« Bringing forth fruit | Main | The callow field »

April 06, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Bravo Rogue! The Voice of Truth.

Anyone with career ambitions and technological skills is insane to move to or remain in Arizona, Land of Kook. Actually anyone with a pulse and options.

Another anecdote about my Grandfather and namesake who died 12 years before I came along. The impression that I got of him was one of a mild, taciturn, somewhat undemonstrative fellow. But kind, attentive when he was around.
When a big storm came in and it rained like hell, he went out and danced in it. It meant forage for his herds. This was 85 years ago or so. How we got from that to Fountain Hills and Tempe Lake is quite the story.
One watches, fascinated to how Californians, all 38 million of them, will respond, especially if it continues to be dry there as it almost certainly will.) An early chapter in a momentous saga is being played out there.
Wonder how "the market" will respond?
I thought that I was paranoid last Fall when there was an initiative to take Portland's water detract out of control of City Council and make it a separate, elective entity. Lately have seen references to water as the "new oil."
It is hoped that the only big pipelines built in the US are headed south to ameliorate a likely catastrophe.
Few such gruesome spectacles since the dust bowl in this part of the world, I'm afraid.

Excellent piece Jon. If course the desert is where U and I began our relationship. Out of control sprawl vs Sahuaros. On the previous post I mentioned great writers of these issues plus your front pages had good stuff on the water issues.
Gotta go now as I'm on my phone and need to get to my favorite Indian store for some Tepary beans and some cactus jam.
PS the Javelinas came by a couple of nights ago on thier way to Queen Creek golf course homes to ravage flowers and other plants. You think those folks would learn what plants those big rats don't like.

You know, I hate to say I told you so, but soleri and I yelled "drought" a minimum of a decade ago.

I'm glad the rest of yous' folks finally noticed.

The drought in northern AZ has been going on for NINETEEN years.

Humans have the attention span of a gnat.

Hi cal. How's it hanging?

Ruben,
I've been writing about this for 15 years...

Made me lots of friends in my old job.

I didn't want to flaunt it, soleri and I noticed it 16 years ago.

Smile

Sixteen years ago, I was writing for the Charlotte Observer. Then I accepted the offer to be a columnist for the Republic, having no idea how Phoenix was doing. I had been gone for 22 years. Having seen progress in San Diego, Denver, Cincinnati and Charlotte, I had no idea what an outlier Phoenix was. Sorry I didn't read your column, Ruben. I might have gone to the NY Times.

( : - )

Well kids I been pushing the Great Sonoran desert (what's left of it) for at least 25 years. I'll look back at some old stuff to see if it's not 50 years.
Ruben it's hanging left.
So before I drop we should probably rescue Petro and drink coffee, soon. We should invite Jerry and Ramjet and anyone else that wants to join us. Maybe we can get Dwagzy to come for a caffeine rock rolling lift.

I look forward to the coffee. I just had more back surgery last week. I'll let you know when I'm mobile again.

Dagzwy I meant

Interestingly, a new map from Yale unveils that most Americans believe climate change is occurring. 64% of Arizonans believe this to be true. The state with the least residents in agreement is West Virginia with only 54%. However, when asked if they believe it is mostly attributed to human activity, the contrast is much starker. Urban areas in Arizona stand apart while the suburbs and rural areas lean away from anthropogenic causes. This holds true for many states in the U.S.

Broken down by Congressional District, the districts that encompass Phoenix, Tempe, and Tucson (Districts 3, 7, 9) most closely resemble districts encompassing Seattle, Los Angeles, and San Francisco especially in terms of understanding anthropogenic climate change.

What threw me was how polarized Washington state and Oregon are in this regard. Those states fair worse than Arizona in this instance (concerning anthropogenic climate change). Only Seattle and districts north of the city and those surrounding Portland hold anthropogenic climate change as mostly to blame.

http://environment.yale.edu/poe/v2014

The link below is where I found the Yale map. Note that Arizona comes out slightly higher than the national average in terms of the percentage of residents that agree climate change is real.

https://news.vice.com/article/believe-or-deny-climate-change-that-depends-on-where-you-live?utm_source=vicenewsfb

Water in Arizona suffers from the pricing issue of not paying for new development.

That is the short term real estate hustle.

On the other hand, development has mostly pancaked and is barely recovering in most of Arizona.

The really funny part is there is plenty of water available to deal with our drought and colorado river shortage, unlike California.

I agree that there are problems in Benson, Flagstaff, and the entire Navajo reservation, and the Hopi. The problem is related to overuse of water in areas for things that are ultimately not going to be long term productive.

The drought up on the Rim is about the same, and it will eventually force limits to growth up there.

