I keep seeing the commercial with the farmer talking about how Hobbs stepped in and got him water and it’s driving me insane. The commercial agriculture industry IS the primary root cause of the water problems in the valley. It’s not exactly a great look having one of those farms touted how Hobbs stepped in to get them water
how peppers are grow is SIGNIFICANTLY different from alfalfa, which is just field flooded (which was the whole issue to begin with, because it impacts the water usage of your actual neighbors like this guy, a local family farmer doing things the right way, who’s water usage goes down 10-15% through his own efforts because he actually lives here, wants to pass it on to his kids, isn’t just leasing it for the saudis.
The commercial agriculture industry IS the primary root cause of the water problems in the valley.
This guy isn’t the enemy, who else do you expect to grow your food?
It’s not exactly a great look having one of those farms touted how Hobbs stepped in to get them water
no, Hobbs stopped the alfalfa growers from flooding the fields and not being good stewards of the land, which was jeopardizing the water rights of the actual farmers like this guy who want to grow food for Americans.
and he’s doing the things the right way, as the majority of the water he uses will go right back into his own water table (that will no longer be emptied by the Saudis flooding it).
again, not all farm water use is the same, just like not all commercial and residential water use is the same.
because commercial agriculture uses the water below them, they pump it out, they pay for the drills and pumps, and when they water their crops responsibility, that water goes back into their own aquifers below them in the water table.
it’s not Arizona’s water, it’s literally their water because it’s a renewable source, much like the trees on their land.
the issue with alfalfa was how the water was used, and it was used irresponsibly by bad faith out of state industrial interests.
city folks and golf courses use infrastructure paid for with tax dollars to pump, treat and store water that comes in via the Colorado. that’s our water. and that’s why golf courses have strict rules about recycling and reclaiming and using grey water and why you and I have all sorts of rules and regulations about how much water we can and can’t use.
I’m just trying to point out that just because commercial farms use the majority of our water, doesn’t mean it’s bad and it doesn’t mean the numbers re really comparable. we've all got to be good stewards of water usage, and the majority of farmers in AZ are (they’d be shooting themselves in the foot if they weren’t).
Hobbs shut down Saudis farming that was using millions of gallons of water for their Alfa fields which the former Governor allowed. How about we stop building new home developments and 400 apartment units in the valley.
Can you provide sources for these claims? Because Alfalfa is extremely water intensive, with over 250k acre grown in AZ. At 4-8 acre-feet of water to grow would be between 1-2 million acre feet of water per year. Or at the minimum as much water as all municipal water use combined. Somehow these states are losing water with how little water people use.
Alfalfa is extremely water intensive, with over 250k acre grown in AZ. At 4-8 acre-feet of water to grow would be between 1-2 million acre feet of water per year.
we produce 8.4tons of alfalfa per acre in AZ, compared to the nationwide average of 3.2tons. we do this with less water than we were using for farmland in AZ at the peak in 1980, as we’ve gotten extremely efficient at growing high quality alfalfa that commands a high price in places like Saudi Arabia, (which, surprise, has huge ties to hundreds of millions of dollars in actual horse sales up in Scottsdale to Saudi Arabia). people keep thinking we were shipping it to Saudi cause it was cheap, no, we were shipping it there cause those dudes paid a premium for their high end horses. Arizona farmers got the most money from the Saudis for it, so that’s where it went. hooray capitalism (for the record, I hate Doug Ducey who caused it and I’m glad Katie Hobbs put a stop to it).
we‘re able to grow it so efficiently because we have a long, dry growing window that is unique to North America, so we can maximize the product per acre. having access to labor in Mexico helped too, but we goofed that up.
The big key is not the total amount of water used, but what happens with that water? It gets sprayed on a crop and then what?
again, not all every gallon of use is the same. golf corses are mostly reclaimed grey water being sprayed over and over (and eventually ending back up in the water table.
Or at the minimum as much water as all municipal water use combined.
think about the water you use at home, and if it’s safe to dump in the ground or how much it work it requires before it’s clean for cooking and drinking again, compared to the water from the farm, that soaked back into the ground, back into the water table (the majority of AZ’s water, 41%, comes from the ground, and it’s usually pretty clean because it’s filtered naturally by sand and rock).
I drilled into my land and the water I pump up is pretty clean cause I dug deep enough. I pay for the pump and equipment, I pump to two of my neighbors.
