a wild idea for more water to the arid west (Phoenix: to live, agriculture)

[DougStark]

Dewey, the water (for landscaping) during the summer months IS billed at a higher rate than during the winter. The boost in water rates is likely due to the fact that they need to bring on more energy consuming pumps to keep the water pressure high.

Dewy, with all due respect, I sense you are new to this issue of water usage in the arid west. The longer you live in the west and read about the "water wars" here, the more you'll understand how water is allocated, priced, and managed for the future.

[timothyaw]

They say the estimates are around 180 BILLION dollars so far...you add that with Katrina and all the great floods along the Mississippi we could have been well into funding that pipeline.

[wit-nit]

Originally Posted by Lost in place

A better approach might be to build desalinization plants for California and shut off the flow out of Arizona and Colorado that currently goes to California.

Colorado River compacts prevent that. The river is shared by 7 states indefinitely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by DougStark

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.

Don't move to a desert if you don't like brown, hot, and dust. That's literally what the desert is, pretty much by definition.

You know there are things that provide shade that aren't trees? Things like umbrellas, those metal coverings I see at bus and light rail stations, etc. Some of which do not produce a lot of heat, or if they do the benefits of such counteract it, like the solar panel coverings I see in some parking lots. I'd rather it be one or two degrees hotter and a cheaper electric bill if you ask me.

How often do you use the front yard you use sprinklers on so much? Doubt your kids play on it, they probably play on the back yard grass. A waste. Use a playground at a park with grass, where your kids can meet other kids and socialize. Don't the youngins have that problem these days, socializing, wouldn't that help them? Why does every single person need a big grass lawn for one or two kids to use and maybe use a couple months of the year or so in the winter when it isn't blazing hot outside? It's going to be hot regardless of how much grass we put in. It's the desert for Christ's sake. It's like moving to the Sahara and then wondering why there isn't any grass and water to make it look like Massachusetts or wherever you come from. We will never have tree-lined streets like how they are in Chicago or Atlanta. If these are concerns for you don't move to somewhere where it's not A) hot B) brown C) dusty D) has little water. That simple. This country is huge and one of the most ecologically diverse, many other places to go to that offer what you are looking for. And since we aren't in west Kansas we won't be the halfway version either, brown yet grassy and slightly more rain and humidity thus cooling the air a bit.

We actually don't have endless acres of Sonoran desert. It's one of the most lush deserts in the world and in comparison to many other deserts it's very small. Saguaros are endangered and so many of the other unique plant and wildlife here that only exist in the Sonora and no where else. The more homes with grass yards the less of these unique plants can be here, since grass takes land and all. More sprawl for Phoenix, Tucson, Yuma, Casa Grande, etc. = less Sonoran desert to hike in, its not rocket science. We sprawl more because everyone feels they need a front and back yard for four people each and a car per person above the age of 16.

Why are so many people so defensive about grass? Why can't we share grass yards with other people, like the parks we already pay for, why do we need to pay--additionally--for our own grass that no other people can use? For most of the year you can't play outside so why pay for something you rarely use? Why is it when I say we should look at our own personal water usage and maybe not have two grass yards, why do people take that so personally? This isn't Florida or something where grass just grows everywhere naturally. Grass isn't native here, if it's not artificial turf we are paying for it regularly.

Yes the farmers use a lot of water. Should we be growing alfalfa in the desert? No, we shouldn't. But good luck getting people like Ducey and the rest of the Republican Party that runs this state to do something that is economically bad for the state of Arizona that might actually benefit its people at its expense, like regulating water usage on citrus and cattle (two of our big Cs of Arizona's economy) so more people could enjoy living here. This I agree with you on. We should watch both personal and commercial water usage.

You can influence that however by going vegan and not eating any citrus (which certainly is possible if you are that concerned about reducing water usage in this arid desert). But I doubt you'd do that. You'll probably still drink your orange juice and eat your bacon at breakfast. If you want to keep on eating hamburgers then good luck getting the cattle industry on leaving when they need to be relatively close to their markets before the meat goes bad. Maybe instead you can address the things you can actually change relatively easily, first, like your own personal water usage, before funding a likely $1+ billion infrastructure project we don't need and getting the Republican Party to get rid of the majority of farming in the state of Arizona.

Water is cheap here. And for those who don't want to pay extra for grass because of the tax, or can't, will get rid of it. Those who do, will keep it. It's not banning grass. Many people will still keep grass even with a water tax. It's encouraging more environment-friendly behaviors among the near 7 million people that live here, and at the same time, funding something we may actually need, like education.

ADDITION: The biggest users of water in the personal home are sprinklers and toilets. If you want more water for your kids to live here, ask yourself what you can do to help make the desert a more sustainable and bright place to live?

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by Lost in place

A better approach might be to build desalinization plants for California and shut off the flow out of Arizona and Colorado that currently goes to California.

That might be an approach and would be the opposite of what I proposed.

In this version, Arizona would pay to build and operate desalination plants for coastal California cities in return for California giving up our Colorado river water rights in favor of Arizona.

It really is a question of what would be more expensive to build and operate on a per gallon basis:
1) Desalination plants along the California coast, or
2) The Big Straw out of the Mississippi and other east Texas water basins into NM and AZ.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

That might be an approach and would be the opposite of what I proposed.

In this version, Arizona would pay to build and operate desalination plants for coastal California cities in return for California giving up our Colorado river water rights in favor of Arizona.

It really is a question of what would be more expensive to build and operate on a per gallon basis:
1) Desalination plants along the California coast, or
2) The Big Straw out of the Mississippi and other east Texas water basins into NM and AZ.

You're dreaming that the enviro-wackos in CA will agree to more and more coastal desalination plants. It was a HUGE fight to get the one north of San Diego.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by DougStark

You're dreaming that the enviro-wackos in CA will agree to more and more coastal desalination plants. It was a HUGE fight to get the one north of San Diego.

Is it really that wacko of a thought to live within the means your environment naturally provides for?

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by locolife

Is it really that wacko of a thought to live within the means your environment naturally provides for?

It is apparently. More wacko than installing pipelines that are the length of almost a two or three days drive and would have to be pumped because of increasing elevation.

[gemstone1]

"Yes the farmers use a lot of water. Should we be growing alfalfa in the desert?" IMO, the bigger question is "where" should the alfalfa be sold/used. "in 2012, roughly 50 billion gallons of western water—enough to supply the annual household needs of half a million families—were exported to China. Not literally bottled up and shipped, but embedded in alfalfa crops grown with irrigation water" Link to article. It's a long article but worth your time.

Regards
Gemstone1

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by gemstone1

"Yes the farmers use a lot of water. Should we be growing alfalfa in the desert?" IMO, the bigger question is "where" should the alfalfa be sold/used. "in 2012, roughly 50 billion gallons of western water—enough to supply the annual household needs of half a million families—were exported to China. Not literally bottled up and shipped, but embedded in alfalfa crops grown with irrigation water" Link to article. It's a long article but worth your time.

Regards
Gemstone1

Now Saudi Arabia is doing the same thing. Link to article:

Saudi land purchases in California and Arizona fuel debate over water rights - LA Times