I would guess that we can comfortably live with about 8 million people in the phoenix, pinal, tucson corridor, but with very little cushion.

Look to Las Vegas to see the end of the growth function as water shortages finally do in the real estate hustle.

Water becoming a commodity of the corporations and wealthy will spell the end of Capitalism. The inherit cruelty of the "free market" will be revealed to all. The Bolivians were smart enough to kick Bechtel out and nationalize water, will we?

The silver lining is that Arizona has been preparing for this for more than 40 years. One of the most surprising things I found while working in Sacramento for three years is that most Northern California residences and farms don't have water meters. The concept of water shortages was completely foreign to most Californians until recently and if considered they likely expected they could steal water rights from other states. Luckily Arizona has been preparing and our representatives have been aggressive in defending our state's water rights. Even the developers that you dislike understand that they have to secure water rights before building can occur.

Re: “California, facing its worst drought in modern times…” Yep, but not unprecedented. Epic drought in the early 60’s. But this would be the 1860’s. The event ruined most of the fabulously wealthy Spanish land-grant ranch owners. Today’s Irvine Ranch in Orange County Cali is a remnant of the ranches. Fell into Mr. Irvine’s hand when hereditary owners went bust.

Ref:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_San_Joaquin

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irvine_Ranch

Re: “a few "technopolises" such as Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego, Boston and New York.”

Why these places are the way they are is almost accidental – it was certainly nothing planned.

Silicon Valley can trace its roots to two men: William Shockley and Bob Noyce. Shockley, the inventor of the junction transistor. He was working for Bell Labs in New New Jersey when he did this. Why did he move to Silicon Valley? Per Wiki:
“In 1956 Shockley moved from New Jersey to Mountain View, California to start Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory to live closer to his ailing mother in Palo Alto, California.[30][31] The company, a division of Beckman Instruments, Inc., was the first establishment working on silicon semiconductor devices in what came to be known as Silicon Valley.”

Noyce moved there to work for Shockley. He’s probably most responsible for the culture that made Silicon Valley the place it is today.
Ref:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noyce,_Robert_Norton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley_Eight

Then we come to Seattle and Microsoft. MS was founded in Albuquerque – to develop software for MITS’s Altair 8800 microcomputer. The founders were Bill Gates and Paul Allen. Later they moved the company to Seattle (or technically Belleview). Why? Well that’s where Gates was born and raised. Allen was going to U Dub before joining Gates. Did Seattle know what they were getting at the time? I doubt it.

NPR did a great series not too long ago called something like "the high price of cheap water"- maybe it's still available online.

Bottom line- you allow a commodity (any commodity) to be completely mispriced because it's for the "common good", you're going to have problems.

The problem in the west is scarcity but the problem in the midwest and east is infrastructure. And some limited scarcity because of the infrastructure problems.

No sweat, though. Emil has let us know that government deficits really don't matter, so a couple of hundred billion or so to fix the water problems in this country won't really effect us.

Detroit, and now Baltimore are turning off water to homeowners for unpaid bills, while corporate clients owing millions of dollars either get off or are subjected to minor slaps on the wrist. Meanwhile in CA. water restrictions fall on homeowners while corporate farms are pumping up groundwater willy nilly. Anybody see a trend here?

Bran Hubert, "Silver Lining". I agree with you that Phoenix has been in the fore front of sewing up water rights and has being doing such for a 110 years. But for me that's not a silver lining but a huge mistake. A mistake that Roosevelt and others failed to understand or calculate. But that was understandable given the knowledge and the desire to "Tame the Desert"

I do not dislike developers, I dislike development of the SW. I have lived in 36 places in my life time, from a tent to the big house on the Mountain.The biggest housing mistake I made was building a large home on the side of South Mountain. The best decision I made was moving into a 320 square foot home on wheels.

Regarding "securing water rights" in my opinion that has been largely violated due to a strong effort by our recent legislatures that are against rules that limit ones right to do what one pleases. Like why should I be required to have a drivers license. Why do I need a permit to gouge gravel out of river beds. ADEQ has in my opinion been pretty toothless and there are good examples of some developers not caring about the rules or the the common good of all people. And the mines have destroyed natural water sources in many areas. Patagonia's water in the river bed is now only confluence.

INPHX can you be a little more specific about water pricing and what you mean by the "common good". Are you a fan of water is the next gold rush and if you cannot pay you don't drink? What about breathing.

If you are into Mega cities and living like a monk in a cloistered environment over ran by sewer rats, there are such places.

