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.
Oil, at roughly $1/gallon today, is worth a great deal more than water per unit volume. In Gilbert where I live, residential water rates vary from $1.08 to $1.80 per thousand gallons depending on usage. Wholesale price for untreated water would be less than that, although I don't have any idea of the price.
When I first moved to Phoenix metro I was surprised that water is cheap and available in pretty large amounts. California is a different story though, at least based on what I hear from friends who have lived there.
LOL exactly and if we charge $1 per gallon per water then supply/demand will take care of the shortage without us doing anything.
One of the biggest is brine, the wastewater byproduct of desalination, which is typically heavy in salts, metals and other constituents. Seawater desalination plants can discharge this byproduct back into the ocean. Disposing of brine from an inland plant is more challenging. The two most common disposal methods, evaporation ponds and deep well injection, are costly and disposal sites are limited. https://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/bl...nation-arizona
Estimated costs to bring a pipeline from CA/Mexico and build desalination plants is close to a trillion dollars in todays dollars.
Everyone keeps mentioning how expensive it would be to run pipelines from the mississippi to the desert, But We have pipelines criss crossing the whole country, moving oil and gas, So why not have pipelines for water? And make Trump pay for it
As hikernut mentioned, oil is worth a heck of a lot more than water. Plus, there are no pipelines that pump hundreds of millions of gallons of oil per day. The average person uses about 100 gallons of water per day. So in a city the size of Phoenix (about 4 mil), that equates to 400 million gallons of water per day to supply our needs. Even if this pipeline would not provide all of our water - let's say 10%, that's still 40 million gallons per day! So you can see how it would still take a huge pipe and pumps to carry enough water to just make a small dent in how much we take from Aquifers and the Colorado.
It's a great concept, just not feasible at this time. I honestly think it's more feasible for the Feds to fund more coastal desalinization projects in California to relieve some of the stress from the Colorado. But, of course, the environmentalists are against THAT too! Some day we will all have the option of choosing to either freeze, starve, or die of thirst in the dark thanks to them!
We also need to do a LOT more about how we waste water. Sometimes I wonder how many thousands of gallons of water are wasted everyday to evaporation from all the commercial properties that run their sprinkler systems during the hottest part of the day. Why don't they run them at night? I gotta believe that would save them money!
^^^ Dewey, you make a good point. Such a cross-country pipeline would need to be a massive diameter pipe to supply sufficient water to make a real impact (especially when I've pointed out all the thirsty mouths that want more water.)
it's just so frustrating seeing huge excesses of fresh water in one part of the country (Mississippi delta) and dire water shortages in other parts (the west.)
I also agree with you in not having much faith that CA will allow more and more desalination plants along their precious coast. The environmental extremists will declare war to stop it.
Someone suggested tapping fresh water from Washington State. That's not going to happen on many levels: they don't have the huge excess water that the Mississippi river basin has; and they would never relinquish that water in the first place.
The CAP costed a fortune and Arizona had to give up many of its water rights to implement it for the Colorado River.
We would be better off implementing water taxes that favor less water usage. Such policies exist in New Mexico, where even in Santa Fe where there are a lot of wealthy people (water usage is directly correlated to wealth) water per gallon per capita doesn't go higher than 90. Phoenix on the other hand is about 105, Tucson is about 100. Compton is about 65, and some wealthy parts of San Diego are about 200.
If such prices were put into place, the wealthy would lean for xeriscaping, more efficient toilets (one of the biggest water users in the home), etc.
What people don't understand is that there's plenty of water, but too many people use too much, and we should be looking at reducing it. Installing expensive pipelines will do nothing if it encourages wasteful behaviors.
The CAP costed a fortune and Arizona had to give up many of its water rights to implement it for the Colorado River.
We would be better off implementing water taxes that favor less water usage. Such policies exist in New Mexico, where even in Santa Fe where there are a lot of wealthy people (water usage is directly correlated to wealth) water per gallon per capita doesn't go higher than 90. Phoenix on the other hand is about 105, Tucson is about 100. Compton is about 65, and some wealthy parts of San Diego are about 200.
If such prices were put into place, the wealthy would lean for xeriscaping, more efficient toilets (one of the biggest water users in the home), etc.
What people don't understand is that there's plenty of water, but too many people use too much, and we should be looking at reducing it. Installing expensive pipelines will do nothing if it encourages wasteful behaviors.
Agreed. When I recently had a family of four staying with me for a week, my water usage nearly doubled that month. Yet the bill was only about $6 higher! There needs to be a higher cost for higher usage. Too much of the cost is focused on the basic service and not enough is on the usage. When I use twice as much water, my bill should be at least 50% higher! (I don't want to get too carried away and say it should double! )
Agreed. When I recently had a family of four staying with me for a week, my water usage nearly doubled that month. Yet the bill was only about $6 higher! There needs to be a higher cost for higher usage. Too much of the cost is focused on the basic service and not enough is on the usage. When I use twice as much water, my bill should be at least 50% higher! (I don't want to get too carried away and say it should double! )
Yes water bills are very cheap here, and it should change. Somehow it costs more for A/C than water, you'd think in the desert where solar power is most efficient, it'd be borderline free! That is not the case, unfortunately. Water is more scarce, but much cheaper.