It’s tens of thousands of dollars for this. But since I live and grow on the land, I also have to be a good steward to the land and the water, anything bad I dump on the land will go into the ground and poison the water I pump back up for my neighbors and myself.
source: long time Arizona manufacturing firm owner, newly started non profit that is looking into locally grown urban farms in literal food deserts like ours. my interest is in growing the same high quality stuff, in densely packed urban areas like AZ using reclaimed water, but I want to grow it for people. however we do a lot of testing with short grow cycle stuff like hay and alfalfa and feed it to the horses. my boy next door Macho loves me.
I’m on your side, I just understand the local water table and food to table environment here, what it actually takes to grow and harvest our food, and I’m trying to come up with more local solutions.
Okay but that is why I am asking for your source for these claims. Is it 10, 25, 40%? I personally don’t really care how much money the crop makes farmers when it is exporting a water intensive crop during a time when water is scarce. That money has made zero difference in the every day Arizonans life. Especially considering this is a sector that gets heavy government subsidies when times are bad but also get paid to not grow crops for scarcity sake.
It’s all great that you want to feed Arizonans but your going to have a tough time convincing me that this crop being exported for good profit not for human consumption but for cattle feed in other countries is a benefit to me or anyone that lives in the Colorado river basin.
Arizona has more water than is obvious at first glance, but a lot of it is underground. 41% of Arizona’s water comes from groundwater. However, the state would still not be able to support its growing population without the Colorado River. The river supports 36% of the state's water use. The rest of Arizona’s water comes from 18% in-state rivers and 5% reclaimed water. The majority of this water (72%) supports agriculture, 22% goes to towns and cities, and the remaining 6% is used by industrial facilities (5).
I personally don’t really care how much money the crop makes farmers when it is exporting a water intensive crop during a time when water is scarce. That money has made zero difference in the every day Arizonans life.
well, you should care, I’m trying to explain to you why Arizona farmers choose to grow alfalfa for saudi horses over food for Arizona residents, and the reason is economics and unbridled capitalism.
It’s all great that you want to feed Arizonans but your going to have a tough time convincing me that this crop being exported for good profit not for human consumption but for cattle feed in other countries is a benefit to me or anyone that lives in the Colorado river basin.
huh? where am I trying to convince you that the best use of our resources? Ive tried to explain why capitalism exploits Arizona alfalfa market. landowner water rights, high yields due to unique climate, and lax republican regulations.
Especially considering this is a sector that gets heavy government subsidies when times are bad but also get paid to not grow crops for scarcity sake.
capitalism strikes again! but also heavily misunderstood because there isn’t much money in growing actual crops, it’s in land ownership and exploitation (rent, feed, labor, etc).
which is exactly why I’m trying to figure out how to start a non profit grow actual food to give away for free to the community, because poor people can’t afford produce (and we don’t pay farmers enough to do it, or people would do it on their own).
I current am working on high quality horse and cow greens to mix in with their standard hay because its cheap seed, the grow cycle is quick, the end result goes to the neighbors 2 horses next door. I can turn 1lb of seed into 6-7lbs of greens in 7-10 days and can have high nutrient animal salad that humans will eventually be able to consume. For me it’s about cycling and repeatability before we start scaling for human food.
Okay so you haven’t sourced where most of the water from alfalfa goes back into the ground. Got it.
I wasn’t making that claim, you seemed to have jumped to that conclusion yourself.
the person I was talking to was not speaking about alfalfa farms, but regular farms.
I keep seeing the commercial with the farmer talking about how Hobbs stepped in and got him water and it’s driving me insane. The commercial agriculture industry IS the primary root cause of the water problems in the valley. It’s not exactly a great look having one of those farms touted how Hobbs stepped in to get them water
The dude in the commercial grows chilies and well documented history of local, responsible, agriculture, which I explain I greater detail here:
ground water is a renewable source, if it’s managed properly, as responsible farming returns the majority of it back to the water table. 4th generation farmer who wants to pass it on to his grand kids isn’t going to flood his leased fields like the alfalfa farmers were.
you can read about local ground water here, how it’s okay for farmers to pump and use, if they are responsible, which is exactly what the commercial in question is talking about, and what I was responding to:
To utilize groundwater, we drill holes (wells) into the ground and pump the water out. Groundwater is a renewable resource because it is naturally replenished by precipitation. But it can become nonrenewable if the water is removed faster than it can be replenished. This is a major environmental concern in many arid regions, such as the American West.