And are you ready for 130 degree summer days.
http://www.thenation.com/article/164970/greatest-water-crisis-history-civilization#

"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders.
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
Our 'neoconservatives' are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell." ED Abbey

cal:

All Water users should pay a rate based on what the water costs. That should include reserves for infrastructure repair and all other forseeable costs. The price should make everyone should stop and think efore they turn the faucet on.

It's easy for governments to provide water at a pretend cost. But by definition, if the water is underpriced, it's going to be overused.

Depending on where you pick your data, most of the water used in California is used for agriculture and cattle farming. So, for years, consumers have enjoyed pricing advantages on those items (and perhaps farmers and landowners have enjoyed extraordinary profits).

Now, it might be the case that there would be increased costs with increased usage to help the poor. And I'd be fine with that.

But somewhere, someplace, someone's got to pay the freight as the water is used- or we wind up right here where we are.

thanks INPHX

No reservoirs built in California since the '70s!
Population in California has doubled since the '70s!

* There's more than one kind of real-estate hustle. Residential migration into a revitalized downtown and city-center tends to be led by young urban professionals, often childless, who don't need yards and who like the idea of clean light rail and short commutes.

So what kind of housing gets built near light rail transit routes and stations in these areas? Affordable working-class apartments? No, pricey condominiums and upscale rental apartments. Restaurants, grocery stores, bars and other retail and service providers likewise market to capture this lucrative, ready to reap upscale residential population.

Ironically, working-class households get priced out by rising property values and rents, as well as boutique retailers, and end up banished to the suburbs, where families can still find cheap(er) housing and Food City supermarkets. A downtown homeless population is not evidence of healthy class mixing.

* The difference between dense urban vitality and crowding is subjective. Rogue has described Seattle in terms of the former and on at least one occasion characterized Portland in terms of the latter. De gustibus.

* Yesterday's sprawl is today's urban integration, because growth fills in the gaps between urban and suburban areas. Willo neighborhood used to be a townee suburb. Now it's imbedded in an undeniably urban, if decaying matrix. Congratulations! Try to think of the human feces on your front lawn as organic fertilizer.

* Let's imagine that we could wave a magic wand and move the population of the City of Phoenix into a dense, mixed-use commercial/residential area centered on a fabulous, vibrant downtown and covering 1/10 of the city's current geographic area. The population lives in high-rise apartments and condos. What does this imply for the urban heat island, energy conservation and water use?

To begin with, the abandoned 9/10 of the city is still covered with asphalt and concrete. No diminution of the urban heat island effect there. Without irrigation and sprinklers, all of the grass and most of the shrubs and trees in the "old city" die pretty quick.

That massively increases the heat island effect, with the "new city" stuck in the middle like bread in an oven. Even aggressively tree-planted boulevards in the New City can't begin to compensate.

Then there's the high-rises. They're impressively energy efficient, but that means locking in the heat in the summer. How much heat could there be inside a sunbaked modern high-rise surrounded by hundreds of square miles of dead asphalt and concrete in the Old City?

A whole lot more than this suggests, because as anyone who has ever been stuck in a sweltering crowded room knows, the human body generates heat. Multiply that by the number of bodies in a densely populated high-rise, surrounded by numerous other densely-populated high-rises, with no lawns and a few trees on the boulevards, surrounded by the heat-soaked Old City, and combine this with energy efficient (read: sealed) residential structures, perhaps without openable windows, and you've got one hell of an AC bill. Two wishes left on your monkey's paw.

* The ultimate driver of water use is population. If they don't live in one municipality they live somewhere else, so this has to be viewed systemically.

If the population increases because of birth and/or immigration, then total water usage will tend to increase even if per capita water usage decreases because of improved efficiencies. This is what the City of Phoenix has seen, historically.

On the other hand, if the population doesn't increase, then "sprawl" is less relevant.

* CNN claims that California almond crops (very lucrative) require close to 1,500 gallons of water to grow one pound of almonds. A pound of beef isn't far behind and a pound of walnuts comes close to the 1,000 gallon mark.

These sorts of factoids are open to debate. What isn't is that agriculture takes a huge share of state water in southwestern states where agriculture has a significant presence. According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, agriculture and ranching use 68 percent of the state's available water supply.

http://www.azwater.gov/AzDWR/StatewidePlanning/Conservation2/Agriculture/

We can debate all day whether agriculture is the noble virtue propounded by D.H. Lawrence, or the province of a handful of corporatized federally subsidized mega-farms, or something more diverse and complex than either of these.

What seems to me beyond debate is that agriculture is best left to states and regions where precipitation is abundant. Yes, transportation costs add to food prices, but the massive water-suck of Big Ag in increasingly drought stricken southwestern states comes with a cost, too. Shipping by train might not be so bad.

