[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by robr2

Mining the salt from sea water isn't economically feasible - it costs more to extract than it's value as a commodity. As for cloud seeding, that has it's drawbacks that may outweigh the positives.

I wasn't referring to extracting salt for use use as a commodity. It is entirely to help cool the planet (not cloud seeding).

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by robr2

IMHO, trying to figure out how to get more water is a long range and difficult endeavor.

In the short term, reducing use is key. To me, it makes no sense to cultivate grass and other water loving plants in the desert of Las Vegas. It makes no sense to grow alfalfa in the desert of Arizona. Building more and more housing anywhere without access to increased water anywhere makes no sense.

I realize that this is a LV-centric board. But simply telling CA to find new water really doesn't solve the issue. Shouldn't NV and AZ work to find new sources as well? LV already gets water from deep wells - perhaps expanding that is an answer and one where you don't have to share the water.

LV is, after all, upstream from AZ and CA so I suppose they get "first dibs." Yes, I know part of the Colorado River flows through the Grand Canyon but Lake Mead is upstream from the major parts of those markets.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

LV is, after all, upstream from AZ and CA so I suppose they get "first dibs." Yes, I know part of the Colorado River flows through the Grand Canyon but Lake Mead is upstream from the major parts of those markets.

Well if anyone should be calling dibs, it's the residents of Colorado. Las Vegas never would have been developed if not for the Hoover Dam.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by robr2

Well if anyone should be calling dibs, it's the residents of Colorado. Las Vegas never would have been developed if not for the Hoover Dam.

Calling "dibs" is the historical way water rights have been allocated. Calling "dibs" has made the current problem worse. Agricultural interests like this approach, because they can predict the price & availability of water for decades to come, and of course, that contributes to a stable food supply.

The major problem with calling "dibs" -- that is, claiming water rights simply because the ranch has been in existence since the mid-1800s -- is that it prevents that water from being allocated via the price system. The price system -- auctioning water to the highest bidder -- leads to higher GDP and a better functioning economy, but will lead to a contraction in agriculture with everything that implies.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by robr2

Well if anyone should be calling dibs, it's the residents of Colorado. Las Vegas never would have been developed if not for the Hoover Dam.

Las Vegas was a railroad town decades before the Hoover Dam. It is midway from San Pedro to SLC and there was plenty of ground water.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior

Las Vegas was a railroad town decades before the Hoover Dam. It is midway from San Pedro to SLC and there was plenty of ground water.

My point was that without the massive amount of water that the Hoover Dam provided, it never would have grown to what it is today. I'm guessing the groundwater available in the early 1900's could never support today's LV.

[Juxtaposition109]

I'm curious as to whether the newer technology for urban indoor agriculture could be utilized by the current agriculture farmers using the traditional outdoor method. Would utilization of the newer indoor method allow farmers to recycle more water as it's used in a closed system and thus less water needed from the Colorado? Here's an article in reference to the new indoor agriculture methods. https://foodandcity.org/urban-agricu...n-feed-cities/

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by robr2

Well if anyone should be calling dibs, it's the residents of Colorado. Las Vegas never would have been developed if not for the Hoover Dam.

Colorado west of the Divide is just not heavily populated and is not short of water. Utah and Nevada are the ones in the race I would think.

[amattaro]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

Agree, all states here in the Southwest USA should be part of a regional / national water scheme.

I won't repeat my full diatribe other than to say that growing cotton, hay, alfalfa, corn, etc, using wasteful irrigation methods, in arid regions of TX, NM, AZ, CO, UT, NV, CA is a capricious use of a scarce resource that borders on insanity, especially if these commodities are exported. To add injury to insult, using immigrant labor to work these farms increases the abomination of it all.

If these farming operations were going on long before the population boom, seems pretty darn imperialist to suggest regions should be forced to change just to satisfy desire of newcomers.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by amattaro

If these farming operations were going on long before the population boom, seems pretty darn imperialist to suggest regions should be forced to change just to satisfy desire of newcomers.

Why shouldn't everyone - including legacy farming operations - pay the current market price for water?