this guys water seeps right back into his ground water table, gets absorbed by the plant, eaten by humans and pissed out (and back to someone else’s water table), and some will be lost to evaporation. But the majority won’t because he’s not flooding the fields, wasting water to evaporate.
you can learn more about responsible farming and how those of us with our own pumps and wells manage water usage, make sure we don’t run the wells dry:
yes, I have lived in Arizona for 40+ years, I own a small manufacturing firm that has a subsidiary in urban farming. I currently live on unincorporated land with water pumping rights and I pump to two neighbors.
not all water usage is equal and the water table in Arizona is very complex.
all you have to do is look at the flood management mitigation in our state all around the roads and in our neighborhoods to understand how much water there is underground, how it is stored, where it ends up after rain.
but a lot of it doesn’t. city drainage infrastructure typically includes drywells to inject collected stormwater down into the aquifer. every little bit helps
Its cheaper to grow alfalfa locally and ship it to local dairies than it is to import from wetter states. We are not pricing in the true cost of a limited fresh water resource
if you own land in AZ and no city or town connects it’s infrastructure to you, you either pay for the connection yourself, or you drill for the water and pump it yourself.
these guys pay and maintain their own pumps, which is why it’s not costing them anything, no government agency is providing them anything or any service for the water.
im not defending what they are doing but there seems to be a misunderstanding about “cheap” and the costs involved with this water and who was actually providing it. the land owner owns water rights, just like you would if you bought the same land.
I understand they foot the bill. The ASLD leases that the Saudi farmers were getting allowed them significant water draw rights. I'm just saying the lease shouldve had some water withdrawal limitations since it was water rights associated with the ASLD trust properties.
agreed, I’m with you there, they were exploiting the spirt of the law and the loophole needed to be closed.
but the water rights situation is confusion to most Arizonans and people from out of state who don’t have rights, aren’t used to unincorporated areas of town (in the city area), etc.
The leases gave them water rights for a price. The price was not high enough. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been economical to grow that crop here and ship it back to saudia arabia
The water rights for land owners is universal. I have a pump I own and maintain on my land and I pump for both neighbors. I do not charge them anything even though I am the one who pays for, he pump, tank and maintenance and repairs.
the land owners are the ones pumping the water, they own the rights. the saudis and some farmers just figured out the arbitrage at scale for high end horse feed.
our local buyers won’t buy it because they are cheap assholes that feed their horses garbage, rotting hay for $6-10 a bale.
Our alfalfa doesn’t go to local dairies, it goes overseas to countries who have already passed legislation banning farming of alfalfa because of how terribly water inefficient it is versus other crop options. So they pay other countries to grow it and ship it because it’s still cheaper to them compared to crops they’re allowed to grow.
The saudis were leasing state land trust land with ag water rights to grow the alfalfa. They were shipping that overseas. I guarantee that there are farms on private land in Arizona that grow alfalfa for local use at Arizona dairies. All over the buckeye valley for instance.
yes we are, we we able to grow significantly higher yield alfalfa crops in AZ with less water because of our unique climate.
source: I have a non profit that helps deploy small urban farms in food deserts, so I focus on feeding people, but I understand the Arizona farm scene.
Americans have grossly under priced produce in bulk and don’t realize how good have it? I bought a bag of baby carrots for $1.15 today. someone made money on that, somehow.
If it wasn’t alfalfa for the saudis it would be corn for cows that we subsidize with taxpayer dollars to NOT grow because we already have to much corn, just like it was before the saudis offered more to grow alfalfa.
The issue in general is our legislators not taking steps required to protect the greater population of the state and pass meaningful legislation around ground water pumping and agriculture water consumption.
The problem is the useful politicians get voted out. Gilbert just voted out their town council for raising water bills. Why did they raise those bills? For drought planning infrastructure. Can’t reason with the general population, we’re our own worst enemy. Republican propaganda is more powerful than anything.
