21 minutes ago, taestell said:

I think the panic over modern architecture is somewhat overblown. I just happened to stumble upon a Strong Towns article called Boring Buildings, Great Places the other day and it aligns with what I observed in my visits to Japan and Korea. Most buildings are nothing remarkable but because of the vibrant street life and merchants occupying the ground floors, you don't really notice.

 

I would agree with this.  The composition of streets and public spaces and how they interact or fail to with their surroundings are more important that individual architectural statements of buildings.  But unless this is a reaction to something much earlier in the thread, it isn't what people are talking about right now.  Poor build quality is as much a problem with faux historical buildings as it is with modern.

True, I'm not really addressing the construction quality debate that's happening on this page, more the criticism that modern architecture in cities is ugly, as argued by the Tucker Carlson video a few pages back that kicked off this discussion.

Odd little comparison here, but I was in Columbia, MD a few days ago. For those who don't know Columbia, it's a planned community from the '60s-'70s with consistent growth since then, basically halfway between D.C. and Baltimore. In Cleveland, I'm used to maybe 5% of license plates being out of state, and I was shocked at how that really wasn't the case in a growing D.C. suburb. There were Maryland plates, D.C. plates, and other than highway driving, I don't think I saw more than two plates from anywhere else. Maybe it's something to do with Maryland license plate laws, or just luck, but I found the comparison fascinating.

On 2/16/2022 at 10:33 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

Odd little comparison here, but I was in Columbia, MD a few days ago. For those who don't know Columbia, it's a planned community from the '60s-'70s with consistent growth since then, basically halfway between D.C. and Baltimore. In Cleveland, I'm used to maybe 5% of license plates being out of state, and I was shocked at how that really wasn't the case in a growing D.C. suburb. There were Maryland plates, D.C. plates, and other than highway driving, I don't think I saw more than two plates from anywhere else. Maybe it's something to do with Maryland license plate laws, or just luck, but I found the comparison fascinating.

You'll see more in DC. Elected pols, military, and certain federal employees are allowed to remain "residents" of their home states and thus keep their home license plates.

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

 

Dang, this really stings. It makes me think right away of many folks I know who love "country living" on three-acre plots in residential exurbs. I love many of those people, and I lived in that sort of area for several years in my growing up. But I believe very few people are actually at their happiest in this kind of setting even if they believe they are. It really is the worst of all worlds--the isolation of the country without truly having the freedom of the country. You can't walk (or even bike) anywhere you'd want to go, but you still have to contend with the home-owner's association and the obligations of society.

 

Obviously Manhattan-esque or Paris-esque living isn't for everyone, but I'd wager most people would be happier in a dense, single-family / multiplex neighborhood like the ones that made up the backbones of Cleveland and Cincinnati or even the rowhomes of Baltimore, Philadelphia, etc.

 

The remainder of people ought to actually live in the actual country--hundreds of wooded acres (or a farm), no neighbors in earshot, no light pollution blocking out the milky way, nobody cares what you do on your property, etc. They'd be much happier living there driving 30 minutes to the grocery store than in the exurbs driving ten minutes to the grocery store.

Problem is, truly rural life has so many additional layers of difficulty that you can't work full time. And almost all jobs are blue collar out there so toss that degree in the trash.

How about we narrow our streets and re-densify them to make them like they were??

 

 

Here’s one I just can’t get over and I frankly don’t understand why it’s not discussed more. Lake Mead is in a perilous, perilous position. Lots of places rely on it for water, but the most vulnerable is probably Las Vegas, which gets 90% of its water from the lake. I see lots of articles claiming Vegas has a secure water supply, but I just don’t see how the math works out. Lake Mead is about 160 feet above “dead pool,” the level at which water physically cannot be pumped out anymore. If the current rate of decline continues, Lake Mead will reach dead pool around 2030. Aka, eight years from now. To be clear,  that’s just assuming the current rate of water loss.

 

Now, this also may not happen. We may get a couple good snow years. But if it does happen, how do you get a new water supply for an entire city in eight years? Even if it takes twice or three times that long, how do you revamp the water supply in the desert when there is no groundwater to speak of and the only river runs dry? Other cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles have a long-term problem too, but they at least have enough groundwater to kick the can down the road. Las Vegas does not.

 

Climate change presumably plays a role in the problem, but the biggest problem seems to be stunningly bad long term planning. 
 

I’m curious what thoughts others have, but this issue never ceases ro amaze me. It’s a foreseeable, immediate, existential problem for two million people, and the only way out seems to be luck.