In Arizona, a large number of state legislature kooks are also ranchers who are addicted to artificially restricted and subsidized "agricultural" water prices for their private profits. Cows eat a lot of grain and a lot of grain takes a lot of water.

Politicians whose wealthy lifestyle depends on underpriced public resources insulated from market forces by legal privileges created when the state economy depended primarily on agricultural surpluses, should stop trying to kick the crutches out from under poor households receiving twenty dollars a month in food stamps.

These days it isn't so much about rugged individualism as it is a plantation lifestyle by a few white guys employing a few more white guys to supervise a whole lot of underpaid Mexicans.

Someone should slip a rider into the next agricultural bill, proposing to change the state motto to "Don't be an AZ-whore." It would never pass but it could get the attention of the media and start a discussion, if promoted properly.

VERY GOOD EMIL

phxSUNSfan wrote:

"Interestingly, a new map from Yale unveils that most Americans believe climate change is occurring. 64% of Arizonans believe this to be true. The state with the least residents in agreement is West Virginia with only 54%. However, when asked if they believe it is mostly attributed to human activity, the contrast is much starker. Urban areas in Arizona stand apart while the suburbs and rural areas lean away from anthropogenic causes. This holds true for many states in the U.S."

I don't see how Arizonans or Americans at large can be asked to believe more than the consensus scientific position supports.

The oft-cited statistic that 97 percent of scientists accept that global warming is the result of human activity is based on a 2009 survey by the University of Illinois which found that 97 percent of scientists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise" and who "published on the subject of climate science" answered "yes" to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature?"

Note how conservative that survey question actually is. The term "significant contributing factor" is pretty flexible. Restricting the phenomena of climate change to "changing mean global temperature" leaves out a whole lot. No wonder nearly everyone signed-on.

I'd like to see the results of a survey of the same specialist, professionally active scientific community, asking whether they attribute climate change "mostly to human activity". I don't think the results would be nearly as one-sided.

The survey criteria are important. I don't care what non-specialist scientists (e.g., chemists, dentists) think is behind climate change. They get their information from the same popular media sources as the rest of us.

Scientists (by which I mean members of the "hard" sciences) are philosophically conservative by training, especially when it comes to expressing opinions about grand, new theories about subjects as complex and poorly understood as global climate; theories that are empirically untested because they make predictions about phenomena which are only statistically significant over longer periods of time than current observational data provide.

When publishing in professional journals, they tend to hedge their bets and assert only what they can prove to the satisfaction of prevailing standards.

The stuff you read in the newspaper, by contrast, is less reserved.

This is illustrated by an obituary of Professor Stephen Schneider:

"The founder and editor of the journal Climate Science, Schneider advised every American president from Nixon to Obama and was a leading member of the UN panel on climate change that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore in 2007. He wrote books and more than 400 articles and was in the forefront in demanding international action to prevent catastrophic global warming."

The obituary notes a controversy raised by his 1988 interview with Discover Magazine, in which he describe this dynamic (which, it should be noted, Professor Schneider was *criticizing*):

"...to get some broad-base support, to capture the public's imagination...entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention about any doubts we might have."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/science-obituaries/7903299/Professor-Stephen-Schneider.html

"Make little mention about any doubts we might have." It's worth quoting again.

I like the sound of "no reservoirs"
No Glenn Cayon or Hoover dams..
I find it interesting that the current Nevada water boss has a similar name to the early developing LA water boss.
I agree with the comment by Concern Troll that Nevada is in trouble. It was a nice place until the likes of Bugsy Siegel and Clive Bundy showed up.

Soleri, come back.

Soleri,

Life is too short. Don't come back.

You have escaped the nightmare that Phoenix has become. Peace of mind in Portland is what counts. Don't aggravate yourself by looking back. Let go. Live life. Phoenix is a dying bird. Your intellect is wasted on the Land of Kook.

Thank you for all of your past contributions.

You do have a point jmav.
But there is some sanity in the sterility of the sands.
Will the Javelina come to night?
A professor I know recently had his first sighting of a Jaguar near a large Canyon near Rio Rico.

