Severe drought and mandatory water cuts are pitting communities against each other in Arizona:
As the climate crisis intensifies, battle lines are beginning to form over water. In Arizona -- amid a decades-long megadrought -- some communities are facing the very real possibility of losing access to the precious water that remains.
Outside the city limits of Scottsdale, where the asphalt ends and the dirt road begins, is the Rio Verde Foothills community. Hundreds of homes here get water trucked in from Scottsdale, but those deliveries will end on January 1, 2023.
That's because last summer, for the first time ever, drought conditions forced the federal government to declare a tier 1 water shortage in the Colorado River, reducing how much Arizona can use.
[...] "We are what I call the 'sacrificial lamb' for the bigger areas," Irwin told CNN. "In my opinion, look somewhere else -- we need to be able to sustain ourselves."
The scarcity of water in the state is pitting small towns against fast-growing metropolitan communities.
[...] Arizona's population growth and extreme drought have increased demand for water in limited supply. Kathleen Ferris, a senior research fellow with the Kyl Center for Water Policy in Arizona, says water scarcity in the state has resulted in the "haves" and the "have nots," and likened the coming water battles to the days of the Wild West. "Once you have your water rights, you defend it," Ferris said. "That's the way it works."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Friday April 01 2022, @02:29AM (9 children)
I always find it amazing how things like seem to pop up more and more often, yet the deniers will insist that this is all natural, and that there's nothing we've done that's impacted this, we don't need to alter our behavior or change our plans for the future.
I also find it stunning, how politicians never seem to find the money to try to work through these long term problems - even though they've not been exactly sneaking up on anyone. I guess solving a water sustainability problem just isn't sexy enough.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @02:35AM (3 children)
Scientific evidence shows the West has gone through cycles of drought much more intense than any in our brief 200 year experience as a country with that region. As a matter of fact, we settled the West during one of its wetter periods. Our experience of what is normal in the West is off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @10:19AM
Well played, sir. Truly well done.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Friday April 01 2022, @12:57PM (1 child)
*Citation needed
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:15PM
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:15AM (2 children)
The politicians are the deniers. The whole system is screwy.
I live in Colorado. Every year in the winter and spring, they will measure the snowpack (it's not just for skiing, that's where all the water comes from) and tell you how it compares to average. Usually - big surprise - it's pretty close to average. Sometimes it's 80% of normal, sometimes 120%, whatever. Right now it's 92% of normal [usda.gov]. This was a weird winter, it didn't snow at all in November or December, but it snowed like crazy in February. The thing about snowpack, nobody can mess with it. It comes from natural snowfall and it melts when it melts, and the only comparison is to the historical measured averages.
Then, every year just like clockwork, they will tell you the whole state is experiencing a drought [drought.gov]. Right now 100% of the state is at least "abnormally dry" and 83% is some sort of "drought," somewhere from moderate to exceptional.
I have been on rafting trips where they have closed part of the river because water levels were too high, during a "drought."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @10:17PM (1 child)
You should look past the "we had average snowpack everything should be dandy" logic. It is more complicated, and one normal year doesn't make up for lots of drought years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 02 2022, @01:27AM
The thing is, every year is a normal year for snowpack, and every year is also a "drought." Maybe one year in ten is not a statewide drought.
If you have such a deep understanding of what is really going on, maybe you could enlighten us?
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 01 2022, @08:19AM
From TFA:
And there you have the exact reason why the problem exists in the first place. "No problem, water is infinite, build more suburbs in the middle of the desert!".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:49AM
A drought in the desert. Holy fuck! The world is ending! Quickly, redistribute all property!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @02:34AM (14 children)
Water rights in the west are totally fokked. If a landowner can't put a water barrel on his own property to catch a few gallons of rain falling on his own property, that is fokked.
But, the bigger issue is - Arizona is a desert. You can't expect zillions of people to survive on the water available in a desert. Especially when they all want to plant lush jungle yards of non-native grasses, non-native trees, non-native shrubs, put in a swimming pool, wash three cars, and bathe multiple times per day. I can empathize and sympathize with people who keep their property natural, and limit bathing and showering, but statewide, there has always been a lot of water wasted in Arizona.
Maybe it's time to set up a huge desalination plant down across the border, and share the output with Mexico? Stop sucking the Colorado river dry, and take water directly from the sea. How 'bout two plants - California's Imperial Valley can fund the second one, and share water with Baja California.