I hope I’m not the only one with the opinion that many of the people who live there, moved there by choice. For those that did, looks like they made the wrong choice to move to the desert and expect water to always be plentiful. I’m not speaking of those who live in poverty or may have mental health issues who live there and may not have a way to leave if the region actually runs dry. It’s always the least of us who suffer the most- and for them, who knows what the larger society or the government will agree to do.  I’m sure there will be those who throw up their hands and say, “Tough luck”…

Edited March 27, 20223 yr by Oldmanladyluck
Cell phone error 😄

Perhaps in 2026 the whole Colorado River Compact expires and gets renegotiated? My impression is that Las Vegas and other parts of NV receive a measly allotment of water because it wasn't really around in 1922 when the first compact between five states and Mexico was negotiated.  Nevada's water share is substantially lower than that allotted for "desert" regions of CA such as the Imperial valley where a hefty percentage of our nation's food is grown.

 

Anyway, none of this is new.  Much of the arid Southwest USA, e.g. PHX, L A. relies on a large extent on water from the Colorado River, which of course begins in the Rocky Mountains west of Denver. It's not just a Las Vegas problem.  It's a national problem which will have some tough political arguments to consider.

 

 

On 3/26/2022 at 7:40 PM, LlamaLawyer said:

Here’s one I just can’t get over and I frankly don’t understand why it’s not discussed more. Lake Mead is in a perilous, perilous position. Lots of places rely on it for water, but the most vulnerable is probably Las Vegas, which gets 90% of its water from the lake. I see lots of articles claiming Vegas has a secure water supply, but I just don’t see how the math works out. Lake Mead is about 160 feet above “dead pool,” the level at which water physically cannot be pumped out anymore. If the current rate of decline continues, Lake Mead will reach dead pool around 2030. Aka, eight years from now. To be clear,  that’s just assuming the current rate of water loss.

 

Now, this also may not happen. We may get a couple good snow years. But if it does happen, how do you get a new water supply for an entire city in eight years? Even if it takes twice or three times that long, how do you revamp the water supply in the desert when there is no groundwater to speak of and the only river runs dry? Other cities like Phoenix and Los Angeles have a long-term problem too, but they at least have enough groundwater to kick the can down the road. Las Vegas does not.

 

Climate change presumably plays a role in the problem, but the biggest problem seems to be stunningly bad long term planning. 
 

I’m curious what thoughts others have, but this issue never ceases ro amaze me. It’s a foreseeable, immediate, existential problem for two million people, and the only way out seems to be luck.

They may not have much water, but something they do have is very large areas that are empty and lots of sun. Solar renewable energy that can be used to power desalination plants along the Cali coast. Saudi Arabia and the UAE do it and use water for irrigated farming along with providing water for their cities. It may be costly at first, but it could work-especially when you consider that Cali as an independent nation would be number 5 in GDP in the World. If there was a will, they could do it.

 

LA ran water pipelines hundreds of miles to steal Sierra water. I don't see why they can't run some lines from the coast to Las Vegas/Phoenix-if the will is there to do it, they fork up the money, and they can all agree on it(Cali regulations alone would be a nightmare.)

 

Or they could all just start moving to areas where the climate will actually be getting better, where rainfall will be increasing, and where there is already plenty of water-like Ohio :)

Edited March 28, 20223 yr by Toddguy

^In a perfect world, people would start to move back to the great lakes and northeast states where it makes sense for people to live. Instead, when the water dries up, they will just come to us looking to pump from the Great Lakes. I know we have the GL compact which is great, but I am sure that in our country which is so focused on jobs and political influence, someone would find a way around the GL compact. The only saving grace is that Canada would certainly have none of that BS and fight it tooth and nail.

1 minute ago, YO to the CLE said:

^In a perfect world, people would start to move back to the great lakes and northeast states where it makes sense for people to live. Instead, when the water dries up, they will just come to us looking to pump from the Great Lakes. I know we have the GL compact which is great, but I am sure that in our country which is so focused on jobs and political influence, someone would find a way around the GL compact. The only saving grace is that Canada would certainly have none of that BS and fight it tooth and nail.

 

As would I. There aren't many things that would cause me to go to war. But this is one of them.

16 minutes ago, YO to the CLE said:

^In a perfect world, people would start to move back to the great lakes and northeast states where it makes sense for people to live. Instead, when the water dries up, they will just come to us looking to pump from the Great Lakes. I know we have the GL compact which is great, but I am sure that in our country which is so focused on jobs and political influence, someone would find a way around the GL compact. The only saving grace is that Canada would certainly have none of that BS and fight it tooth and nail.

Yes. The west can just blame Canada! 

