[HN Gopher] How Tucson is facing up to a megadrought
___________________________________________________________________
How Tucson is facing up to a megadrought
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 86 points
Date : 2022-11-02 15:06 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| svnpenn wrote:
| clickbait. Actual title is:
|
| > How Tucson, Arizona is facing up to a megadrought
| dang wrote:
| Yes, we've changed it now. Submitted title was "The worst
| drought in 1,200 years". Assuming the BBC didn't change their
| own headline (which does happen), that submission broke the HN
| guidelines, which ask:
|
| " _Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or
| linkbait; don 't editorialize._"
|
| If you want to say what you think is important about an
| article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the
| thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with
| everyone else's:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
| clucas wrote:
| I don't think it's clickbait... when I think of clickbait I
| typically think of something that is either (1) exaggerated or
| misleading in order to induce a click (e.g. "Tucson dying of
| thirst!"), or (2) uses tricky, withholding language to induce a
| click (e.g. "Tucson drew water from Colorado River, you won't
| BELIEVE what happened next!").
|
| In this case, it's an accurate description of the phenomenon
| discussed directly in the article.
| matt_s wrote:
| Knowing they are talking about a drought in a desert makes
| the title sound like clickbait to me.
| uoaei wrote:
| The definition of "desert" only refers to precipitation
| amounts, not aridity. Water is still available via lakes,
| reservoirs, rivers, springs, groundwater, etc.
| formerkrogemp wrote:
| > The definition of "desert" only refers to precipitation
| amounts, not aridity. Water is still available via lakes,
| reservoirs, rivers, springs, groundwater, etc.
|
| Water was still available via lakes, reservoirs, rivers,
| springs, groundwater, etc.
| jgwil2 wrote:
| Drought means drier than normal conditions, where "normal"
| varies. It is always relative; a drought in a desert can be
| just as serious a problem as in any other environment.
| polotics wrote:
| Let's have a go at clickbait patterns: "This US city drew
| water from the Colorado, what happened next will surprise
| you!" "Mayors of cities that do not suffer from drought never
| do these five things!" "Could the killer asteroid just
| discovered by NASA solve this city's drought? the answer is
| in its ice!" "Doctors agree that babies in Tucson will die if
| they do not get enough of this precious (but everyday)
| treasure" ...to be continued...
| svnpenn wrote:
| notice how the original article title, and both your titles,
| used the name of the city. Now notice that the editorialized
| title omitted the city name. If you want to know what city,
| you have to click into the article. Thats the definition of
| clickbait.
| clucas wrote:
| I guess we just disagree on the definition of clickbait. I
| understand your definition and I see the logic, but with
| your definition I would say you can't claim clickbait is
| inherently "bad". If you use my definition, I think you
| can. _shrug_ Good luck out there. :)
| ars wrote:
| Did you even read the article? This is 100% clickbait,
| the article has NOTHING to do with the clickbait title,
| it's all about how they conserve water.
|
| This title is a perfect example of clickbait: Make you
| click on something, then talk about something else.
| clucas wrote:
| They are talking about how Tucson is dealing with the
| worst drought in 1200 years, aren't they? What am I
| missing?
|
| EDIT: someone updated the title, it used to read "The
| worst drought in 1200 years" - so this whole tangent
| about clickbait is even _more_ pointless than it was when
| it started, sorry everyone!
| ars wrote:
| > is dealing with the worst drought in 1200 years, aren't
| they?
|
| No, that's not what they are talking about. That's
| mentioned in a single line as a throwaway.
|
| > What am I missing?
|
| They are talking about water conservation that's been
| ongoing for years, and is not related to any drought.
| puchatek wrote:
| Now this would be a great use of AI: turn clickbait titles into
| more adequate ones.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| It's great that people set up rainwater collection, or or
| practice efficient water use, and if that makes them feel better,
| great, but it's not doing anything. Almost all water use is Ag,
| Commercial, and Industrial. Residential is a minute percentage.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| +1, even though I slightly disagree with you. I live in the
| mountains of Central Arizona, BTW.
