Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dsfyu404ed | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>urban water use is not the problem even if it's what people see every day

Urban water use (e.g. your lawn and your golf course) generates almost no taxable activity. Agricultural water use magically something that was of no value to the state into revenue.

I have no hope the state curtails agricultural use before everything falls apart. It will however, curtail urban water use long before they get around to anything serious about agriculture. Look at how fisheries have historically been managed. First they make it hard for the small time operators who are of no concern to the state. Then they let it run until it collapses. Then with that revenue already gone they finally get off their butts and implement something. Then 30yr later things maybe start working again.

I hope I'm wrong, but in the absence of hardliner ideologues following the money is a very accurate predictor of how large sociopathic entities comprised of many humans who are "just doing their jobs" (e.g. states) act.

> Urban water use generates almost no taxable activity.

Aside from the entire urban economic activity?

It's rather difficult to have a city without water.

You can have a city with brown lawns though

The Church and Utah governments are also the biggest waster there too. That is also political.

The whole messaging around this is disingenuous. Urban water usage is a small subset, and even within that category individual citizens are a small subset, but yet most of the PR/"make changes" have been focused on a minority of a minority.

The focus is on the Urban water users because they are the ones that are facing the problem and need a solution. They can do that either by reducing water usage or procuring more water.

> The focus is on the Urban water users because they are the ones that are facing the problem

they are facing _the repercussions_ of a problem largely caused by someone else.

They did cause it by moving there and building a life there (including building their gardens). If the city had remained a small backwater town, this problem wouldn’t exist because the farms are 75% and the 25% consumed by the city today would end up as surplus each year replenishing water supplies.

The farms predate all the new usage. The new usage from urbanization caused the deficit.

Alternatively, Farms would use 100% of the water, the lake would go dry, and the population would largely accept it as a necessity to maintain their agricultural usage.

Urban users cannot reduce water usage enough to solve the problem.

I think that is debatable. A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things. Church and government water use you mention also fall under the control of the urban governments.

That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water.

> I think that is debatable.

It's not. Saving the great salt lake requires a water consumption reduction larger than total urban consumption in Utah. You can't get 1.5 million acre-feet out of a box which contains half a million.

> A lot of urban water is wasted on lawns, pools, and parks. It is not unthinkable that it could be reduced by 25-50% per person if you banned these things.

That's literally pulled out of your ass with no supporting evidence, and even if it were true it'd still be nowhere near what's needed.

> That said, there is always the 2nd option of purchasing more water.

No there is not always the option of purchasing the thing everyone lacks.

I think we are talking about two different subjects.

I was talking about ensuring enough water for urban users to live and you are talking about maintaining the great salt lake.

This seems to be the confusion.

Maintaining the Great Salt Lake is the topic of the article.

Yes, but much of the discussion is of urban vs agricultural usage, and which group should bear the burden.

Urban utahn are not "the ones that are facing" the loss of the great salt lake. The state is.

In terms of the salt lake, I think you are right. In terms of access for urban use, I think it is their problem to solve.

It's a literal "solve the 90% problem first" but right wing people like to blame democrats pointing with one finger while pocketing cash from their industrial, eco-killing practices with the other hand. That's the way it has always been. They will have enough money to move out of Utah when it goes dry. The other 99% who were dumb enough to be duped by them will suffer and starve.

> I hope I'm wrong, but in the absence of hardliner ideologues following the money is a very accurate predictor of how large sociopathic entities comprised of many humans who are "just doing their jobs" (e.g. states) act.

i was with you until the bit about “the state”.

from what i understand of the situation, the government isn’t watering the rocky, dry, dusty chunks of land that are being used as farms. these are privately owned individuals and companies throwing water away.

if the state (whether utah, or federal) declares that its absurd to waste water attempting to grow crops in _the desert_ then certain people will declare the government is unfairly throwing its weight around.

the coming water wars are gonna be such a mess unless steps are taken now to mitigate.

related sidenote: i vaguely remember reading a few years ago that oil barons were buying up land all over, separating the water rights and reselling the land minus the water rights. does anyone know of any good recent studies or reading on this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com