Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyberax | Hacker News Reader

OK, I started reading the article, and then found this gem:

> The Kansas aqueduct is a nutty idea, but one that has taken root among some individuals in western Kansas desperate for a solution to continue irrigation after the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer. Aside from its expense and impracticality, it is a regressive idea that harkens back to the days of ditches and avoids a conversation about us having squandered the resource beneath our feet.

Like, WTF? How the hell a "conversation" can solve the depletion issue? An aqueduct is a possible solution, yet it's bad because it can solve the issue?

View on HN

They are going to deplete the river, like the Colorado river, losing most of it through evaporation. This is a stupid idea beacause it is stupid in the south west.

It’s not a solution because it doesn’t solve the problem of excessive water use.

What makes the water use "excessive"?

In the case of the aquifer, it's clear. It's a finite resource that is going to be depleted sooner rather than later.

But that doesn't apply to diverting water from the Missouri River.

I guess the author just wants people to self-flagellate and repent their sins, rather than look for solutions?

The Missouri discharges an average of 2,445 cubic meters of water per second (2004). This is 77.1 cubic kilometers per year, but it varies significantly per year, and per time of year. In (2000) 26 cubic kilometers of water was removed from the Ogallala aquifer. So for an average year we're looking at 1/3 of the total flow over the entire basin. And on those years when water is needed the most this is likely to be an even larger share of the river (such as 2006 when 26 cubic kilometers was just over 2/3 of the total Missouri discharge).

2004 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rivers_by_discharge

2000 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer

It might work, though would be expensive, but what are the literal downstream effects?

Sure. And that would be a good reason to promote more efficient irrigation along with the aqueduct. And to limit the amount of water removed from the river, and to construct reservoirs to manage the seasonality.

However, calling the proposed aqueduct "regressive" is not a good reasoning.

It seems kind of regressive for a common tax to pay for the aquifer that primarily benefits the farmers. If its paid for by taxing the farmers directly, or at least proportionately, then sure, it probably wouldn't be regressive.

I don't think the author meant "regressive" in that sense.

For them it means: "Actually thinking about a solution instead of wringing hands"

The solution is obvious and inevitable.

These businesses are going to go under. You cannot run food manufacturing operations with the amount of water they have available. We will grow food someplace with more water.

The people who own those businesses will hold on until the bitter end. This is expected. They will try increasingly desperate measures to continue running their business, including but not limited to ecologically destructive practices. It won’t work. There’s no water.

The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Are you burning fossil fuels? If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. Are the farmers going to pay the $18 billion and $1 billion a year for this? No they won't. It's always a hand out.

> The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this?

Solar, wind, nuclear, biodiesel?

In particular, Kansas gets a whopping 50% of energy from wind and 14% from nuclear. They still use coal for 30% of the generation, but it's on the way out.

Mind you, mandating that the pumps are powered by renewable energy would be a good requirement.

> If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water.

So your whole idea is to wring hands, self-flagellate, and then to write tearful articles about that?

You come across here like the manager who's tired of hearing his engineers tell him that a design target isn't possible.

There are some problems that can be solved if everyone gets over themselves and applies a can-do problem-solving attitude. There are other problems that are caused by fundamental system constraints and can't be solved, only worked around.

The trouble is that a certain kind of manager believes that every problem is the former kind, and considers everyone who acknowledges the existence of the latter kind to be weak-willed.

No, I'm coming here as somebody who is annoyed with people thinking that the only way forward is to hug trees and cry about how the humanity is bad.

Yes, the water pumping is unsustainable, so we need to talk about the way to replace it with sustainable water sources. It will probably also involve optimizing the water usage.

China already did a project like this to move water from the wet part to the dry, because their leaders were eager engineers and wanted to do it. Turns out that the wet part isn't making enough water to the dry part now because of climate change. Same thing would happen here. The rockies already create a rain shadow over the great plains, there isn't a way to get water from the other side of the rockies, because that is what it would take. and Cali has been in a drought for along time too. There just isn't water available.

Denver actually gets its water from the western slope:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_Water

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2021/07/19/massive-plumbing-system...

I'm curious to read about it, do you have links? I can (slowly) read Mandarin.

China's South-to-North Water Diversion Project

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Tran...

It looks like it has some impact, but it doesn't seem to be terribly large-scale, though?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com