I don't think very many people have noticed that the climate is changing yet. You can't maintain large populations in a desert. The sooner they figure that out, the better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @02:39AM (7 children)
Showers don't have to use a lot of water. Worst case, you can turn on the shower to wet your body, turn it off, soap up, and then turn it back on to rinse yourself clean. Or you could just take a short shower.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @02:46AM (6 children)
Yeah, I spent 8 years in the Navy. Being a water hog could get your ass whipped - literally. Since you mention it, there's no health reason for bathing daily. Troops often go a week without a shower. But, how many civilians shower that way? Most people want to luxuriate in a deep tub or a steaming shower for a half hour. If water gets as expensive as gasoline, they may start conserving water.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @04:43AM
https://www.vice.com/en/article/pga7xk/the-chemist-who-hasnt-showered-in-12-years-explain-why-he-doesnt-stink [vice.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 01 2022, @01:20PM (3 children)
But why would that happen? As AC noted [soylentnews.org], desalination is around a penny a gallon plus IMHO a similar cost of getting it to Arizona. That's not going to be gasoline prices, unless gasoline gets insanely cheap.
Even trucking water from British Columbia would cost on the order or $0.10 to $0.40 per gallon (~10k gallons water over 650 or so miles plus possible return trip, figuring around $2 per mile transport costs).
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @01:48PM (2 children)
The word "sustainable" does not enter the equation when you're trucking water around. Burning diesel fuel to move ~4200 gallons of water per truck load. Said truck load of water will supply ~2000 people per day with drinking and cooking water, nothing more. How many people in Arizona, again? How many truckloads of water to supply 7.6 million people? That's a lot of carbon pumped into the air while moving water around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @02:31PM (1 child)
You'd use a pipeline in a case like that. Water demand rarely drops, so it's easy to avoid overbuilding capacity.
You won't pipe water from California to much of Arizona (or to Nevada, or even much of California), because it's too far uphill. Flagstaff is almost 7000 feet. The high deserts will always be deserts.
But Phoenix is at an altitude of 1000 feet - low enough to run a pipeline if you need to (there's an oil pipeline already, to bring gasoline in from California refineries). Phoenix and Tucson are where most people in Arizona live, which are low enough.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @03:18PM
All true. I'll note though, that piping water from, Mexico to Phoenix would relieve some of the pressure at higher elevations. With all the silly water rights issues, a steady supply of desalinated water into Phoenix would mean that Phoenix isn't laying claim to water in the mountains.
Likewise, putting a plant close to Los Angeles could supply a huge portion of California's population, ending that city's claim to water in surrounding areas.
Get Musk's boring company involved to drill tunnels from the California coast into the inland regions, and much of Arizona could be turned into a garden.
(Score: 2) by ChrisMaple on Saturday April 02 2022, @02:05AM
There are pluses and minuses. Cleanliness improves your chances of escaping a serious infection if you're cut, and also reduces some cases of acne. On the other hand, making vitamin D from sunshine requires skin oils, and frequent washing removes those oils.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @03:43AM (2 children)
Yes we can, you said it yourself, desalination, we can deliver all the water they need. A major issue is finance, and redirecting the Wall Street bailouts will resolve that overnight. The only real issue is human corruption that prevents this resolution
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:34AM (1 child)
Conveniently, the Economist just published an article on desalination [economist.com]. Although there is not really anything new in it.
The Economist article prices desalination at $2100 per acre-foot, which works out to less than a penny per gallon. This is not free, but it's a fraction of the retail price of water for urban consumption. In terms of price, we could, in principle, have everyone drink desalinated water and save all the river water for farming, and not really notice it.
But desalination isn't just expensive, it consumes a lot of energy. When everything runs on fusion or solar power, that won't matter, but right now it does. Conservation is still better than desalination. But desalination is better than draining aquifers.