Phoenix, a dying bird? Maybe. It's most certainly a strange bird at the moment. When I was out this weekend, hitting up the galleries on first friday, I heard an interesting lament: its the END of Roosevelt! Cultural Genocide! and finally: Roosevelt is getting gentrified! Water woes were not a concern- condos/apartments were being built on 3rd and 1st! ( and a new apartment complex on grand ave-made of shipping containers-of which 130 were already reserved) So, progress? or something else? I share Emil's concern: there isn't near enough affordable housing near the light rail. The only complex I know of is Divine Legacy on Central, its only 65 units. So, yes more is needed. And the heat island effect is a doozy, but check this out-perhaps not hopeless? http://www.statepress.com/article/2014/10/phoenix-takes-successful-steps-to-lower-city-temperatures/
I say strange about all this- because I witnessed something bizarre: a bunch of hip, urban 20-30ish people wanting to freeze downtown in its tracks. The sentiment I heard the most is- not wanting "the nature" of Roosevelt/Grand Ave to change. Robrt Pela has some interesting thoughts: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/jackalope/2015/02/roosevelt_row_gentrification_art_district.php
Weird weekend, I'm sure the strange will continue.

"Self-Righteousness" most self-assuredly opines:

All Water users should pay a rate based on what the water costs. That should include reserves for infrastructure repair and all other forseeable costs.

The same argument is made for taxing carbon emissions. But I suspect that "Self-Righteousness" won't accept "forseeable costs" in the carbon context.

That's interesting because "Self-Righteousness" apparently accepts the implications of a looming SW drought, while assuredly denying the Global Warming theory behind it.

Of course "Self-Righteousness" wouldn't be "Self-Righteousness", if "Self-Righteousness" couldn't have it both ways whenever it pleases "Self-Righteousness" to have it both ways. Most assuredly....

Reservoirs? Science suggests that Glenn Canyon Dam silt build up will turn it into a waterfall.
Some other current thought is due to dwindling water flow and the resultant half full lakes Mead and Powell, that removing Glenn Canyon Dam would be a good move.

Oasis? And the "Valley of the Sun" a place streching from the Superstions, Westward past the Estrellas and identified by what is known as the Salt river was an Oasis
for hundreds of years until around 1 AD. Then agriculture developed in a large way by the Hohokom"s changed that
Oasis. About 1400 the larger elements of that culture collapsed and the few remaining humans along the Salt
once again lived along an Oasis until about 1900 when the
" Engineers" showed up with plans for Daming nature's
work and natural beauty. By 1960 the remains of "The
Oasis" was rapidly disappearing. John and I will not see
that Oasis return but it will. The ethnicity that Jon seeks is
gone. It's the old statement that is a question. You cannot go home, again. Some, like Wendell Barry would say you can but I doubt that is true of the Phoenix Jon grew up in. Today I read and watch the birds as the wind whistles by the Sahuaros.

Hey- detector:

It's OK. You can let us know who you are. Cowardice is not a good trait, even on the internet.

You suspect that I won't accept forseeable costs in the carbon context.

You suspect wrong.

This is the fundamental problem with the US economy. There are hidden and explicit subsidies EVERYWHERE that result in price distortions.

If a gallon of gas has costs not reflected in its price, then it will be overused. Users will "free ride" on the rest of us.

Water's a great example. Unfunded medical and retirement benefits are another. So was the Iraq war.

See, it's easy to keep the cost of water artificially low. Or to promise benefits without funding for them. Or to go to war without paying for it.

And here we are.......


@detector Re: “implications of a looming SW drought, while assuredly denying the Global Warming theory behind it.“ Well INPHX passed on the issue. I won’t. I don’t see any significant linkage between the warming theory and the drought.

BTW: Even I’m willing to accept Global Warming. It’s been 1-2 degrees F over my lifetime; and I’m an old guy.
In Phoenix, there’s been a lot more warming. This has nothing (or very little anyway) to do with CO2.

Reader “D” above referenced this link
http://www.statepress.com/article/2014/10/phoenix-takes-successful-steps-to-lower-city-temperatures/

Good article and recommend to all.

"The Center for Integrated Solutions to Climate Challenges at ASU released a report in July about the effectiveness of strategies to lower the urban heat island effect. The report showed that Phoenix's use of urban forestry and cool roofs have helped reduce temperatures in the area."

Not only that, any effort to mitigate heat in a dense area is one that provides benefits on an exponentially. More people in an acre of dense urban planning benefit from mitigation compared to those strategies employed in an acre of suburbia.

Similarly, the real culprit of the urban heat island is concrete and asphalt. New building materials used for mid-rise and highrise buildings can actually dissipate heat efficiently and quickly in relative terms.

As for air conditioning large structures and possible consequences in the future, many of downtown Phoenix's largest structures a 4-mile system of chilled water. This is a highly efficient way to cool large structures and highrises. Graywater is frozen underground via solar powered chillers with two auxiliary plants for uninterrupted service. As it melts the chilled water is dispersed around downtown to cool buildings like "Sheraton Hotel, CityScape, the City of Phoenix, Chase Field, US Airways Center, Phoenix Convention Center, Arizona State University, Maricopa County, several biomedical research facilities and high-rise condominiums and office complexes."
http://www.nrg.com/business/large-business/distributed-generation/district-heating-cooling/phoenix/

"The Center for Integrated Solutions to Climate Challenges at ASU released a report in July about the effectiveness of strategies to lower the urban heat island effect. The report showed that Phoenix's use of urban forestry and cool roofs have helped reduce temperatures in the area."