Evsn in Santa Fe they aren't that bad.
The taxes could fund environmental protection, or schools. Could give those good ol teachers a raise, they need them.
I read once that 25% of ALL electricity consumed in California is used to pump northern California water south. The uphill portion of the California Aqueduct is about 400 miles. Maybe this Texas to Arizona aqueduct could be covered in solar panels.
Average water consumption in the City of San Diego is about 120 gallons per person, per day. However, this is for all uses, residential, commercial, and industrial. I would guesstimate that home usage per person is about 35%-40% of that overall total not counting landscaping.
In San Diego, the retail price for water delivered to our spigot is about 6/10ths of a cent. That's about $6 per 1000 gallons compared to the $1 - $2 per 1000 gallons in Arizona. That sure does sound cheap!
But if piping water from the Mississippi to Arizona would be cheaper than desalinating water on the Pacific Coast, it might make sense for Southern California cities to pay some of the cost of the Mississippi straw for Arizona and New Mexico in return for California gaining greater access to Colorado water to remove our need for desalinated water.
The CAP costed a fortune and Arizona had to give up many of its water rights to implement it for the Colorado River.
We would be better off implementing water taxes that favor less water usage. Such policies exist in New Mexico, where even in Santa Fe where there are a lot of wealthy people (water usage is directly correlated to wealth) water per gallon per capita doesn't go higher than 90. Phoenix on the other hand is about 105, Tucson is about 100. Compton is about 65, and some wealthy parts of San Diego are about 200.
If such prices were put into place, the wealthy would lean for xeriscaping, more efficient toilets (one of the biggest water users in the home), etc.
What people don't understand is that there's plenty of water, but too many people use too much, and we should be looking at reducing it. Installing expensive pipelines will do nothing if it encourages wasteful behaviors.
OK, so according to you, Phoenix area residents use too much water (mostly on landscaping.) So you want to impose a much bigger tax and rate on water use. The result will be this: a much less attractive city that's browner, hotter, dustier, more uncomfortable (no shade). Instead of kids playing on grass, they'd have to play on the street or gravel (ridiculous.) Your proposal makes no sense to me. If one wants to see natural, unirrigated landscapes, we have almost endless acres of Sonoran desert land to hike in and enjoy. If you dislike water use in our area, I suggest you pick on the State's farmers. AZ farmers use WAY more water than the urban areas for crops like alfalfa/hay, cotton, melons, citrus, cattle/dairy.
Suburban landscape water users (like me) help fund and keep afloat the water companies (whether municipal or private) operations. It's not cheap for water companies to treat raw water to EPA standards, and then distributing it safely in a complicated distribution system (water mains, pumps, lift stations, etc.) My substantial (but not wasteful) use of Phoenix public water is important to the department's financial shape. Period. I mean no disrespect to you, but you need to become better educated about this complicated topic.
OK, so according to you, Phoenix area residents use too much water (mostly on landscaping.) So you want to impose a much bigger tax and rate on water use. The result will be this: a much less attractive city that's browner, hotter, dustier, more uncomfortable (no shade). Instead of kids playing on grass, they'd have to play on the street or gravel (ridiculous.) Your proposal makes no sense to me. If one wants to see natural, unirrigated landscapes, we have almost endless acres of Sonoran desert land to hike in and enjoy. If you dislike water use in our area, I suggest you pick on the State's farmers. AZ farmers use WAY more water than the urban areas for crops like alfalfa/hay, cotton, melons, citrus, cattle/dairy.
Suburban landscape water users (like me) help fund and keep afloat the water companies (whether municipal or private) operations. It's not cheap for water companies to treat raw water to EPA standards, and then distributing it safely in a complicated distribution system (water mains, pumps, lift stations, etc.) My substantial (but not wasteful) use of Phoenix public water is important to the department's financial shape. Period. I mean no disrespect to you, but you need to become better educated about this complicated topic.
I can't speak for PricklyPear, but I didn't get the sense that he was proposing getting rid of all grass everywhere in the valley. Just that for those who have grass yards should have to pay more that what they currently pay for the water they use. I don't think it's unreasonable to manage our water resources and encourage conservation. Just because you do not agree with someone's position is hardly a basis for implying they are uneducated.
I do disagree with the later comment by PricklyPear that the money raised should go to teachers. Teachers do deserve more money, but taxing water is not the way to raise that money. Any tax on water should go toward improving and building new water source infrastructure and conservation programs.
Your comment about ag uses of water does have merit. I can't remember where I was the other day, but I seen a corn field! In AZ! Corn requires A LOT of water. Surely, there are other crops that can be grown here that need less irrigation. Again, we need to start restricting water usage across the board. I would imagine that that particular farmer did a cost analysis and determined that the money he could make on corn was well worth the money he spent on the water to irrigate it. But just because something is feasible from a profit perspective, doesn't mean it is sensible from a resource management perspective.
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.
)
