it's theirs, not ours. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fede...0million%20km2).

.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2024, 02:28 PM
 
634 posts, read 343,986 times
Reputation: 952
I agree capital markets and local user action are the best way to run things. But some false economics are in play with water it seems.

Normal supply and demand for water would set the price of water but we don’t see that. Price per gallon seems set and only variable is how many gallons you use. Where I live our local government committed to a certain water capacity when built and now we have measures in place to minimize demand. But again prices are flat no higher price charged above some lower column consumed.

An option is to let the free market set prices. This would disrupt the current agreements and mess we have but would work in my view. Another option is to let exciting agreements set the cost/price up to some base amount but let the price for volumes above that amount float with demand or at least have a large step up in price.

No question the shortage in the south west is driven by false economics making water seem affordable when it isn’t available and should not be prices as it is on the margin.

My question is why has the fed and state governments ignored this clear and present problem? Can’t they tackle agw and this issue too? It’s a problem crying for regulation and no one seems to step up. Alternative solutions to add water depend on margin economics and the pricing schemes doesn’t seem to represent reality of the shortage and to produce economic incentives to and expensive desalination plants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top