Vegas heading for 'dry future'

[Eugene]

Last Updated: Friday, 29 July 2005, 10:05 GMT 11:05 UK

Vegas heading for 'dry future'
By Carmen Roberts
BBC News

<snip>

But environmentalists warn water supplies could run dry within the
next 50 years; while urban sprawl is out of control and development
is encroaching on protected areas.

<snip>

Although Nevada has been banking excess water from the Colorado River
in Arizona, environmentalists fear this is a short-term solution.

Jeff van Ee, an environmental activist and a member of the Southern
Nevada Planning Authority, fears that, "in 15-20 years from now, our
current supplies will be overtaxed and we will need to find an
alternate source of water."

The SNWA hopes a $2m 555km pipeline from central Nevada could be the
answer to the future water needs of Las Vegas.

But farmers and residents in rural parts of the state are unwilling
to share the precious resource and it is becoming a battle known as
"craps versus crops".

Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4719473.stm

[Systematic Chaos]

1. Glad I'll be outta here long before that.

This town has NO FUTURE, WHATSOEVER. I'm starting to openly tell that to people now, and most of them look at me like I'm crazy. F**k 'em. :P

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Peak Water is the next Peak Oil

[NickB79]

3. But whatever will we water our golf courses with?

And run our gawdy fountains, and fill our swimming pools with?

God, its like people out there don't realize they live in a friggin DESERT!

[rfkrfk]

4. millionaire farmers are first in line, the poor are last

This story is rubbish.
The problem with Colorado river water is,
the rules were written 100 years ago, here are the rules...

farmers {now, really their heirs} are first in line to get water,
at fixed prices, the gimmick is called 'irrigation districts'.
other entities, including city people, only get water if there
is 'surplus' flow in the river.

of course, farmers don't want you to know this.

would selling water to the highest bidder,
really be that bad?

for city folks, they would hardly notice the difference,
because the city price ic dominated by 'distibution {pipes}'
cost, cost could go up or down.

farmers would face higher costs, as they would have to pay
the same wholesale price as everyone else.

some strawberry farms in the desert, would probably close.

farmers can sell their water to cities, btw.
I call that 'unjust enrichment'.
by doing nothing, millionaire farmers make money.

Why do so many people like the idea of millionaires getting richer
at the expense of others, by doing nothing. I don't get it.

[NNadir]

5. I don't see the difference between desert cities with fountains and farms

in the desert.

Is there some reason that the Mirage Casino, also owned by water subsidized millionaires, is different than farms?

The Colorado River, once a beautiful and vibrant ecosystem of unparalleled beauty has been destroyed to make electricity and to water golf courses and farms for the stocking of salad bars. This is, of course, tragic but we all share the blame. No one is free from the stain, neither the urbanized or the rural.

[rfkrfk]

7. in a sense, both are wasteful

let's face reality, every drop of the Colo. river will be used.

I don't get why people always support the Water Nobility,
at the expense of the newcomer and the poor, who
are applying for a job at some Vegas flophouse,
tha just happens to have a dingy fountain in the front.

This story repeats again and again, worldwide.

Central Asia ... farmers 'need' fresh water to grow cotton,
the people need to drink saltwater from the Caspian.

Israel - Lebanon , farmers in Israel 'need' fresh water to grow
salad-bar crops in a torrid desert, results in ...
a near permanent state of war.

If the water-situation-law was 'restarted', worldwide,
these conflicts would go away. Farmers don't want that.

Given this choice...

water for a sleazy desert resort town
{wasteful,in a sense}

vs

water so that a farmer can grow watermellons in hottest and
dryest place on Earth, {wasteful in a sense}...

people who are otherwise enlightened and progressive always
buy into the 'family farm' fairy tale.

[Viking12]

8. You would find "Rivers of Empire" to be a good read...

Given your line of argument, I believe you'd find Donald Worster's world history of water resources, "Rivers of Empire," to support your position.

[dcfirefighter]

6. This is the key economic observation

that has led to me joining the DP.

If i could change one thing about the world, it would be to imbue it's people with knowledge of the Commons, and of the economic flow from it's use.

Water rights SHOULD be auctioned. The revenue should be used for the public good (even if it were redistributed to everyone in the water district). Such a plan would encourage the economic use of water, and share the commonwealth, while encouraging market-based (apolitical) solutions to water scarcity problems.

Currently, the heirs to rich farmers get to charge others for the gifts of nature. If they were denied the revenue from the resale of hereditary rights, would they cease production of this water? Of course not, they have no hand in it's production; they merely have a title / license granted by the government - very similar to the titles of royalty granted during the feudal era.

A similar situation exists with land values; broadcast licenses; mineral, gas, and oil extraction licenses; and with polluters. If we auctioned the use of all these natural resources, we'd use less. Access and use of these resources would become more equitable: our nation's land, water, air, etc. would be used in a much more sustainable manner. The revenue generated from such auctions could be used to simultaneously eliminate harmful taxes on wages, buildings, and sales while providing generous social services and public investment.

Very importantly, such a revenue stream would encourage public investment, as public improvements would enhance the land values, which would enhance the revenue stream....

Consider this: folks are already paying the farmer/water reseller's prices, auctioning them would merely shift the income from the titleholder to the titlegiver (the public). Same with real estate: folks already pay the previous landowner for the land, auctioning exclusive rights (or more simply, taxing land values), would merely shift the payment from the titleholder to the titlegiver.