It’s taken decades to get surface water transmission lines from Lake Houston out to the northern and western suburbs of Houston. What is that, 50 miles?
Fact is, West Texas growth is limited by lack of water. That’s just the way it is.
Look at El Paso for examples of innovation. I do believe they’ve been recycling wastewater for decades now for their water supply. That’s gotta be a necessity for desert towns. Don’t have the luxury of pulling water out of the ground and only using it once before dumping it down a river.
Can you elaborate on that thought, or would that gets us both in the penalty box ?
I think we have a water problem in the West because it’s an arid area with little rainfall and it’s trying to support a large population. No regulation or lack of regulations can address that.
Desalination is very expensive. If you got free energy, sure, you can tackle it. Only free fuel energy sources make that work - solar, wind, tidal, or geothermal. Both those have investment costs upfront. Fossil fuels are limited ( if you look at a 100-200 year time frame) . Hydrogen is still a big question mark; not much new news in last year or so.
By aqueduct, a gravity fed channel, yeah, but I can’t see it flowing fast enough to meet the demands. And what are the demands, in terms of capacity and use, for this W Texas water ? Irrigate land for cotton ? Fracking ?
The cost of this boondoggle would be borne by the states taxpayers with federal tax money thrown in…what a colossal socialist clusterf*** Abbott is floating.
I’m suddenly reminded of this comedy bit…it would be cheaper for them to move to where the water is…
This is far more complex than just moving water from Houston to Lubbock or whatever. The water problem in the Austin-San Antonio corridor is acute and can’t be solved by people not watering grass.
But yeah, it’s gonna be expensive. I like that this guy is looking at it as an infrastructure issue the same as power and roads. It isn’t going to be solved locally.
At least it’s thinking outside the box rather than poking more holes for well water.
ABQ is going through some harsh realities that they won’t be able to sustain with its current growth. The corporate ag farmers in NM get a certain ration put aside for them but they are gaming the system to avoid losing their rations based on crop output. They grow the heck out of alfalfa but its benefits aren’t outweighing the costs to the future of New Mexico citizens.
There is some real breakthroughs happening in microalgae which could really enhance crop growth due to increased soil fertility. However, growing microalgae uses a lot of water, so scientists are figuring out ways to recycle the water so it ends up not being a net wash with water consumption.
I really do think water issues will be resolved in the next 50-100 years with technology. We’re already seeing some breakthroughs with circular polymer. Single use plastics are being broken back down into ethane and reintroduced as a feedstock to ethylene production. That is highly encouraging. A lot of the heavy hitters in petrochemical world have some pretty lofty sustainability targets they want to hit by 2030.
I think getting water to west Texas or finding alternatives in stretching every last drop to its full potential is achievable. It just takes time.
I agree with just about all of your opinions, in pretty much every subject/topic
That being said, I am less and less optimistic that conservation or any type of individual sacrifice will ever be made in modern society
The inertia of capitalism is way too strong, and you’re asking people to essentially reject the very way of life they’ve been living since the dawn of humanity
I don’t mean to get too deep, but with any long term problem that humans face in the modern world, the only solution is technological breakthroughs because it’s the only possible measure in the realm of capitalism
Many cities are going to be dealing with water issues in the future
Remember the last freeze? My pipe broke outside. So I had to turn off the water from the main. No problem I thought, I have a pool as a back up water supply. So first time we had to use the toilet, I went and grabbed my 5 gallon bucket. Man it’s heavy. I go to fill the toilet tank, and it fills up just half! So every flush was work! Now I know why they implemented efficient toilets, that’s a lot of water just to flush pee! So I think conservation will work, when you multiply it by millions.
What “conservation” accomplishes right now is that it enables for-profit water companies to contract and sell more water. It does not protect the water supply when that happens.
Developers are driving everything, and they aren’t giving one second’s thought about conserving water. That doesn’t really have much consequence in some parts of the state, but it’s outrageous in others.
My water provider has banned all outside water use (can’t even wash your car or driveway or hand-water plants), but they continue to approve new high-density developments and claim that they have 10 years worth of water supply to accommodate the existing and new homes. That math ain’t mathin’.
What you’re calling “rural” is the fastest growing part of the state - the unincorporated areas between San Antonio and Austin. Development is happening fast in those areas precisely because there are no real regulations to slow them down.
The same type of development is happening outside of Lubbock and in other areas that don’t have a sufficient water sources.
Well, as they say, laws are written in blood. The only way people will do something about it is if there’s a catastrophic event. Like in Phoenix, where the city flat out cut water service to a new subdivision.