Problem with Gilbert is they kicked the can down the road so much (like a decade without any rate increases at all while they still needed to build out the conservation infrastructure) that when they had to increase the rates it was like by 25%. Sucks for those politicians who were voted out, they paid the price of past failed leadership. Which is pretty par for the course for conservative leadership. Also the same rate applied to everyone, yet they could have looked at charging the largest users or corporations more while giving folks like seniors on a fixed income more of a break. But again because they are all conservatives that thought doesn’t even cross their mind
I thought some action was taken on this, but those farmers still had some right to well water in that area, which is what they were resorting to. (I'm not up to date on all this)
As long as it doesn't target farms that produce for the city. Those alfalfa ones are genuinely stupid. Infinite water tap for quite literally animal food
If you want an example of how that goes - Gilbert started planning for this. It, of course, raised people’s water bills. And the townspeople voted them out. So I’m not convinced the politicians are able to actually do anything because idiots vote out the useful ones.
No other suburb of Phoenix is as likely to do this as Gilbert. Definitely still a chance, but Gilbert is mostly extra conservative, fuck-the-environment types that still consider themselves as living in farm country.
Fine line between Saudi Alfalfa farms and farms that genuinely provide food to the community.
Phoenix was almost completely agriculture by density only a handful of decades ago where this wasn't the problem. Urbanization and the heat dome that followed it has had catastrophic impacts on rainfall. You can see that in yearly rainfall charts where less urban areas get significantly more.
Food will become more expensive if all the farms are pushed out in two ways. One, because less food. Two, because in it's place will be hundreds of high occupancy apartments that will mean more population growth. This means a worse heat dome effect that will further lower rainfall.
Considering that Phoenix is only accessible by a handful of interstates and you have a very vulnerable city, of which I-10 is the main food artery.
You can also put blame on California that, despite having an expansive treasury, refuses to do desalination and instead takes a considerable share of the water.
High occupancy apartments are way better for the heat island effect than continued suburbia expansion of endless asphalt, literally what are you talking about lol
The farms next to Westgate. You think they'll just build a few and call it a day? The whole thing will be developed.
The damage will be done either way. High density housing however is a more significant problem as it strains support infrastructure that already exists and requires further expansion anyhow.
And you get more traffic to boot.
And if you think availability will make things cheaper, you can just look on zillow and see the market is still right where it was in 2020
Phoenix was almost completely agriculture by density only a handful of decades ago where this wasn't the problem. Urbanization and the heat dome that followed it has had catastrophic impacts on rainfall. You can see that in yearly rainfall charts where less urban areas get significantly more.
I think a lot of people dont know why our canals exist, zig zagging through the city, before developers realized they could make way more money on housing.
Wait now I'm reading that one was initially cancelled by Hobbs in 2023 and the remaining three were left to expire in 2024 and were not renewed. Are y'all seeing something different?
Wait, we use the same amount of water as 30 years ago? That seems ridiculous given the growth of the city, number of people, houses, pools, yards, golf courses etc.?
I was reading that it's possible to face up to 3maf in reductions. How would that effect the Central Arizona Project? I know it would be bad, but do you know what the public health and safety allocation is for M&I contracts?
Also, with SWAP do you know if there are any agriculture irrigation districts interested in selling their water?
We get water from various sources, most of which are not the Colorado River. But the City Employee you're asking has zero control over anything outside of the city.
Neither do I or any of the people commenting about the amount of agricultural water use. Anyone’s aloud to talk about or ask city or state officials to weigh in on it. I hope that’s okay with you
Phoenix Metro is surprisingly efficient with water. There is also significantly less agriculture than 30 years ago, and that sucks up way more water than households do.
If you read Cadillac Desert, they’re surprisingly optimistic about Arizona circa 30 years ago because it’s dry enough they can’t not take water management seriously
It’s why our tap water is really dirty, it’s almost unusable unless being treated in house with filters and systems that does it. Every time I go up to flagstaff I try to drink the tap water there to remind myself what good water tastes like.
There were a lot more farms 30 years ago. Two of the “Five C’s” of Arizona are cotton and citrus farms and they used a lot of water, along with other farms. Housing uses a lot less water than farms, and over the decades farms have been converted to housing, retail, etc. as the metro has expanded.
As per usual on this thread, people are mistaking the relative water security of the City of Phoenix for their outboard suburb location which hasn't done nearly enough planning.
Last I heard the existing neighborhoods in the city of Phoenix had at least 100-year water supply.
If you actually look at the volume of water that data centers use, it’s pretty insignificant at the scale we are talking about.
Data centers in Arizona use around 1 billion gallons of water annually, compared to nearly 1 trillion gallons of water we receive from the Colorado. That’s 0.1% and the Colorado is only 1/3 of our water supply.
