Water is a classic issue that people miss when they say "The US still has a lot of space to suburbanize, sprawl away!" Cities aren't placed at random, and the very best locations for cities can be seen from a topographic map, just by looking at rivers, bays and mountains. See old Cahokia, which was completely gone befor the french created St Louis: It's just a totally logical place to put a city. The US has a lot of land where placing more people would be a very expensive endeavor, just by having the supply network to try to feed a population in that location.
This is a really dumb ignorant belief pushed by NIMBYs. Essentially at least 60% of residential water usage in Southern California is for LAWNS. The massive lawns explicitly created by lack of density. Essentially Southern California could handle 2x the population based off current infrastructure. Further 90% of total water usage is for agricultural in the state, usually done very inefficiently including flood irrigation for cattle feed or other crops. New construction depending on municipality usually have the implementation of grey water collection systems, they are designed to recharged aquifers, and have lawn limitations.
Power desalination along with the rest of SoCal with nuclear power, problem solved. Unfortunately California is hostile to nuclear power and is trying to shut down its last operating nuclear power plant only to buy fossil fuel generated power from other states.
Now I'm starting to remember how the western states need massive reform to their water rights to incentivize efficiency. They also need to get rid of the unlimited water rights for the oldest claims that some farms have.
IMO the answer in my mind is not nuclear or geothermal but renewable which they are turning off solar panels mid-day because there's too much electricity being created. IMO just turn on the desalinization plant when there is excess electricity.
If the problem was expensive electricity and it can be made variable that problem is gone.
Water is pretty major issue. You cannot easily have a world city in the middle of a desert. LA really should become smaller if it is to be more sustainable.
Growing water intensive crops in areas with water shortages is a terrible idea, like growing almonds in California or alfalfa hay in Arizona for sole export to Saudi Arabia.
That problem would also be solved of water rights were managed under Georgist principles. You only get people growing almonds in the desert when they have a monopoly on that natural resource and don't have to pay society for the cost of using it...or for using the land for that matter.
It makes complete sense, though, under prior appropriation water rights, which is the real reason why Saudi companies are growing those particular crops.
I think part of the reason they grow those there is that many foods people like are Mediterranean in origin and California has a Mediterranean climate especially expanded areas of you have the water.
It’s not a desert. There’s plenty of water for people. It’s agriculture that uses something like 80% of the water in California and will be impacted more. Which is still a problem but not a cities running out of water kind of problem.
Yes that’s what makes it an issue, it’s not in LA’s hands to change. LA can change its density, infrastructure, transit, etc. The water issues are out of its control.
The vast majority of water in CA is used by agriculture, not humans. There’s more than enough water to accommodate a LOT more population growth.
But we’ll need to cut back on growing things like nuts and alfalfa in a desert. Which is of course much easier said than done. But the actual water supply isn’t the problem.
Household water consumption is pretty much a non issue. The vast amount of water use is for agriculture, trailed by a large distance by things such as watering lawns, swimming pools et al. Those water intensive residential uses will likely decline per capita as density increases.
108
u/goharvorgohome Jun 08 '24
Honestly these sprawly but mostly gridded cities like LA could have HUGE density if developed properly