 

And I don't remember them doing anything for Ohio when jobs and people moved there and left us in the dust? And if we ever did offer them water(which I don't think we should), it would only be at a price that would absolutely enrich us.

 

If the Saudi's and the UAE can build expensive desalination plants, so can the they.  Or maybe they should give up trying to farm in a desert?-that is where so much of the water goes.

8 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

Yes. The west can just blame Canada! 

 

And I don't remember them doing anything for Ohio when jobs and people moved there and left us in the dust? And if we ever did offer them water(which I don't think we should), it would only be at a price that would absolutely enrich us.

 

If the Saudi's and the UAE can build expensive desalination plants, so can the they.  Or maybe they should give up trying to farm in a desert?-that is where so much of the water goes.

California farms are extremely productive and tremendously important to our strong agricultural position - aka how we eat so inexpensively. Solving that water challenge is an American challenge, not just a California challenge. 

Saudi Arabia isn't exactly water secure. Their per capita water supply is about 7% of the U.S. per capita water consumption. Folks out west use a lot more than the U.S. average, so if desalination is the solution and we think we can achieve what Saudi Arabia achieves, people out west still have to figure out how to function on perhaps 1/20th the water they currently do.

 

The other thing about desalination and pipelines is that I just don't see how it could be done fast enough to really avoid the problem if a, say, 80th percentile bad scenario plays out. The Bureau of Reclamation projections go through '26 and show there being a less than 1% chance of Mead or Powell deadpool by 2026. That's great, and I am sure their projections are the best available. But that's four years from now! Why are you working with four year projections (it was originally a five-year projection, but it was last year) that relate to water supply for 40 million people? I have to believe, if they have internal long-term projections, that those projections would show somewhere between a 20-80% chance of deadpool for Mead and Powell in 20 years. All you have to do is assume the rate of water loss from the last 20 years and you're about there for both. If you take the last two years of water loss rate and extrapolate, you get there much faster. The interstate highway system took 35 years to build, and I think that may be a comparable example to the scale of the projects that would be needed assuming the Colorado River ceases to be an option. I mean, the operative water shortage plan was only adopted in 2019! It just seems like there is no medium term planning in the face of an existential crisis on the decade scale.

 

Now, maybe none of this happens, or maybe the solution is easier than I realize. It just seems like a big problem that doesn't get enough airtime. People talk ad nausea about how to plan for sea level rise in 2100 or later, but here's a problem that's going to unfold in our lifetimes and there seems to be no sense of urgency.

Edited March 28, 20223 yr by LlamaLawyer

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

California farms are extremely productive and tremendously important to our strong agricultural position - aka how we eat so inexpensively. Solving that water challenge is an American challenge, not just a California challenge. 

Not all California farming is the same. The Salinas Valley and Imperial Valley are very important, especially during winter, but growing water hungry almond trees in the Central Valley? And we are not exactly eating inexpensively when it comes to fruit and vegetable. Been to the grocery store lately? Maybe we need to rely less on California for certain things?

19 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Saudi Arabia isn't exactly water secure. Their per capita water supply is about 7% of the U.S. per capita water consumption. Folks out west use a lot more than the U.S. average, so if desalination is the solution and we think we can achieve what Saudi Arabia achieves, people out west still have to figure out how to function on perhaps 1/20th the water they currently do.

 

The other thing about desalination and pipelines is that I just don't see how it could be done fast enough to really avoid the problem if a, say, 80th percentile bad scenario plays out. The Bureau of Reclamation projections go through '26 and show there being a less than 1% chance of Mead or Powell deadpool by 2026. That's great, and I am sure their projections are the best available. But that's four years from now! Why are you working with four year projections (it was originally a five-year projection, but it was last year) that relate to water supply for 40 million people? I have to believe, if they have internal long-term projections, that those projections would show somewhere between a 20-80% chance of deadpool for Mead and Powell in 20 years. All you have to do is assume the rate of water loss from the last 20 years and you're about there for both. If you take the last two years of water loss rate and extrapolate, you get there much faster. The interstate highway system took 35 years to build, and I think that may be a comparable example to the scale of the projects that would be needed assuming the Colorado River ceases to be an option. I mean, the operative water shortage plan was only adopted in 2019! It just seems like there is no medium term planning in the face of an existential crisis on the decade scale.

 

Now, maybe none of this happens, or maybe the solution is easier than I realize. It just seems like a big problem that doesn't get enough airtime. People talk ad nausea about how to plan for sea level rise in 2100 or later, but here's a problem that's going to unfold in our lifetimes and there seems to be no sense of urgency.