Environmentalists, of course, object to taking salt out of the ocean, then dumping the exact same salt back into the ocean. It's contaminated, after all. Not with any chemical or toxin, but with the cursed bad juju of having contributed to civilization and quality of life, instead of the self-flagellation we should all be doing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 03 2022, @02:25AM
So what? You're supposed to built a small nuke right next door. Instead of making excuses, let's just build the damn things. Voluntary conservation is fine, rationing is totally bogus, like telling the poor to eat bugs so the rich can enjoy their steaks
And urban consumption isn't even close to what big agriculture consumes, the farmers need desalination more than anybody
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:12PM (2 children)
That's because that water belongs to California. The way the Colorado River Compact is written California gets first dibs and any shortfall hits users in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming first. It's only when Lake Mead gets too low that the lower basin must reduce usage.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @09:03PM (1 child)
Yes, I understand in a general way how water rights work in the west - but I insist that it's fokked. I get first dibs on rain that falls on my land. However much, or however little I might collect, it's mine, and the neighbors have no say over it. I have less claim on the little ephemeral that crosses my land, but I can freely use any water out of it, and if anyone ever objects, then we'll go to court over it. But, the city of Dallas has no jurisdiction, and they won't be claiming water from my land, like western cities do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 02 2022, @02:06AM
Data added to the database. Satellite images being updated.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Revek on Friday April 01 2022, @03:57AM
When you realize you can't live in the desert when there are thousands living around you.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday April 01 2022, @03:59AM
Wasn't Mad Max: Fury Road exactly about water scarcity? A little more recent than a wild west movie about ... resource constraints [youtu.be]?
(Score: 2) by Frosty Piss on Friday April 01 2022, @04:07AM
People think this is “new” and then pontificate about Global Warming and the End of the World. But surprise! It’s been this way it Arizona and other desert state for 1000’s of years. Global Warming may be real, but telling me it’s hot and dry in Arizona is… hyperbole.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday April 01 2022, @08:12AM (15 children)
I returned to look at this story and the comments at the start of my Friday (in my time zone). I am struck by the fact that the comments can be split into mainly 2 categories: those (a minority) who are trying to find a solution to the problem and those that just want to find something to blame for the state of things today. To me, it doesn't matter whether this event is a result of global warming or not - there has been a severe drought and the result is that many places that have sustained life for a considerable period of time are now facing difficulties. It also doesn't matter whether it is in the middle of a desert or lush green pastures - people have lived there for a long time and it wasn't always the way it is today. There are many countries in the middle east that have overcome similar limitations. Something has changed - and I don't care whether it is natural, political or self-induced.
There are solutions to such problems as a few commentators have pointed out. Many are not cheap but we have solved numerous problems without considering the financial aspects as being the primary driver to problem resolution. Survival is more important. Whatever we develop or discover along the way will be useful for addressing similar problems in the future elsewhere in the world. And if we don't act then films such as Mad Max become a prophetic vision of the future that we might face.
Some partial solutions will cost nothing - although they are too late perhaps for these particular communities. How can anyone justify prohibiting the collection of rainwater from the roof of an individual's property? The water need not be potable to be suitable for a multitude of uses - flushing the toilet, washing the car, showering etc. Half hour showers are an unaffordable luxury - fit a mechanical timer. You want a swimming pool? Fill it with rain water that you have collected or accept that you cannot waste valuable drinking water on another luxury item. It all helps reduce the overall loading on other scarce water supplies.
When did we become a species of finger pointers rather than problem solvers? What if man hadn't discovered the wheel but just complained about how heavy things were difficult to move, or hadn't harnessed fire but sat around watching his family freeze to death while eating raw meat?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:36AM (9 children)
Parent said:
"people have lived there for a long time and it wasn't always the way it is today."
People (modern Americans) have NOT been there for a long time, and we live there in a manner that previous inhabitants did not. Los Angeles, for example, used to be dusty, scrubby land. Now it has lush greenery and tall palm trees. This is not the state we found it in originally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:39AM
-nada
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 01 2022, @09:49AM (7 children)
Yes, I agree, in European terms that is yesterday - but for most Americans it is almost the beginning of time. People lived there. They didn't all die from dehydration - in fact it seems that they survived and prospered quite well. The indigenous Indian population also seem to have survived reasonably well until their lives were changed as massive immigration began.
