Post

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

Folks are welcome to try and prove it otherwise, but "free migration within the country" and "barely managed water policy, especially in the light of climate change" are inherently in a kind of conflict.

6 reposts106 likes

Sean
@titaniumman91.bsky.social

Yeah, water use is a real problem but it's mostly forcing the wealthy who have captured the systems to update their water usage to more efficient methods instead of using flood irrigation in a desert because they'll lose water rights otherwise.

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

Water's for fighting, and if someone's got that water now, justly or not, they're likely familiar with fighting for it.

Kevin
@zerocarbonkev.bsky.social

Practically it’s very simple. Just start charging urban water rates to the Alfalfa farms. Politically it’s know that’s harder, but if we ever had a vote of the people I don’t think feeding foreign livestock would be something most voters would support.

Snootacamund
@snootacamund.bsky.social

There’s a river basin in Nevada which grows quite a bit of alfalfa that’s been litigating its water rights close to continuously since 1902 it’s anything but simple absent seizure of property/rights.

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

It doesn't preclude migration, at all, but without some discernment and clarity on the concrete reality of "how much water is available", you are just sowing seeds for future heartache and struggle.

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

and transforming the water management of your jurisdiction is (most likely) a good front to get involved on, but as a question of state/metro policy "turning valuable farm land into residences" is not a switch that flips in a single vote or legislature, but a decades-long battle through hell.

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

100%. Getting farmers to stop is harder than many public policies, but not impossible. And in other cases, water rich places have an obligation to expand and prepare (imho).

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

there's definitely marginal adaptations to make, and the US should do them. But they're marginal adaptations, climate and historic flows drive more on that front. And like, if we overhaul the layout of California to remove 80% of the single homes, we could get there!

tvanl
@tvanl.bsky.social

(And therefore changes in state-level population and free migration don't need us to solve the issues with agricultural water use)

Aidan T 🌐
@buildhomes.bsky.social

Just doesn't seem to be a big deal. People continue to move to the desert and they continue to have water. If they don't, it's likely that the water policy will become managed rather than people dying of thirst.

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

[prior appropriation water snob looking down at the hybrid PA/riparian system of California] "if you call that 'managing'..." *haughty sniff*

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

you people can enjoy your Swamp Law, us in the High Country appreciate the clear and predictable nature of prior use, sirrah!

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

depends on the kind of water, depends on the jurisdiction. CA is more heavily managed than TX, but TX's groundwater usage is renowned for not giving a fuck

Plastic Resurrection
@rsgreacen.bsky.social

😂 California still just beginning to think about maybe possibly regulating the most catastrophic groundwater extraction situations (which are outrageous and dire indeed) while literally everything else is “just write a plan for someday”

Snowden St.
@snowden.st

right, but that’s one of the inherent conflicts i’m talking about. i’d love to transform California’s water usage and swap ag for urban, but that’s not a frictionless choice. It’s the definition of a political/power conflict.

skyroach.bsky.social
@skyroach.bsky.social

Actual water use of residents of Arizona is very small compared to dumbassery like growing cotton in the desert. Stop growing cotton and alfalfa in the desert and the “water shortage” problem solves itself.