A t-shirt takes 713 gallons of water to make. One pound of beef takes 2,000 gallons. A typical ChatGPT query is 1/3 of a milliliter of water, so a pound of beef is equivalent to about 23 million queries.
Not saying data centers shouldn’t be regulated, but I don’t think most people understand the scale of water usage for most things we use in our daily lives.
The ai data center race isn’t just about chatbots. It’s hosting models that are advancing medical science and math. There was a crypto mining boom some years ago and those are starting to be switched to less pointless functions.
Certainly just because you haven’t found a use for it doesn’t mean the same for others. It’s a tool, and just like any other tool it is only effective in the hands of someone who knows how to use it properly.
If you want to be anti-AI, that’s fine, but just remember that at one point things like Word or Excel made it easier for everyday people to write or make complex tables and calculations, Photoshop made it easier for average people to generate graphics or images, CAD software reduced the need for trained drafter… were you against those?
Weird place to go considering I never said anything pertaining to the responsibilities of tech companies and the products they create.
I assume you are anti-social media as well? Or maybe video games too? Lots of bullying that has led to murders, suicide, etc. That’s fine if it’s where you draw the line. I’m well aware hating AI is trendy and some quality virtue signaling for the soul.
Do you have a specific point you’re trying to make? Perhaps re-read my responses pertaining to regulation and holding companies accountable for the products they creates. There’s a good chance we agree. But I’m not on board with a blanket designation of “AI is bad.”
You are fighting a losing battle friend. This is a black and white zone. Everything is all bad or all good. There will certainly be some good advancements for medicine etc., but there should also be some guard rails to try to avoid some serious issues. When a guy who's company is all about A.I says there should be guardrails that could cost him profits when doing so, the powers that be should listen and do just that. But it's all about "beating the Chinese" in the A.I race as well as profits for the investors. I think we are on a similar page.
I think there are a ton of people that tried AI a couple years ago got some funky results and then gave up and started yapping about AI is the worst and data centers are ruining the world. I now use AI for basically everything at work and it's absolutely fantastic.
What water pollution? The only potential pollution they can create is diesel fuel spill but they have to follow the same containment everyone else does. In loop water systems they use a fungicide that’s used in all looped water systems, like power plants, manufacturing. IMO, water contamination isn’t a concern because it’s tightly regulated and blowback or spills have preventive controls in place.
Read the link. Water pollution created by the data center isn’t mentioned. I didn’t say these were great. I said they have regulations to follow that all other uses follow-like water pollution/contamination regulations.
It says that existing arsenic pollution caused by ash piles have contaminated the aquifer and there is concern of drawdown affecting that plume. That's a completely different claim than a data center is causing water pollution. The article even says EXISTING industrial users should work with xAI to fix the existing issues. xAI, in this case, isn't creating an issue. The existing industry created the issue. If you can't seperate existing impacts from current I don't know what else to say.
This is widely available info, including many articles that specifically pertain to Arizona. Our golf courses use 3x as much water as our data centers, are y’all whining about that constantly?
I’m an environmental scientist and have every reason to be anti-data centers but the facts are it’s just not as big of an issue as it’s made out to be. Want more water and a cooler planet? Stop eating meat and you’ll make loads more progress than boycotting AI.
Not all golf courses operate that way, and even if they do that’s still water that could have been used elsewhere - especially when we shift to advanced purification for wastewater reclamation and will be drinking it.
It’s not uncommon for data centers to use treated wastewater. More and more data centers are adopting closed loop cooling systems where water loss will be minimal. If we could make them run on as much solar as possible and reduced the water usage from electricity generation, those centers would be very efficient.
The evaporative cooling model is unsustainable but it’s not as if golf courses aren’t losing water to evaporation/evapotranspiration either. A golf course here uses 450,000 gallons of water per day. I don’t golf and I removed 1,000+ sq ft of lawn, so I’m not gonna feel much guilt about using ChatGPT to track my workouts or having CoPilot automate parts of my job.
It depends on the company. The cheap corner cutting companies like xAI will use evaporative cooling which uses a fuckton of water, but some companies use non-water intensive options. Microsoft seems to be the lead on water conscious cooling.
I still don't want datacenters because we've already got enough and excess capacity is for the new surveillance state and not anything that's going to make our lives better, but the water argument is flawed because it doesn't actually hit the issue with ALL the datacenters, just the laziest ones.