But despite being an interesting point, it doesn't address the problem that TFA raises. There is roughly the same amount of water on the planet as there was 240 years ago, but it is in the wrong form and in the wrong place. That, in my view, is the problem that we have to solve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @10:07AM (4 children)
There are roughly 9x the number of humans on the planet as there was 240 years ago.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 01 2022, @11:03AM (3 children)
So, you've identified the problem - now how do we solve it? I am not being facetious - it is a genuine question. We cannot just 'remove' people. People are living longer, the population is growing and current system that we have cannot support them. You have now caught up with the problem posed by TFA. Lets now move forward and try to resolve it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 01 2022, @01:38PM (1 child)
Covid and similar. A pandemic that kills some people, and causes fertility problems in other people seems made-to-order, doesn't it? Of course, anyone who suspects that a pandemic that just happened to start in the neighborhood of a virus research lab that just happened to document gain of function that just happened to look exactly like the current pandemic are nothing but conspiracy theorists.
Funny thing too. Bill Gates has been quoted many times, saying words to the effect "3 billion people need to die." Doing a search only finds "fact checkers" that deny that Bill ever said anything like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:22PM
Runaway! On the internets! Doing his own research! Fascinating!
Seriously, you old coot, drop the conspiracy theories, and do your part. Slough off that mortal coil, so we can harvest your water, Dune style.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @02:55PM
There is not really a shortage of water. There is a shortage of water in some places where people want to live for reasons other than sustainability. There is plenty of water in Louisiana.
A hundred years ago, not as many people wanted to live in Arizona because it's too hot for comfort without air conditioning. Technology made it more habitable. In the 1920s, nobody would have wanted to move to Arizona to retire.
Generally speaking, technology gets us into trouble and then it gets us out again. Water recycling is a shadow of what it could be. Sustainable development (no lush green lawns in the desert, turn off the fountains at the Bellagio) needs to be encouraged. Desalination has a part to play, a big one once we have enough carbon-free energy to power it. Every person in Southern California who can drink ocean water means enough river water for one more person to drink in Arizona, and they can defray the cost of the desalination plant by selling off the unneeded water rights. Less water-intensive farming practices would help a lot too. Some of that means different crops, some of it means different farming techniques, some of it means genetic engineering drought-resistant crops.
If you want to employ some economic leverage, make builders pay their own way. Right now people buy water from utilities, and the utilities have to buy the water rights, but everyone pays the same rates. Yeah, there's a utility hookup fee for new construction, but this doesn't address the rising marginal cost of purchasing additional water. This means every new person who moves to the desert has their water subsidized by everyone who already lives there, and it's all mandated by local governments (who always want more population, because more population means more revenue). Make all new construction buy the water rights they'll need through some sort of cooperative buying scheme. Now builders, farmers, and governments can all play on the same field. There's only so much water to go around.
As with any serious problem, the correct solution is always "all of the above."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday April 01 2022, @03:26PM
The Southwest is vulnerable to shifts in rainfall. Pueblo Bonito [wikipedia.org] was a major population center about 1200 years ago. Local climate change and deforestation seems to have made the location unsustainable.
Likewise there are many other Puebloan sites like Hovenweep [nps.gov] or Canyons of the Ancients [blm.gov] that ultimately failed because of drought.
So drought is nothing new to the region. Human agency can, has, and does exacerbate the effects; but the converse may also be true. And those conditions can quickly reverse themselves. I have seen in the last decade the reservoirs in California's Central Valley go from near empty to almost overflowing. Snowpack in the Western ranges, which feeds the watersheds, has waxed and waned also.
All of those systems use more energy than humans can produce, or have ever produced. We can't rival nature. We should, however, avoid making things worse.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 04 2022, @02:23AM
Unfamiliar with the American West, are we, janrinok? There is an old saying out West: "Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting." True as ever.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:38AM (1 child)
Mad RunawayMax future? Involves large tractor trainers and a tanker trailer. Love how janrinok disapproves of our comments. He could leave. Problem solved!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday April 01 2022, @09:33AM
Nowhere did I say that I disapprove of anyone's comments - it is a discussion. All contributions that are on-topic are relevant and worth considering. I am merely intrigued that some seem to approach problems with an 'its not my fault, blame X' attitude whereas others seem to seek solutions.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Friday April 01 2022, @08:50AM (1 child)
Apparently, places that are so incredibly short on water that their state governments prohibit citizens from "messing with the watershed" etc. as it is so heavily controlled and "precious" that you capturing some of it and it not naturally running off into a river or soaking into the ground or being doled out and taxed by your local authority is a BIG no-no...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @02:59PM
That was actually the original idea, but it turns out that not catching rainwater is actually pretty stupid. Most of it just evaporates, or winds up in the sewage. Meanwhile, the amount of water use it would save would more than make up for the tiny trickle that somehow finds its way into a stream somewhere. But it's very hard to displace an entrenched, stupid idea (see also for example daylight saving time, or the tax filing system).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bradley13 on Friday April 01 2022, @10:32AM
The solution is actually, really simple: charge market-rates for water. If it is plentiful, it will be cheap. If it is scarce, people will bid up the price. Also: no special deals for big users, like agriculture or golf courses.