|
| Harvesting rain water, storing it, and using it for a home
| garden can't hurt, it is good exercise, saves some money on
| groceries, and provides an emergency supply in case municipal
| water servers ever go offline for a while.
|
| The "meat addicts of Hacker News" have downvoted me in the past
| for mentioning this, but I think it bears repeating: changing
| dietary habits to only eat meat a few times a week does a lot
| to help with water shortages, reduce green house gases, and
| with energy conservation. There is also nutrition literature
| posted by a medical doctor I follow on Twitter that indicates
| that reducing meat consumption helps with several health issues
| and potentially increases longevity.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Former Arizona resident here. The solution is simple: stop
| subsidizing water. It's completely insane that you have
| cattle ranchers and cotton farms in a nearly Martian
| landscape. It'd be economically unviable if it weren't for
| massive water subsidies, so it should be.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| +1 I agree. I would extend this to all farming and meat
| production, even in non-arid areas.
|
| I read Peter Zeihan's pretty good book "THE END OF THE
| WORLD IS JUST THE BEGINNING, Mapping the Collapse of
| Globalization" and he offers lots of good advice for
| sustaining the human population: optimize on foods like
| wheat that provide protein and carbs, using fewer resources
| like water. Peter has lots of equivalent YouTube content if
| you don't want to buy the book.
| windexh8er wrote:
| I'll offer a hat tip to our little bubble here. Water
| consumption with respect to the animals themselves is
| high but once you factor in all of the water used in the
| production of the feed itself it's crazy especially when
| considering the subsidies in play.
|
| I'll also say I thoroughly enjoyed Zeihan's book. It was
| enlightening from many angles but the supply chain
| dependencies and raw material overviews he did were very
| informative.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| I always find this so funny:
|
| _In 2015, Intel, the largest semiconductor company by market
| capitalization, used nine billion gallons of water_
|
| Hmm, I bet they build their factories by the Great lakes then!
|
| Oh - Intel's new Arizona fabs to be production ready in 2024,
| creating more than 3,000 high-tech jobs [0]
|
| I better start taking _really_ short showers to make up for
| that!
|
| [0] https://www.chandleraz.gov/news-center/intel-breaks-
| ground-t...
| greeneggs wrote:
| To put 15 billion gallons of water in context, that's about
| the same amount of water as used by 15 to 30 square miles of
| alfalfa. Arizona has ~400 square miles dedicated to growing
| alfalfa, worth ~$400 million per year.
|
| (Maybe someone else can put this in terms of Libraries of
| Congress?)
|
| sources: https://wisdomanswer.com/how-much-water-does-an-
| alfalfa-plan... https://civileats.com/2021/09/15/climate-
| change-could-put-an...
| andirk wrote:
| Pro tip for giant corp: build where it's cheapest regardless
| of nature. The State will pick up the buck!
| pm90 wrote:
| not really. States don't always honor agreements if they
| don't make sense. They can have a change in leadership etc.
| hobs wrote:
| Then you sue and generally win, contracts with big corps
| usually have a lot of force.
| glitcher wrote:
| Yes, and the media is very guilty of pushing this narrative
| that households need to be held responsible for rationing
| water, when the Arizona Department of Water Resources openly
| shares this data:
|
| "Irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water in
| Arizona, consuming about 74 percent of the available water
| supply." https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/agriculture
|
| "In Arizona, approximately 15 percent of the water supply is
| for commercial, industrial and institutional uses."
| https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/commercial-industrial
|
| So it's on us to do everything we can to optimize the _last
| 10%_ of all the available water.
|
| To be clear I think we all should do our part, but there are
| so many misleading news stories that fail to even acknowledge
| the reality of our water distribution.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Well hey, what else are you expecting those farms in the
| middle of the desert to use? I mean, my great great great
| grandpappy put this farm here and it's basically
| _communism_ to take away our unlimited free and nearly-free
| water.