They also have very little other sources of water. California will need desalination plants to help with their water supply, not to replace it. And yes, the planning has been horrible. And it will be Nevada and Arizona needing that water the most. Las Vegas and Phoenix. The bill for those plants will have to come from those areas as well. Do they pay for our natural gas for winter heating? They have the water problem and they need to get out ahead of it soon for their sake. With increasing droughts their economies may depend on it. And good luck "stealing" water from other areas.

 

The interstate Highway system was nationwide. We are talking about discrete desalination plants with some pipelines in one area of the country-that is not a reasonable comparison. And this is to supplement the water supply, not replace it. They can continue to enact measures to reduce water consumption. 

 

Quote

 Lake Mead is about 160 feet above “dead pool,” the level at which water physically cannot be pumped out anymore. 

You don't think they will be able to come up with some other measures to drag that water from Lake Mead up? by 2030? If faced with turning the great spigot off? Really?

40 minutes ago, Toddguy said:

You don't think they will be able to come up with some other measures to drag that water from Lake Mead up? by 2030? If faced with turning the great spigot off? Really?

 

Well I'm really not an expert in this, just giving my commonsense thoughts. I know they can drain lake Powell. That gives Mead some extra time, but it screws over the people who rely on Powell. They can, and will, reduce usage. That sorta hurts everybody. But they're already partly doing both of those things. Usage has been cut under the pact. Powell and Mead allocations are periodically balanced out based on need. And nevertheless, Mead is falling faster so far in 2022 than it did in either 2020 or 2021. It's like going down a hill and putting on the brakes, but not hard enough to keep you from continuing to accelerate.

 

I do have to assume there are lots of smart people working on this problem who have thought a lot more about it than I have and know a lot more about it than I do. Nevertheless, catastrophes that can be seen a mile away still happen. 2008 was an example of this. Lake Mead just feels the same way. I don't see many people out there even acknowledging this is a near-term existential problem for Nevada.

 

Bottom line--not every problem is functionally solvable. And sometimes when experts are faced with a potentially unsolvable problem, the political incentives make them ignore the worst case scenarios and cross their fingers for a best case scenario. Not necessarily saying that's what's happening here, but it certainly has that feel.

The reason that desalination is generally not considered is cost. Piping in water is cheaper, even up to hundreds of miles. I believe the Great Lakes are far enough away that piping would not be considered cheaper (though I'm sure it depends on the assumption made when running the numbers). 

 

Desalination is getting cheaper though. Largely due to the efforts of Middle Eastern countries who are forced to use the method due to geopolitical realities. 

 

The other interesting point is how solving the water problem could also help advance green energy technologies. Since things like wind and solar are intermittent there is often excess power when it isn't needed (as well as insufficient power when it is). If excess power can be used to desalinate water when the production exceeds demand it can provide a useful outlet while protecting the grid from excess capacity. This water could even be pumped into a reservoir to store energy for later (the most common and realistic large scale energy storage proposal). 

 

I don't know, it's a complicated issue. The Southwest needs more water. They either need to pipe it in, use drastically less, or trade energy for water (desalination) ideally in a way that doesn't exacerbate climate change. 

3 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Bottom line--not every problem is functionally solvable. And sometimes when experts are faced with a potentially unsolvable problem, the political incentives make them ignore the worst case scenarios and cross their fingers for a best case scenario. Not necessarily saying that's what's happening here, but it certainly has that feel.

I was at Lake Powell / Glen Canyon a year or so ago and it really does feel like a foregone conclusion that everyone is either burying their heads in the sand about or actively rooting for a demolition of Glen Canyon Dam. I also agree with Ethan and the idea that solar (they are called valley of the sun after all) could provide the power for desalination and the pumping of water back up into reservoirs and then you could recapture hydro power on it's way back down. It just seems like Arizona isn't a state who is currently really thinking about this and will deny its a long term issue until it's too late. They spent more time talking about snow packs in Colorado and el Nina/Niño cycles than admitting the possibility of long term climate change or even the simple fact that maybe there's just too many people living in the damn Sonoran desert.

 

The fact that Arizona is filled with retirement age people gave me a feeling that 10 years from now there could be a confluence of access to water becoming a dire situation and real estate going unfilled by the next generation of retirees who don't want to move there during a water crisis that it could all collapse. The only thing that gives the area hope is that things can and may be much worse south of the border so all that housing could get filled with climate immigrants seeking america for better infrastructure. But again, this is Arizona who aren't exactly going to be welcoming them with open arms meaning it will probably end up with an water crisis, immigration 'crisis' and real estate crisis all at once as they go from being the fastest growing metro in the 2020 census to exurban deserted ghost towns. 