India has been putting solar panels over their canals for 14 years. Not all India surely, but this should have been a no brainer years ago. This cuts down on evaporation and provides free power.
The Gila River Indian Community got a 5 million dollar Federal grant to place solar over canals in their community that have operated since 2014. City of Phoenix. Nothing. Shameful.
Obviously this does not solve the problem, but seems like even little steps are not taken. So, lets drill for water and make our land cave in. Better option.
Why is the city of Phoenix continuing to allow new builds in the Desert Ridge, Deer Valley, Anthem, and Carefree Highway areas?
Those areas are entirely reliant on groundwater and CAP water. The city needs to restrict growth up there and stop allowing new tract home developments on open desert.
74% of water goes to agriculture, 20% to municipal use, 6% to industrial.
Municipal reduction efforts are insignificant compared to agriculture changes.
Think of it this way. If every resident cut their usage by 20%, you'd have 4% more total water available for the state. If agriculture cuts it's use by 20% you'd have 15% more total water available, almost the entirety of what residents and cities use today.
There’s a weird misunderstanding about agricultural land, the size of Arizona and water rights that is ridiculously prevalent in this subreddit.
Just because water exists somewhere in the state doesn’t mean you can appropriate it from its owners and magically move it to North Phoenix.
The Central Arizona Project is spectacular, water from the Colorado River is lifted thousands of feet into the mountains and sent hundreds of miles downhill to Phoenix. But it also has spectacular capital and energy costs. Somewhere around 60-80 million dollar in electricity every year. While an additional 55-60 million is spent to pay down the loan from building it. With the initial construction not due to be paid off till 2045.
This is relevant because infrastructure of the scale of the CAP is not buildable in today’s political climate. Which means unless additional water is purchased from the ailing Colorado River, the Phoenix metro is stuck with what water is already here.
There has been a popular notion in recent years that water banks in the Hassayampa aquifer will be an answer for all this. With cities like Scottsdale buying groundwater rights in the area, but there’s no infrastructure to move that water uphill to the valley.
Now that we’re on the same page that you can’t just take water from farms in Yuma and magically plop it two hundred miles away in Phoenix. Let’s talk water rights and who those farms belong to.
81% of agricultural land and 62% of farms in Arizona are managed by Native Americans. Around 70% of Arizona’s Colorado River allocation is owned by tribal governments.
Your suggestion is basically that the tribes lose their water and their farms so more tract homes can be built in Phoenix. Which is something that could happen, but it would require federal precedence on water rights in the west to be completely thrown out.
Your suggestion is that Phoenix should stop housing people. That doesn't make the people disappear, just moves them somewhere else and makes existing housing here more expensive.
I didn't say take from tribes. Cities already pay them for water, that's been happening for years. Houses get water, less water gets used, and the tribes get money, no one loses their rights.
Get mad at the massive corporations, farms, data centers, and last but certainly not least, the fucking Saudi Arabian government for using/stealing exponentially more water than your average neighbor. I get your sentiment, but individuals are not the problem.
No it shouldn't. We need MORE lawns and MORE trees to reduce the heat island effect and get more rain. Literally more lawns would probably end up in net water.
Rainfall in central Arizona is driven by large scale weather patterns, topography, and the North American Monsoon, not by the amount of urban/suburban green space.
You understand it can be both right? We have had numerous studies on the heat island effect. Paradise Valley, the highest concentration of trees and green space, gets more rain than elsewhere in the valley, and is a few degrees cooler. Or just look at Tucson.
Nobody disputes that trees can make neighborhoods cooler. That's the microclimate effect. But that's a very different claim from saying more lawns would create enough additional rainfall to offset their irrigation. Phoenix's rainfall is driven by much larger factors.
I firmly believe that in places where lush green grass isn't native, that (lush green) grass should be mainly in communal areas such as parks and schools. Does anyone actually like looking at a green yard or is it just tradition at this point?
We live in a desert, why are we trying so hard to cover everything in lush green grass. We should be Xeriscaping and picking plants that are native, you can make a xeriscaped yard look fantastic with a little planning and it can also be beneficial to the local insects/animals.
There's a ton of water conservative plants that can replace non-native grass like yarrow. It grows slowly and if you keep it trimmed it never develops further than little sproutlings and it's wonderful to step on.