Not only that, but any effort to mitigate heat in a dense area is one that provides benefits exponentially. More people in an acre of dense urban area benefit from mitigation compared to those strategies employed in an acre of suburbia.

Similarly, the real culprit of the urban heat island is concrete and asphalt. New building materials used for mid-rise and highrise buildings can actually dissipate heat efficiently and quickly in relative terms.

As for air conditioning large structures and possible consequences in the future, many of downtown Phoenix's largest structures utilize a 4-mile system of chilled water. This is a highly efficient way to cool large structures and highrises. Graywater is frozen underground via solar powered chillers with two auxiliary plants for uninterrupted service. As it melts the chilled water is dispersed around downtown to cool buildings like the "Sheraton Hotel, CityScape, the City of Phoenix, Chase Field, US Airways Center, Phoenix Convention Center, Arizona State University, Maricopa County, several biomedical research facilities and high-rise condominiums and office complexes."
http://www.nrg.com/business/large-business/distributed-generation/district-heating-cooling/phoenix/

I apologize for the double-posting. The first post contains grammatical errors and was submitted unintentionally.

Ah yes with the "comfort" Engineers again.
The folks that brought us One Giant Step for Manunkind and have us racing to the bottom.

Cal, it is much better than nothing. Despite your dislike for people, we have to live together and find ways to fix our problems. I don't think an environmental disaster will displace enough people from the desert in your lifetime to satisfy your need for more saguaros. ;-)

I like some people just not elbow to elbow crowds. On occasion I have to ask folks to not stand so close as I like a 3 foot empty circle around me. and i never go to Costco on Saturday. I rolled out of too big for me anymore Phoenix a couple of years ago into the deserts edge. I do wander into town more than i care too. I have been to NY City twice. See no need to endure the crowds there again.

SO How about you engineer and cram everyone in Arizona into the boundaries of North to South Mountains
and 27th Avenue to 64 street and make the rest of Arizona
a Wilderness. Then we can, as James Baldwin said wait
for the "Fire Next Time."
I'll keep wandering the scary desert maybe get chased by a Tortises or have to wipe the blood off my shoe spat there from the eyes of a horn toad.

PS PHXSUNFAN Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing. "Progress" in many ways is a destructive cancer.

@Cal Re NYC (or Phoenix for that matter): No desire to go to either. Either don’t care to go to Atlanta either – but have to on occasion. Cities of 1.0 to 1.5 million seem to be the sweet spot. Big enough to have a little culture and a “real” economy; but not so big to be oppressive.

WKGINBHAM Suggest you walk across america.
For me in 95 and 96 it was a great 5 month journey, restoring parts of my burnt cop brain. Got to DC (Prefer over NY City) on Earth Day after taking a 20 mile ride from two aging hippies in a VW van.

@Cal: Sorry. DC biggest no class city in the country.

Doing nothing in this instance would mean using conventional methods of air conditioning and ignoring the urban heat island ... that is not the best option.

For some of us "enduring" the bustle and crowds of an NYC, London, or Paris isn't an exercise in futility. It is remarkable and exhilarating. I definitely understand that not everyone shares that worldview; nonetheless, it is not an endurance test for many of us.

We are talking about water, but INPHX makes an interesting point, probably for another thread. Are any of the most consumed items not subsidized? Are there still subsidies for NOT growing some farm products. The price that I wonder about is that of auto gasoline. what is its "true cost" given a foreign and military policy among others, sweetheart deals to refiners who use our infrastructure, etc., getting a pass on environmental damage that Dawgzy, et al pay to fix.I used to think that it was something like what it is in France, but wonder if in fact it isn't much higher, "really."
INPHX, what if the "price" of water gets prohibitively expensive for some poor folk? A bit far fetched. I like living in a country where some things are guaranteed.

WKG, , class? I got no class and hang out on the street when in towns. Last time I was in NY I got caught up in a protest in Greenwich Village over the noose hanging from a tree in one of the Southern School yards.

PHXsunfan, I am aware of the energy of crowds and bustling cities. But for me its a negative not a positive. Particularly the noise insanity that exists. The greatest noise I have ever heard is the Wilderness Roar of Silence. The wind in the trees and the birds in the bush enthrall me not the screaming of sirens and honking of horns.

