Stop the Monstrous Water Gridzilla! (Houston, Dallas: buy, living, vs.)

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by AuburnAL

Sorry I don't. If you are for restricting our own capabilities so water stays where it naturally occurs, why would you support using agriculture to artificially supplement a person's food supply beyond what they can naturally obtain? Why would you support allowing the construction of buildings and clothing to allow people to live in places where inclement weather would otherwise kill them? Returning to water why would you allow plumbing or even buckets to enable people to obtain water without walking to a water source and drinking directly from it?

This is a strawman argument and a ridiculous one at that. Again, if you had read some previous post you would see the opposition argument is to allow each region to develop their own water resources not to only drink from natural water sources.

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

This is a strawman argument and a ridiculous one at that. Again, if you had read some previous post you would see the opposition argument is to allow each region to develop their own water resources not to only drink from natural water sources.

No, you're evading the question. If we should limit human settlement by refusing to use one technology, why is it okay to use other technologies to expand human settlement? If you're against using a technology on a large scale (canals, aqueducts, and other forms of mass water transportation) why are you okay with using it on a small scale (plumbing, municipal water systems)?

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by AuburnAL

No, you're evading the question. If we should limit human settlement by refusing to use one technology, why is it okay to use other technologies to expand human settlement? If you're against using a technology on a large scale (canals, aqueducts, and other forms of mass water transportation) why are you okay with using it on a small scale (plumbing, municipal water systems)?

The region I am in has plenty of water for our uses and future development. To take that away so that another region can sprawl that wouldn't otherwise is patently nonsensical and unfair ! Get it? If the water is not diverted, development will just have to happen where the supply of water is conducive for development. It is more efficient to develop where the water is than to spend billions of extra tax dollars to convey water to drier areas.

[AuburnAL]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

The region I am in has plenty of water for our uses and future development. To take that away so that another region can sprawl that wouldn't otherwise is patently nonsensical and unfair ! Get it? If the water is not diverted, development will just have to happen where the supply of water is conducive for development. It is more efficient to develop where the water is than to spend billions of extra tax dollars to convey water to drier areas.

So let me ask you again. Why is it okay for you to use indoor plumbing and a municipal water system to get your water instead of going to where the water is to get it? Why is it okay to use technology in other ways to artificially expand the amount of places people can live and the human population?

You want to complain about this use of technology expanding the areas people can live in, but you have no problem having humans living in vast stretches of the earth that would be uninhabitable without technology and having a population several orders of magnitude later tan it would be if everyone had to depend on naturally occurring food supplies.

[Midessan]

Basically Jack Lance is afraid that if people have a choice, many would prefer to live in arid and semi-arid environments instead of humid areas. And he is right to be afraid, history has shown that is true. People have been leaving the Rust Belt, that has plenty of water, to move the dry states of the west. So Jack's argument is like northerners arguing against air-conditioning so that people won't choose to live in the South.

I think we need water conveyance, not to steal Jack's water, but to allow water to be sold. If you have willing sellers and willing buyers that will work out the best for everyone.

[KathrynAragon]

I don't mind sharing a surplus of water, but I will have a big problem sharing water if it shortchanges our area.

Right now we're flooding. Come get some of this stuff. Please.

[Midessan]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I don't mind sharing a surplus of water, but I will have a big problem sharing water if it shortchanges our area.

Right now we're flooding. Come get some of this stuff. Please.

With a conveyance system, flood water could be sold.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by AuburnAL

So let me ask you again. Why is it okay for you to use indoor plumbing and a municipal water system to get your water instead of going to where the water is to get it? Why is it okay to use technology in other ways to artificially expand the amount of places people can live and the human population?

You want to complain about this use of technology expanding the areas people can live in, but you have no problem having humans living in vast stretches of the earth that would be uninhabitable without technology and having a population several orders of magnitude later tan it would be if everyone had to depend on naturally occurring food supplies.

You are going to beat this strawman argument of yours to death aren't you ? So should we pipe water from the Great lakes to Arizona to accommodate human expansion into areas that are otherwise uninhabitable ? There are practical issues that should be considered such as is there a simpler more feasible way to do things and in this case there is. Develop areas where the water is now...less expense and less environmental degradation.

Originally Posted by Midessan

Basically Jack Lance is afraid that if people have a choice, many would prefer to live in arid and semi-arid environments instead of humid areas. And he is right to be afraid, history has shown that is true. People have been leaving the Rust Belt, that has plenty of water, to move the dry states of the west. So Jack's argument is like northerners arguing against air-conditioning so that people won't choose to live in the South.

I think we need water conveyance, not to steal Jack's water, but to allow water to be sold. If you have willing sellers and willing buyers that will work out the best for everyone.

Just as many if not more people have left the rust belt for humid areas like Houston and Florida. Most of the South and much of Texas as well are humid mosquito infested swamps as you put it once so this argument is a dud.

I will also ask you the same question I asked the Alabama guy, should we pipe in water from the Great Lakes or where ever to accommodate people who want to live in lifeless wastelands just so they can avoid some bad hair days ?

Originally Posted by Midessan

With a conveyance system, flood water could be sold.

If this is going to turn a profit why does the state have to study it ? Let the private sector develop a plan....

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by Midessan

With a conveyance system, flood water could be sold.

Well, the metroplex already owns 50 percent of Lake Palestine, which is five minutes from my house. All I can say is I'm glad that we didn't buy lakefront property.

[Trainwreck20]

Basically, there are two different approaches to water redistribution/supply control:
- The inter-regional model, which involves large-scale redistribution from areas with 'excess' water to areas with 'limited' water. The excess and limited water designation is based on current demand. For example, if the population of Nevade/Colorado were to increase by 200 or 300 percent, then a lot of that excess water would no longer be excess. Conversely, 150 years ago, CA did not need all that water and there water was not limited.
- A regional model, which essentially captures water within a basin (or several basins) and distributes it within the same region, generally via lakes, but more recently including some piping. This is currently what Texas does.

I do NOT want to end up where CA is - increasing the supply of water way, way beyond the 'normal' ability to supply water from a regional model. OTOH, I can see maintaining regional water supplies at historical 'levels' by moving water from regions with above historical levels. But there is an obvious advantage of shifting NE TX floodwaters to fill up lakes in drought areas. I would support such a system with SEVERE restrictions on when it could occur, or limited the total amount shifted. I don't want to see the desert watered or ecological systems destroyed just so Austin or SA can grow.

Re: your 'straw man' complaint, though, the water pumping in the panhandle is a good comparison - the water does not fall there, the water is not accessible without 'technology', but it is currently used for vast amounts of farming (the leading cotton producing region in the world?). That would seem to fall into your 'taboo' activity - transferring water (from underground) to support an area way beyond its own sustainable level.