 

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2022/04/14/lake-powell-tanking-proposed-actions-interior-only-buy-time/7310121001/

 

This shows how bad things are.

 

I'll say it again, the southwest sure looks like it's a few bad years away from a disaster nobody is prepared for. If you look at the drought management plans from even just one year ago, Lake Mead and Powell are already lower than their worst projections.

2 hours ago, LlamaLawyer said:

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/joannaallhands/2022/04/14/lake-powell-tanking-proposed-actions-interior-only-buy-time/7310121001/

 

This shows how bad things are.

 

I'll say it again, the southwest sure looks like it's a few bad years away from a disaster nobody is prepared for. If you look at the drought management plans from even just one year ago, Lake Mead and Powell are already lower than their worst projections.

Would it be bad for another region of the country which has dealt with its own decline over the years, many reasons for which were legitimately out of its own control, to start marketing to these soon to be less fortunate areas of the country that it is open for business and is a great place to live? Just sayin. We’re not running out of water anytime soon and I just can’t find myself to feel bad for people who chose to move to the desert and expect to always have water.  I just can’t. 
 

 

5 hours ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

Would it be bad for another region of the country which has dealt with its own decline over the years, many reasons for which were legitimately out of its own control, to start marketing to these soon to be less fortunate areas of the country that it is open for business and is a great place to live? Just sayin. We’re not running out of water anytime soon and I just can’t find myself to feel bad for people who chose to move to the desert and expect to always have water.  I just can’t. 
 

 

Ohio should cautiously brag about its water. We have plenty, but it's plenty polluted. Lake Erie has significant problems, and I wouldn't wade into many creeks or rivers in agricultural areas of Ohio, Indiana or Southern Michigan. 

Edited April 15, 20223 yr by westerninterloper

On 1/6/2022 at 9:31 AM, Gramarye said:

 

By far the sound that the human ear is designed to pick up and focus on is other human voices.  Whether you're in an apartment in the densest part of the city two floors above the sidewalk, or in a trailer park miles from any major city, hearing a public argument between two other people on any topic, no matter how completely unrelated or unconnected to it you are, will attract your attention and likely stick in your mind negatively.  We ruled out a street to live on because we heard someone shouting on a nearby porch.  To this day, I can't remember what it was about (some problem with a friend or family member).  The only thing I retain is the reaction--"no way, let's go look at the next place on our list."

 

 

This one reminded me of a comment, perhaps here, where someone who moved to a denser area was disappointed that they still couldn't sit on their porch and watch a lot of people walking by.  It was a classic example of the entitlement of some density advocates.   It's human nature to instinctively think others are like us and share our priorities.   Density advocates seem far more likely to add an "or they should!".  Understandable, I suppose, because they need others to buy in to get the experience they desire.  

 

As for the noise/yelling thing, amen to that.   It’s probably the main thing that makes what can be called “people with options” uncomfortable in denser areas.   It’s not just the loud voices and our instinctive reaction to same, it’s the associated perception that the people doing it are unable to control their emotions.  Or worse, unwilling.  People who can don’t care to be exposed to that, especially where they live.

 

I would say that along with congregation in “choke point” public places such as gas station, store entrances, street corners, etc, noise is the number one deterrent to keep people from moving to denser areas.   None of these are malicious in and of themselves, but they can become so, enough to be perceived as such.  As they are more prevalent among lower income people and possibly among minorities, “Noise” has become  seen as a dog whistle word (I note the irony) in some circles.   But as you have explained, it is not.

9 hours ago, westerninterloper said:

Ohio should cautiously brag about its water. We have plenty, but it's plenty polluted. Lake Erie has significant problems, and I wouldn't wade into many creeks or rivers in agricultural areas of Ohio, Indiana or Southern Michigan. 

 

I live right on Lake Erie and it's fine.  In any case, polluted water is easier to clean than sea water is to desalinize.   The worst pollution is suspended not dissolved.

4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

This one reminded me of a comment, perhaps here, where someone who moved to a denser area was disappointed that they still couldn't sit on their porch and watch a lot of people walking by.  It was a classic example of the entitlement of some density advocates.   It's human nature to instinctively think others are like us and share our priorities.   Density advocates seem far more likely to add an "or they should!".  Understandable, I suppose, because they need others to buy in to get the experience they desire.  

 

 

 

This is a symptom of not enough corner stores and other "retail" tenants such as bars and restaurants in a vicinity. Supermarkets constantly closing in favor of larger and larger locations with ever-wider product lines, putting coffee shops, banks, liquor stores, and large prepared food sections within their doors has led to the loss of delis, pharmacies and other specialty retailers in non-super-dense areas that are old, dense but have a tipping point of SFH that keeps the smaller shops away. Columbus is bursting with neighborhoods like this that have too little multifamily to get full walkability under today's business models but did have all of those things under the business models of the past.