And so much for democracy.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_america_became_an_oligarchy_20150408

Dawgzy, just for you.

From a friend

I believe that basic income will be absolutely necessary in the future through more industrialization, even in developed nations such as the United state. Regardless there are plenty of beneficial reasons to start implementing them to help stabilize the modern economy, and society. This success story in India is a good example for other countries to look at,

https://www.opendemocracy.net/openindia/stuart-weir/basic-income-transforming-lives-in-rural-india

I also like this "Water Room Analogy" argument for basic income,

http://www.scottsantens.com/the-water-room-analogy-why-giving-basic-income-to-even-the-richest-makes-sense

The analogy of water is nice, because it mimics the idea of "staying afloat", and points out that many people simply do not have the resources to even know "how" to be productive at staying afloat. Also once we are all able to stay afloat it still allows for a perfectly capitalistic society or any society to be built on top of it, and will allow more people to flourish which can only benefit society. It also show how much simpler, and "cheaper" the process can be.

Many "middle class" people fear that they will have to pay their hard earned money to support free loaders, and thugs which the India article does a nice job of describing as unfair, and prejudice. Also basic facts about wealth inequality in the United States show this idea is invalid anyways, because

the "richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent". The gap between the top 10% and the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1000% for the top 1%.
- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

I forgot to mention I lived in Phoenix 64 years ago without A/C or evaporative coolers. It was just wet sheets and sometimes a breeze. But then it used to freeze in downtown Phoenix in the winter.

Dawg:

Graduated rates, even though that is completely contrary to the idea of volume pricing. The first "x" gallons are cheap but then as the use rises, so does the unit cost.

Perhaps EXTREMELY graduated.

Wanna put a golf course in the desert? Water's going to be expensive.....

I really don't know the exact numbers, but I'd wager that an extra quarter per gallon over the last 10 years in California could solve a lot of problems.

I think the problem in countries like France is that they just slap taxes on gas without any regard to actual costs.

@Cal Re Walk USA: What did you carry with you on way? Anything besides a credit card and a stick? Maybe a camera and a pen?

Two cameras, tape recorder and a credit card.
One tent and sleeping Bag.
Two pairs of Socks.
No stick.

At All Re Saguaros: Didn’t know what they were. Went to Wiki to find out. Wow – channeling my inner John Wayne!

Do nurseries sell them? Seem to recall reading years ago about people steeling them from the wilderness for their yards and gardens.

Referred to site “Desert Botanical Gardens“.

http://www.dbg.org

Cool! Looks like it would be possible to have a “Wilderness” in Phoenix that is not a water hog.

Desert Botanical Garden good place for seeing cacti, walking exercise and lunch.

Working on an idea that goes something like this:

1. City buys 10 lowest cost houses on the market every month.
2.Contract to remove every vestige of house. Cost = free but demolition team keeps any salvageable materials.
3.Set up “farmer’s market” for recycled building materials.
4.Lease cleared lot for cost = taxes that house used to pay
5.Low cost water allocation = to what house used to use
6.Lease provision = must use for “agriculture” (and you don’t know how painful that was to write).
7.Set up 7-day-a-week farmers market for lease holders.

Hopefully, this kick-starts an agricultural eco-system (as in economic).

Also: removes blighted properties. Makes remaining properties more valuable.

@Emil: Thanks for the new word.

Per Wiki: De gustibus non est disputandum is a Latin maxim meaning "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" (literally "about tastes, it must not be disputed/discussed").[1][2] The implication is that everyone's personal preferences are merely subjective opinions that cannot be right or wrong, so they should never be argued about as if they were. Sometimes the phrase is expanded as De gustibus et coloribus... referring to tastes and colors. The phrase is most commonly rendered in English as "There is no accounting for taste" (or "There is no accounting for tastes").

cal, there are some amazing saguaros out in the Sierra Anchas. Saw some beauties last weekend.

Jerry, U talk to Ed while you were there?

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/04/how-growers-are-gaming-california.html

Not quite Emil, but good. Trigger alert: progressive bias.

Similar coverage of situation in Grand Canyon state?

I'm such a lib-tard. Capital "L" at end of link above is culprit. Abject apologies.

And on the Saguaro: http://www.snopes.com/horrors/graphics/saguarohead.jpg

INPHX wrote:

"This is the fundamental problem with the US economy. There are hidden and explicit subsidies EVERYWHERE that result in price distortions."

Thinking about this, it occurred to me to ask how much each individual receives in subsidies over a lifetime. Of course, this varies from individual to individual, but we could consider the average taken over a population.

Because subsidies accumulate over a lifetime, and lifetimes are traceable to births, it occurred to me that birth itself is the genesis of all hidden subsidies.