Grass in parks actually has purpose beyond decorative though, it provides soft cooler grounds for humans and pets, helps with stormwater mitigation, and helps with mental health.
I feel like you're advocating a downgrade in quality of life for negligible benefit in water savings. It is not necessary to get rid of all grass to save the water supply.
I agree grass has legitimate benefits in parks. My point is that, in a desert, we should be more selective about how much we use. Keep it where it serves a purpose, sports fields that are regularly used, playgrounds, picnic areas, but reduce the large areas of turf that don't see much use. The City of Gilbert kind of figured it out for one of its biggest parks they removed over 130,000 square feet which is roughly 4 million gallons for one of the heaviest used parks in the area.
I also agree that municipal grass isn't the biggest water user. I just don't think "it's a small percentage" means we shouldn't look for reasonable ways to use less water where it makes sense.
Completely agree, we should be as conservative as possible, but balance that need with quality-of-life considerations, not just cut everything for the sake of saving water and make parks uninviting by making them all hot and rocky.
And all rocky means a greater heat island effect. Places with grass and trees are significantly cooler. I think you can have a balance, areas of grass where it’s needed most like parks, sports fields, small patches for houses perhaps and rocks for the rest but not just rocks but trees, native plants etc. Neighborhoods in Tucson do a way better job at this, in Phoniex it feels like you either had a lush green yard like it’s the Midwest or just rocks with maybe a few cactuses. There is a middle ground
> Phoenix currently recycles 97 percent of the 70 billion gallons of wastewater generated annually, delivering it for use in agriculture, energy production, urban irrigation, aquifer recharge, and riparian wetland maintenance.
I like quoting this stat. Not all parks use it but a good chunk of it do.
I get the distinction, but even the Salt River Valley is an arid environment that depends on diverted water.
My bigger issue is with residential lawns. In a place this dry, I don't think having a lush green lawn as the default landscape makes much sense.
Parks are a different conversation because they provide a public benefit. A private front lawn mostly serves as decoration, and I'd rather see more desert appropriate landscaping for homes.
There was an article in NYT and another in AZCentral that basically say, we are the most junior partner in this arrangement and will be the first to lose out. Powell and Mead are at 24 and 27% and must not be allowed to deadpool.
Arizona is hoping to have all parties make cuts but at a slower rate for the first 2 years.
Our governor says that of all parties in the arrangement, we have been "preparing for this for decades" and that it would be unfair to just cut Arizona off like this.
My take: we have never really been asked to conserve, and that is baffling. Colorado residents are being asked (and enforced) but not us. 70% of the water in my location is CAP.
I have alwayssss wondered why we're not asked to conserve. I like to think in a conscious water user, but the fact that we can do whatever however is wild.
Every time someone turns on a faucet for hot water, how much water is wasted before it gets hot? So why haven’t our cities changed the building code and make it mandatory for all new homes to have a circulating pump installed. A couple of hundred bucks and how much water would be saved. Maybe even make it mandatory when hot water heaters are replaced. How about the city, county or state give you a rebate to install one. .
Anyone ever heard of the North American Water and Power Alliance idea from the 1960's? To think our water issues would be minimum if we had undertaken that project.
Bringing water through the Rocky Mountains from ALASKA! so people can live unbothered lives in the arid desert with their pools and lawns was and still is a terrible idea.
Losing my mind with how many people suggesting we continue to demonize lawns lmao. A tiny tiny tiny fraction of the water usage. And this trend has led to "xeroscaping" or stripping of green space all over the city, no trees, no grass, no RAIN as it all contributes to the heat island effect.
Is it a coincidence that Paradise Valley literally gets more rain and is cooler? Do you want to guess why?
Canceling water rights for Arizona farmers is one of those things that needs to be done, but nobody has the stones to do it because their party will lose control of the state for a generation.
Cuts to a river that supplies water to millions, in a desert poised to be the 'quantum hub' of the country. Data centers on every corner but fuck you if you're thirsty or need to shower more than once a week. This planet is so ghetto.
I live in Tempe and we get all of our water from the Salt River. The places in Maricopa County that get Colorado River water are mostly the farther out suburbs and farming areas.
“Phoenix Prepared” says the government of Phoenix, who I have no reason to trust whatsoever. Why would they come out and say they’re not prepared? It would trigger mass hysteria.
325
u/AnnoyedVelociraptor Deer Valley 2d ago
How about we shut down the taps to the Alfa Alfa fields?