@Oldmanladyluck While I will agree to not feeling sorry for folks who sold their $5 million townhomes in Queens because they could get a nicer mansion for half as much in Phoenix or  for large family farms that decided “Why not grow a bunch of Alfalfa in the desert?” the poor will of course be the most impacted. There are lots of people who moved to the southwest because they lost a middle class job east of the Mississippi and were just looking for a way to make a living. It’s pretty easy for me to have sympathy on those people. They’re also the ones who will be hit the hardest if disaster strikes. The well off will be more mobile and informed and can sell their homes before disaster strikes. The poor cannot. 

1 hour ago, LlamaLawyer said:

@Oldmanladyluck While I will agree to not feeling sorry for folks who sold their $5 million townhomes in Queens because they could get a nicer mansion for half as much in Phoenix or  for large family farms that decided “Why not grow a bunch of Alfalfa in the desert?” the poor will of course be the most impacted. There are lots of people who moved to the southwest because they lost a middle class job east of the Mississippi and were just looking for a way to make a living. It’s pretty easy for me to have sympathy on those people. They’re also the ones who will be hit the hardest if disaster strikes. The well off will be more mobile and informed and can sell their homes before disaster strikes. The poor cannot. 

We’re on the same page with that, 100%. 
 

On 3/26/2022 at 8:52 PM, Oldmanladyluck said:

I hope I’m not the only one with the opinion that many of the people who live there, moved there by choice. For those that did, looks like they made the wrong choice to move to the desert and expect water to always be plentiful. I’m not speaking of those who live in poverty or may have mental health issues who live there and may not have a way to leave if the region actually runs dry. It’s always the least of us who suffer the most- and for them, who knows what the larger society or the government will agree to do.  I’m sure there will be those who throw up their hands and say, “Tough luck”…

 

I feel however that the region (and the state) should scream out that we have access to one of the largest sources of fresh water in the world while saying at the same time that our cost of living is low and we’re open for business.

 

If the trends hold true out west and in other parts of the world as well, the Water Belt should not hold back in promoting itself. If you want readily available water, relocate here. But don’t even think about finding a way around the Great Lakes Compact and piping our water to the desert… that could literally be worth going to war over. Moving there was their choice- now they can live with it or move somewhere that has water, like here.

Edited April 16, 20223 yr by Oldmanladyluck

Want Great Lakes' water? You're welcome to move here or to pry it out of our cold, dead hands

1 hour ago, KJP said:

 

This, I think, is the one thing we all agree on in this region and there's not enough money to buy us off.    To the point of monkeywrenching infrastructure if needed.    But even the feds have their hands tied by agreements with Canada.

On 1/5/2022 at 11:48 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

Suburbia, on the other hand, has existed for all of 70 years and is the most isolating possible residential structure.

 

 

Not so much isolating as it allows control of interactions and the ability to step away from them as desired.   While suburbanization aka "sprawl" was a post war cultural perfect storm of sorts, you kid yourself if you don't think this is a positive for a lot of people, perhaps even the majority.   The internet versus in-person meetings is popular for the same reason.

On 2/18/2022 at 9:39 AM, LlamaLawyer said:

Obviously Manhattan-esque or Paris-esque living isn't for everyone, but I'd wager most people would be happier in a dense, single-family / multiplex neighborhood like the ones that made up the backbones of Cleveland and Cincinnati or even the rowhomes of Baltimore, Philadelphia, etc.

 

 

You'd lose that bet for a lot of reasons.   It's true about many people, but I doubt most.   That's why housing patterns are like they are.

While there's a lot of people who prefer density for its own sake, there's also a lot who endured it for other reasons.   When they have options, they opt for a bit of breathing room.   And more control over their interactions.

On 1/6/2022 at 9:31 AM, Gramarye said:

Those natural sounds don't sound as wrong as the noise of a nearby arterial street, with the trash and utility trucks clanging   Similarly on the intrastate level: Young urban liberals that finally reach the age when many people have always moved out to the suburbs to raise families are, well, moving out to the suburbs to raise families.  That doesn't suddenly turn them into stodgy conservatives; they bring their beliefs and values with them.  That hardly makes them "not as scary and [] harder to hate" for the old guard who blames the newcomers for "spoiling how this town used to be" or some such; how do you think NIMBY and anti-development dynamics manifest?