| ars wrote:
| > used nine billion gallons of water
|
| "About 80% of that water was captured after use and purified
| at treatment plants operated by Intel and the city of
| Chandler, then either returned to the fabs for reuse in
| manufacturing or its cooling towers, or reused within the
| city or injected into the ground to recharge the aquifer."
|
| https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-
| ed/joannaallhands...
| RC_ITR wrote:
| >Intel has two campuses in Chandler with multiple fabs, for
| example, which used about 16,000 acre-feet (5bn gallons) of
| municipal water in 2020... About 6,200 (1.5bn gallons)
| acre-feet of water were treated on-site and reused without
| entering the municipal wastewater system.
|
| Oh wow, about 1/3 of the 5 billion gallons of water this
| one campus was used at least more than once. Problem
| solved!
| diskzero wrote:
| Tucson resident here. It did make me feel a bit better setting
| up my harvesting system. I collect about 10,000 gallons that I
| use to irrigate my thirsty grapefruit and lemon tree. If I
| didn't have to collected water, it would cost me a few hundred
| a month to keep them healthy. If I didn't have the collected
| rainwater, I wouldn't have the trees. Using city water to
| irrigate my citrus just feels obnoxious.
|
| The whole process of setting up the system was a lot of fun and
| a lot of work. The soil here is quite hard, so I got a great
| workout digging the trenches.
|
| I know my overall impact is negligible, but have a general
| sense of well-being by having the system. You could say the
| same about the solar systems I set up as well. I could just as
| easily pay Tucson Electric and Power as they are setting up big
| solar arrays now.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| I see this comment every-time water resources in the west are
| mentioned.
|
| But industries and Ag exist in a region for a reason, and none
| of it is related to water. Most industries (esp Ag) exist
| within vast contractor, raw material supply and labor networks.
| That means vast support networks, families, kids in school etc.
| that can't be moved on a whim.
|
| With the infinite energy being beamed down on the West,
| desalination plants along the California coast + Water
| Pipelines seem a lot more realistic tbh, NIMBY-ism be damned.
| rcpt wrote:
| It's absolutely related to water rights. California farm
| owners wouldn't opt to grow alfalfa if water were priced
| sanely for them
| acdha wrote:
| You're not wrong that things can't trivially be switched but
| it continues to highlight the need to switch to market
| pricing. Water has been subsidized so low for so long that it
| doesn't factor in to planning at all. Letting rates rise
| would encourage a ton of efficiency improvements and
| relocation which currently aren't even being considered.
| ethanbond wrote:
| Ag should exist only in locations where it's viable for it to
| exist, which yes, is very closely related to water. If
| Arizona wants to have a thriving agricultural economy, it
| should farm rocks.
|
| (Disclaimer: I grew up in Arizona. There are great people
| there and they deserve great jobs. But water intensive
| farming _in an actual desert_ is not a valid solution)
| cgriswald wrote:
| Agricultural exists here in California somewhat independently
| of water but the choice of what crops or livestock to carry
| is absolutely about water. Many California farms would choose
| less water-intensive crops or livestock if they had to pay
| more for water. There are plenty of crops to choose from that
| are supported by the existing soil, contractors, materials
| (of which water is one...), and labor networks.
|
| > With the infinite energy being beamed down on the West,
| desalination plants along the California coast + Water
| Pipelines seem a lot more realistic tbh, NIMBY-ism be damned.
|
| The desalinization plants could be located nearly anywhere on
| the coast and we already have lots and lots of pipes running
| water from reservoirs both above and below ground. It's hard
| to imagine this being a NIMBY issue. (This seems more like
| continuing to blame residential areas.)
|
| It might be _sold_ as a NIMBY issue by agriculture lobbyists
| since agriculture absolutely will not want to pay for it. But
| this is all about agriculture wanting a _cheap_ , infinite
| supply of water.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Agriculture lobbyists aren't paying people to show up at
| desalination plant approval meetings[1].
|
| Optimizing crops is fine, but simply biting around the
| edges of the problem of scarcity assuming you're making
| progress is what's caused most of these problems.
|
| [1] https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/05/california-
| desali...