Water usage will plummet, as soon as people have to pay realistic prices for it. No other intervention needed.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @08:35AM
I hear that the Arizona Republican Party is going to spend State funds to hire this company out of Florida, called "HydroNinjas".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by drussell on Friday April 01 2022, @08:46AM (2 children)
Build utterly unsustainable communities in the middle of a desert and be surprised with what now?!
Build on reclaimed swamp land and it ends up flooding? What now?!
Over and over and over again....
Once again, another quelle suprise!! Duh!
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday April 01 2022, @09:19AM (1 child)
meanwhile, in Australia:
New South Wales Planning Minister Anthony Roberts has announced an independent review of development in flood-prone parts of the state. It comes in the wake of the destruction of 2,800 homes in floods that ravaged the state's Northern Rivers. About 5,500 more were damaged.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/nsw-planning-minister-announces-independent-review-into-development-in-flood-prone-areas/536605 [weatherzone.com.au]
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Funny) by drussell on Friday April 01 2022, @09:30AM
So "simple" to compute, right?
Maybe they just need to somehow magically build some geinormous water intertubes to slurp excess wawa from the squishy-squashy, extra-wet areas to then splurt it out onto the extra dry areas?
Better use the cloud!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday April 01 2022, @10:29AM (4 children)
If it's decades long, it's not a drought. This is normal weather. In Arizona, idiots spent decades sucking down groundwater levels to have green lawns. Even now there are way too many water-intensive areas - like golf courses - and just generally more people and industry that the water supply can support.
As for the Colorado river, it is well known that the current levels of water rights were defined, based on a few years of unusually heavy rainfall. The government is apparently incapable of correcting this error, and no one voluntarily surrenders water-rights. As a result, in decades-long periods of normal weather, the river doesn't provide enough water.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @01:35PM
"The government is apparently incapable of correcting this error, "
I think the tier 1 water shortage declaration is the well defined method for matching/allocating supply with demand.
This article seems more about big money coming in and trying to change the rules for buying up land and selling the water rights.
It seems that if someone has senior water rights, those dibs should be for the original purpose that make them senior. If you change the use, and end up using more water than the original use would have, then you should give up some seniority.
The problem is that those are serious fighting words in the West.
Hard to understand why anyone would build a big house in a water free area requiring trucks from an indeterminate source to bring in water.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday April 01 2022, @06:42PM (1 child)
Why do golf courses need grass, anyway? Why not rock, sand, and cacti?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 02 2022, @01:55AM
Maybe there shouldn't be so many golf courses in the desert. Or they can make them with artificial turf.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday April 02 2022, @12:35AM
They have been mining fossil groundwater out west for decades. Much of that water came from the melting of the glaciers at the end of the last ice age. It is not going to be replaced.
You can't have a continual growth economy on a planet with finite resources. People were talking about these problems already in the 60's, when the population of planet was around 3 billion people and the population of the US might not have yet reached 200 million. Dealing with this has been continually kicked down the road in order to allow some to profit, at some point the costs will have to be paid, and the longer we wait the higher the cost will be. No one is entitled to a "way of life" that is not sustainable in the long run.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday April 01 2022, @06:08PM
Read "Water Knife", by Paolo Bacigalupi, for a science-fictinal extrapolation where all this leads.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 01 2022, @09:28PM
"Arizona's population growth"
you mean the Jew-funded Wetback invasion? Send all the Mongoloids back to Wetbackistan and every actual American will have plenty of water.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday April 01 2022, @10:01PM
Place them in high density housing, add pools, non-native plants...And then we'll blame climate change! because there isn't enough water...in the desert. Maybe someone else will pay for this if we blame it on climate change!?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 03 2022, @05:58PM
You didn't listen, well the chickens are home to roost,
You made your bed,
Don't build your house on the sand