For this reason, I propose that the discounted future value of the average lifetime subsidy be incorporated in a birth tax; or for those who don't like tax increases, a one-time fee.

Those who die at an actuarially early age would be credited with a prorated refund, held in perpetuity by the State and claimable at the Last Trump (subject to vertical analysis of the break-even point adjusted for other indirect costs).

Yeah, I'm joking.

* * *

Rogue Columnist wrote:

"Soleri, come back."

Chillax, homey. " 'Cause everywhere gonna be nowhere."

phxSUNSfan wrote:

"New building materials used for mid-rise and highrise buildings can actually dissipate heat efficiently and quickly in relative terms."

Modern high-rise energy costs are still enormous, not only for AC but also for plumbing, because everything has to be pumped up to the top by stages.

An enormous, up front investment in engineering, materials, and operating costs has to be recouped, with profits which are competitive with other investments, over a time-frame acceptable to creditors financing the project and to other investors.

For these reasons, high-rise rents (whether office or residential) are high (sky high?) compared to ordinary structures.

phxSUNSfan wrote:

"As for air conditioning large structures and possible consequences in the future, many of downtown Phoenix's largest structures utilize a 4-mile system of chilled water. This is a highly efficient way to cool large structures and highrises."

I checked out your link. While interesting, it says nothing about what percentage of the cooling bills of these buildings is covered by the chilled water system. It only says that "NRG Phoenix has demonstrated customer energy savings of approximately 13% after their connection to the downtown system".

The website's own link to information about their chilled water system at ASU has this to say:

"The Sun Devil Energy Center in Tempe supplies approximately 15 percent of ASU Tempe's total electrical needs. It distributes steam, hot water and cold water that is used for air conditioning and heating throughout the campus. The chilled-water plant helps air condition and supply water to five buildings at ASU Polytechnic."

http://www.nrg.com/business/large-business/distributed-generation/combined-heat-power/arizona-state-university/

This suggests to me that the cooled water system may be of marginal rather than primary utility in the air conditioning of large buildings, particularly the downtown high-rises. I'm certainly interested in more specific information about this, if you can find it.

It also isn't clear to me to what extent these systems rely on federal, state, or local subsidies for funding, and therefore how cost efficient they actually are.

Regarding climate change, I came across the following weather prediction for Europe:

"It is likely that in a warmer climate heavy rainfall will increase and be produced by fewer (but) more intense events. This could lead to longer dry spells and a higher risk of floods."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/15/climate-change-rainfall

This brought to mind something very similar. Several types of climate change occurred during the Middle Ages, including a warming period, an unstable transition period, and a cooling period known (rather misleadingly) as the "Little Ice Age" which started in 1350 and extended to about 1850.

About that transition period, here's some informative text taken from "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Middle Ages". I've taken liberties by cobbling it together and changing the order of text:

"The warmest centuries of the Middle Ages compare to that of the twentieth century, while the coldest compare to the years of the early nineteenth century.

"Signs of the change to come were evident...weather patterns became increasingly unpredictable. Very good years of weather were followed by very bad ones. (During the bad years) heavy rains would rot crops, seedbeds were washed away, fields were submerged, grain rotted, dikes were broken, meadows grew wild because they were too wet to cut, and quarries flooded.

"Also varying weather conditions might freeze or destroy vineyards and fields of grain for a few seasons. Good land was becoming hard to find. Marginal land that required more work to produce became impossible to work. Crop production began to drop. Everywhere food was in short supply."

Note that the book is not a climate change denial book at all, merely a historical overview of the Middle Ages.

Nevertheless, it seems to me clear that significant climate change, including warming, unpredictable and extreme weather, can occur for natural causes over decades and centuries, without an increase in artificially produced CO2. The causes for these natural climate changes are unknown and subject to speculation and debate.

Just something to temper the discussion, not a blanket assertion one way or the other.

Weather changes by Emil.
Agriculture is a risky business.
Gotta keep moving.
Picking them berries and eating them roots.

Depending on your background and age or the age of your family members, many of us have seen "climate change" albeit not of the man-made global-warming variety ... but due to the natural cycles of weather.

For example, the few decades' trend of unusually heavy rains in the western Plains states that led to settlement, agriculture, and the Dust Bowl subsequent to that when the rains cycled from unusually heavy to unusually sparse.

People just had no idea back then that those rains weren't typical and weren't going to last long term just because they'd been that way for X years of their settlement.

Highly, highly recommend the book "The Worst Hard Time" by Timothy Egan and also the PBS series on the Dust Bowl. Great education and warning for all people.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

Your email address:


Powered by FeedBlitz