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I think that's kind of the point -- water supply is not a
| meaningful constraint on residential growth.
|
| A drought will curtail inefficient agriculture, but that's
| about it. There's immense untapped recycling potential.
| daveslash wrote:
| The article opens with the story of a person collecting rain
| water. It should be worth pointing out: This story is in New
| Mexico Arizona, but not all states permit collection of
| rainwater. For example, in Colorado each house is permitted up to
| 110 gallons of rain-water collection, but beyond that rainwater
| collection is illegal because the rainwater is considered
| property of the state, not of whose land it falls on.
|
| Edit: Changed "New Mexico" to "Arizona" in my comment.
| justinator wrote:
| I think the story is in Arizona.
| daveslash wrote:
| You are correct. My mistake. I've corrected my comment
| accordingly. Thank you.
| andirk wrote:
| Much like rooves covered in solar cells, we should all have a
| well filled with rain water gathered from the property. Use it
| for landscape and everything thats not drinking.
|
| What about leeching water out of the ground? One can cause
| floods and landslides doing that!
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| 110 gallons is such a small amount!
|
| If you live in a dry part of the state and have 500 square feet
| of footprint, an average of 3000 gallons of water will come
| down just on your house every year. A more typical house with
| the 17 inch state average might have 10000 gallons land on it.
|
| And then you could have a tank that stores only 1-3% of that?
| Jeez.
|
| I understand not letting people capture water across an entire
| property. But is it too much to let me keep the water that
| falls directly on my bedroom and have a reserve for dry spells?
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| There must be a story behind the rule. Was someone polluting
| rainwater instad of letting it flow? Filled up a container and
| let it evaporate?
| shrubble wrote:
| It's the difference between water rights in the dry West vs
| other parts of the country.
|
| No one in wet Pennsylvania State would care, for example.
|
| There is an entire set of legal doctrines and a body of law
| governing water and how it is allocated, etc.
| ahelwer wrote:
| It's to stop people from building giant reservoirs on their
| property, which can actually affect the local watershed.
| There was a case in Oregon about a decade ago where a man
| built three huge reservoirs on his property.
| tstrimple wrote:
| I believe most of it stems from water diversion laws which
| were created during the gold rush. Miners started using
| hydraulic processes for getting gold which required large
| amounts of water. At the time, it was basically available on
| a first come first serve basis. That means if someone
| upstream from you opened a gold mine and diverted the water
| into their land instead of yours you had no recourse.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| In some places, water collection bans were an anti-mosquito
| initiative.
| diskzero wrote:
| Colorado and Utah are last remainining states with such
| agressive policies. All other states allow the collection of
| water for domestic use. Additional permits are needed if you
| want to drink the water or use it commercially. Some states
| encourage it; I got a nice rebate on the money spent install my
| system in Arizona.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonito...
|
| 0% of Arizona is currently or Extreme or Exceptional drought (the
| most severe categories). 13% of AZ is in severe drought. Not sure
| what defines megadrought, but sounds scary.
| addisonl wrote:
| Megadrought is a drought lasting at least two decades. SW has
| been in a drought for 22 years, hence the megadrought label.
|
| Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/western-
| megadroug...
| parrellel wrote:
| Look at some of the less summarized data tables and you can see
| that Arizona hasn't been at all out of drought since August
| 2020. So 2+ years of unending drought conditions, even if the
| category isn't all the way up to Extreme at the moment.
|
| Now, it could now be that the graph needs to be re-zeroed, but
| that's no help to any farmers.