 

The polls today obviously could change a great deal between now and November, of course, but hold onto that "the suburbs are turning blue as they diversify" theory.  You may be eating those words this fall.  The suburbs will be even more diverse in 2022 than they were in 2020 or 2016; whether they are more blue is still very much an open question.

 

People who are moving out to the suburbs aren't moving right just because of that, though some will be influenced by their surroundings that way.    What seems to be moving them right is the raising families part.   They are not moving from left to right they are moving from apolitical to right.   I have a lot of FB friends in the 35-45 age group because of working at the bar and/or from them knowing Holly.  This was not a politically defined group when I met them, but they are increasingly posting conservative stuff.   One of my more politically strident friends is a 40 year old woman, recently married, who I met when she was a 23 year old party girl.   While I know this is anecdotal, I believe its at least somewhat representative.  After all, I've seen this before.  My generation gave the "hippies" a rude awakening.  And as for the youngest cohort, my 11 year old and her cousins all love Trump.

 

18 hours ago, KJP said:

Want Great Lakes' water? You're welcome to move here or to pry it out of our cold, dead hands

Hard for me to see this happening because of the engineering challenge and because there are other closer sources of water. For instance the Mississippi, which has an average discharge 25x the Colorado river. 
 

Also, while I 100% agree with your sentiment, I’m not sure the pipeline would actually be a problem. The great lakes have enough water to supply the Colorado compact states for over a thousand years. And that’s assuming it never rains again. Heck, with the way regional rain trends are with climate change, we may be looking for a way to lower lake levels as chronically high water could be the norm. The great lakes are a tremendous resource in terms of recreation, shipping, etc. but in the long run water security is based on consistent rainfall, which is pretty much a non issue east of the Mississippi. And it’s getting rainier here.

It's understandable that Great Lakes water is treated as sacred. Totally get that. But I'd be curious to know the hypothetical economics of selling "excess" water in an environmentally safe way.

 

For one thing it would save billions in lost property and dreaded erosion-control. 

16 minutes ago, surfohio said:

It's understandable that Great Lakes water is treated as sacred. Totally get that. But I'd be curious to know the hypothetical economics of selling "excess" water in an environmentally safe way.

 

For one thing it would save billions in lost property and dreaded erosion-control. 

Exactly. I am 100% against anything that endangers our water supply. I was viscerally opposed to the pipeline idea the first time I heard it. But I don’t think there would be a real concern based on the numbers. If you skimmed one foot of water off the great lakes, it would fill Lake Powell and Mead 100% and then overflow them by about 20%. And that’s assuming they are starting bone dry.

8 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Exactly. I am 100% against anything that endangers our water supply. I was viscerally opposed to the pipeline idea the first time I heard it. But I don’t think there would be a real concern based on the numbers. If you skimmed one foot of water off the great lakes, it would fill Lake Powell and Mead 100% and then overflow them by about 20%. And that’s assuming they are starting bone dry.

 

That's really an incredible statistic. Reminds me of the "Draining the Oceans" series on YouTube, there's a Great Lakes episode and it's so cool to see the computer models. 

17 minutes ago, LlamaLawyer said:

Exactly. I am 100% against anything that endangers our water supply. I was viscerally opposed to the pipeline idea the first time I heard it. But I don’t think there would be a real concern based on the numbers. If you skimmed one foot of water off the great lakes, it would fill Lake Powell and Mead 100% and then overflow them by about 20%. And that’s assuming they are starting bone dry.

Lake Mead running dry is not enough of a reason to move Great Lakes water to the desert so the desert communities could benefit off of Great Lakes water. Even if it was only a foot taken off of the total. 

 

They made the decision to grow metropolitan areas in the desert. They could choose to move to areas with water when they run out of theirs. Or not. Either way, them not having water is their problem, not ours. I’d be more for a federal intervention moving people out of the desert who don’t have the means to do so on their own (mentally, physically, or financially) than moving water from the Great Lakes to the desert. There is no reason for this region to supplement another, in the desert, to their benefit with a resource which humans should move to.

1 minute ago, Oldmanladyluck said:

There is no reason for this region to supplement another, in the desert, to their benefit with a resource which humans should move to.

 

Aren't you curious how much Ohio and the GL states could make off such a deal? Like, if it could seriously fund education, infrastructure, healthcare services etc. that would be interesting. Though my guess is that with current technology the costs of transporting the water would be insurmountable. 

12 minutes ago, surfohio said:

 

Aren't you curious how much Ohio and the GL states could make off such a deal? Like, if it could seriously fund education, infrastructure, healthcare services etc. that would be interesting. Though my guess is that with current technology the costs of transporting the water would be insurmountable. 