|
| Edit: Or, you could go with the official definition directly
| below my musing.
| glitcher wrote:
| My Dad used to work for the City of Tucson Water Department doing
| maintenance and repairs on the massive engines used to pump
| groundwater to the surface. I recall back in the 80's, the city
| began a conservation campaign dubbed "Beat the Peak", trying to
| persuade residents to limit water usage during peak hours in the
| summertime, probably 11am - 4pm, or something similar. (The
| campaign even had a cheesy mascot duck, Pete the Beak I think?)
|
| Anyways, the city's campaign was so successful in getting
| residents to limit their water usage, they announced in the next
| fiscal year they had to raise water rates because of lost
| revenue! After that my Dad would come home from work in his city
| employee uniform, and go water all the plants in the front yard
| during peak hours, on purpose so the whole neighborhood could see
| him LOL.
| drcongo wrote:
| nells wrote:
| Where does capitalism enter the picture here?
| yuchi wrote:
| They interrupted the initiative for _revenue loss_.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I suppose the underline here belongs under the fact that
| the initiative is fundamentally good for the environment,
| and using the water isn't necessarily good for anyone
| beyond necessity. The need for revenue essentially
| encourages waste, if only to generate the revenue
| required for economic survival.
|
| It seems to indicate that the resource should not be a
| commodity at all.
| simonh wrote:
| Revenue loss for a state owned entity. I still don't get
| the reference to capitalism.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The state owned entity only depends so strongly on the
| revenue from selling water because of the capitalist
| system it is embedded in. If water conservation is valued
| then substituting that revenue in a way that doesn't
| waste water should be a high priority.
|
| (I'm assuming "interrupted the initiative for revenue
| loss" is correct for the sake of this post. If it's not
| then the capitalism complaint is very weak.)
| lend000 wrote:
| Private individuals didn't control the means of
| production. Individual profit motive exists regardless of
| whether that individual has been put into a socialist
| country or a country with more economic freedom, so it's
| probably best to harness that motive to create value for
| others. This isn't to say the government shouldn't be
| regulating externalities, such as pollution or limited
| resources in some way.
|
| The most "anti-capitalist" country that has ever existed
| managed to harm the Earth more than the US [0].
|
| [0] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-grim-pollution-
| pictur_b_9...
| elmomle wrote:
| Isn't raising the rate on something one of the main tools
| a well-functioning government should use to constrain
| that thing's use? Here they got the order backwards,
| which is a political and planning fiasco.
| jjav wrote:
| > they had to raise water rates because of lost revenue!
|
| Same thing in some California water districts in previous
| drought. Asked for conservation, people conserved. Revenue went
| down so they jacked up the prices more than 4x!
|
| The worst part is that the largest increase was done in the
| base rate which you pay regardless of consumption. So now the
| rate structure doesn't promote conservation that much since we
| have to pay nearly $100/mo even on zero consumption.
| est31 wrote:
| Related video about US geography and the ongoing desertification
| of the flyover states, which for me, someone who has never left
| europe in his life, has been a bit interesting:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwJABxjcvUc
| [deleted]
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| Interesting video. Another factor is the obscene amount of land
| owned by the federal government which has stop virtually all
| growth in rural areas in the western American states.
| finiteseries wrote:
| That's about the Western US, some of which are flyover states,
| but most flyover states exist east of the 100th meridian and
| are generally more at risk to flooding than desertification!
| est31 wrote:
| Okay sorry I used the wrong term, not flyover states but
| western US states. Tucson seems to be affected by precisely
| this drought problem.
| finiteseries wrote:
| They absolutely are, anybody relying on the Colorado River
| and its compact are at risk, ie the southwestern US and
| Denver but particularly the southern division states like
| California and Arizona.
|
| Was slightly worried to hear people thinking Ohio is at any
| risk of desertification is all :)
| cossatot wrote:
| The western states are for sure the most fun to fly over,
| though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-02 23:01 UTC)