Taking huge amounts of water out of a regional ecosystem can have devastating effects.  In the terms of what is being proposed, the impact may be minimal.  Take enough water out when years are drier than normal for the Great Lakes, it could negatively impact shipping.  Shipping channels may need more frequent dredging and freighters would need to carry lighter loads.  Using the Great Lakes to support the dry areas out west will only spur more growth and development out west to the detriment of the Great Lakes Region.

8 minutes ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Taking huge amounts of water out of a regional ecosystem can have devastating effects.  In the terms of what is being proposed, the impact may be minimal.  Take enough water out when years are drier than normal for the Great Lakes, it could negatively impact shipping.  Shipping channels may need more frequent dredging and freighters would need to carry lighter loads.  Using the Great Lakes to support the dry areas out west will only spur more growth and development out west to the detriment of the Great Lakes Region.

 

This is all true, and yet these are also all things we are already dealing with to some extent. 

I just can’t imagine this pipeline happening. It would be the largest and longest aqueduct in the world by a factor of 3. It would also have to go uphill and through the Rocky mountains. As expensive as desalination is, it’s more practical than a transcontinental water escalator tunnel. 

6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

People who are moving out to the suburbs aren't moving right just because of that, though some will be influenced by their surroundings that way.    What seems to be moving them right is the raising families part.   They are not moving from left to right they are moving from apolitical to right.   I have a lot of FB friends in the 35-45 age group because of working at the bar and/or from them knowing Holly.  This was not a politically defined group when I met them, but they are increasingly posting conservative stuff.   One of my more politically strident friends is a 40 year old woman, recently married, who I met when she was a 23 year old party girl.   While I know this is anecdotal, I believe its at least somewhat representative.  After all, I've seen this before.  My generation gave the "hippies" a rude awakening.  And as for the youngest cohort, my 11 year old and her cousins all love Trump.

 

This is the most suburbia Ohio / parma thing I have ever heard. Holy yikes. Right wingers loveeee calling themselves “moderates” or “apolitical” almostttt as much as they love self segregating their neighborhoods, schools, etc.

Edited April 17, 20223 yr by Clefan14

7 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

People who are moving out to the suburbs aren't moving right just because of that, though some will be influenced by their surroundings that way.    What seems to be moving them right is the raising families part.   They are not moving from left to right they are moving from apolitical to right.   I have a lot of FB friends in the 35-45 age group because of working at the bar and/or from them knowing Holly.  This was not a politically defined group when I met them, but they are increasingly posting conservative stuff.   One of my more politically strident friends is a 40 year old woman, recently married, who I met when she was a 23 year old party girl.   While I know this is anecdotal, I believe its at least somewhat representative.  After all, I've seen this before.  My generation gave the "hippies" a rude awakening.  And as for the youngest cohort, my 11 year old and her cousins all love Trump.

 

 

And my nieces and nephews think he's an idiot that needs to go away yesterday. Thanks for the anecdote though.

My biggest issue with the pipeline idea is that if it could be done, it will likely mean that no meaningful changes will happen to the habits or development patterns in the southwest. Induced demand but for fresh water.

15 hours ago, LifeLongClevelander said:

Taking huge amounts of water out of a regional ecosystem can have devastating effects.  In the terms of what is being proposed, the impact may be minimal.  Take enough water out when years are drier than normal for the Great Lakes, it could negatively impact shipping.  Shipping channels may need more frequent dredging and freighters would need to carry lighter loads.  Using the Great Lakes to support the dry areas out west will only spur more growth and development out west to the detriment of the Great Lakes Region.

 

It also sets a very dangerous precedent.

11 hours ago, Clefan14 said:

This is the most suburbia Ohio / parma thing I have ever heard. Holy yikes. Right wingers loveeee calling themselves “moderates” or “apolitical” almostttt as much as they love self segregating their neighborhoods, schools, etc.

 

And left wingers  love calling moderates or apolitical people "right wingers" or other r words for not buying into their narrative.   Yep, this is a Parma thing, it's why Hillary lost Parma.

1 hour ago, E Rocc said:

 

And left wingers  love calling moderates or apolitical people "right wingers" or other r words for not buying into their narrative.   Yep, this is a Parma thing, it's why Hillary lost Parma.

don’t worry I grew up in parma so I’m veryyyy familiar with the crowd, the confederate flags hanging outside homes, and people claiming it’s about “the economy”. 

1 hour ago, Clefan14 said:

don’t worry I grew up in parma so I’m veryyyy familiar with the crowd, the confederate flags hanging outside homes, and people claiming it’s about “the economy”. 

 

I grew up in Maple Heights so our backgrounds are the same.   How do you plan to gain support there?   I can tell you how not to.....