Looming Water Crisis

[AndyIvey]

The November 2005 Advocate Magazine (http://www.advocatemag.com/issues/ED_11_05.pdf) had a great feature article on water conservation and availability. Unlike San Antonio, the state’s leader in water conservation, Dallas has no near-term shortage in available drinking water. Since I qualified my last sentence with “near-term,” you can guess where I am going with this. Long before our recent drought, a water crisis was looming. It was far enough into the future for us to rely on our usual, leave it for the next generation, solution. However, the current drought has brought the issue up again. Combine this with the fact that we are entering La Nina, a typical dry spell of our area. I believe that trouble is afoot and I am not much for leaving this for another day.


I am not without my own shameless plug. My letter to the editor was included in December. (http://www.advocatemag.com/issues/ED_12_05.pdf)
WATER, WATER EVERYWHERE
To the Editor:
I was pleased to see the coming water crisis prominently featured in November’s issue. How we balance the availability, cost and quality of water today has a drastic impact on our quality of life tomorrow.
As stated in the article, the answer to this problem does not come without great cost. However, the price of change is dwarfed by the risk of not embracing necessary improvements.
We must continue to look for new sources of water while encouraging a reduction in overall usage. The solution is to build new reservoirs, promote conservation through incentives (not penalties), and begin to seriously secure this precious asset from terrorist attack. Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) must be empowered to serve as the catalyst for change. The citizens DWU serves should be encouraged (not forced) to embrace a lifestyle of conservation.
Financing these improvements by raising water rates is no solution. Increasing the cost of water will encourage urban flight and may reverse the revitalization of Dallas many are fighting so hard to promote. Instead, we ought to establish a long-range plan that disburses the cost of compliance across an extended period. Be wary of those preaching an immediate solution.


Am I alone on this, or does the general public share my concern?

[Columbus Civil]

I plan on xeriscaping (http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/xeriscape/xeriscape.html) my backyard. It's not much, but it won't hurt. The HOA still runs sprinklers twice a day during the summer (front yard/common areas).

[Insidetheloop]

What seperates the City of Dallas from San Antonio is that Dallas has massive storage reservoirs across North and East Texas. San Antonio still relies almost entirely on the Aquifer supplies beneath their feet.

Dallas is in great shape in terms of sustainability of water supply. It's the parasite suburbs that should worry. The water rights give Dallas residents water first, insuring that Dallas will always have a healthy water supply.

[Tnekster]

I do, and feel that this current drought may be the one that finally gets North Texas moving on some sort of strategic plan. I have worked to make my yard as drought tolerant as possible and try to keep usage low. But I do this while my neighbors water every zone in their yards every single day. I wish they would offer greater incentives for even more stringent water conservation efforts in Dallas to discourage over watering while encouraging an even more drought tolerant landscaping option. If I could get away with getting rid of my grass altogether I would but know my neighbors would in total shock and I would probably violate some association rule.

[BigD5349]

You also have to figure in an anticipated population boom in DFW. I've seen estimations ranging between 7M and 9M in DFW by 2020. That's why the long range planning is necessary. And Dallas is just plain lazy when it comes to water conservation -- one of the WORST in the country. The good news is that by adopting some of the proven lessons in SA, we can improve dramatically.

[mdunlap1]

But I do this while my neighbors water every zone in their yards every single day. I wish they would offer greater incentives for even more stringent water conservation efforts in Dallas to discourage over watering while encouraging an even more drought tolerant landscaping option.

The most powerful restraint people will ever have on their water usage is price. When water becomes scarce the price will go up and people will use less (simple law learned in ECON 101, of course).

A good way to ensure excess usage of water (or at least a level of usage greater than what would otherwise exist) is to detach the use of water from price... which is what is done when the government subsidizes water distribution and also detaches incentive from its own use and distribution of water.

[AndyIvey]

^I agree, but the problem is how to encourage conservation while supply is still abundant. If we raise the price, we risk losing businesses to areas with cheaper water. The two quick solutions that come to mind are to wait for water to become scarce or to encourage conservation through incentives.

[antoinekhuu]

I saw on the news that Dallas is beginning to water their parks & golf course with treated wastewater.
How about offering residents to buy that water with cheap price for their lawn?

[UrbanHope]

What do you all think of fines for "Excessive watering" like when people over-water to the point where it's running down the street?

On another note, people like Boone Pickens trying to get contracts to sell his water to the city always makes me nervous.

[AndyIvey]

I saw on the news that Dallas is beginning to water their parks & golf course with treated wastewater.
How about offering residents to buy that water with cheap price for their lawn?
You would have to get it to them somehow. There is not currently an alternative supply system available for residents.
I believe you could get a second meter installed for your irrigation. That should negate any sewage charges for that water.

[AndyIvey]

What do you all think of fines for "Excessive watering" like when people over-water to the point where it's running down the street?
We could enforce existing code that provides penalties for this. However, code enforcement is overloaded as it is.

[WestTexan]

On another note, people like Boone Pickens trying to get contracts to sell his water to the city always makes me nervous.

It would make me nervous if I lived on top of the Ogallala Aquifer and the water beneath me was about to be pumped 400 miles away to water the sprawling lush suburbs of the Metroplex. But from North Texas' perspective it appears to be a viable water source and T. Boone is just responding to a market opportunity.

[Tnekster]

^I am completely opposed to getting any water from Ogallala. We need to learn to live within our means here in North Texas and that means changing the way we use what we have.

[WestTexan]

^Conceptually, I absolutely agree that this region should conserve more and learn to live within its means. However, don't most planners agree that even with significant gains in conservation, DFW's projected growth rate will require the region to seek other water sources within 50 years?

[Tnekster]

^Probably, but in 50 years desalinization plants may be the answer, who knows. I would just hate to see us turn to the aquifer because once we tap into it will be impossible to get us out. How much water is contained within the Ogallala?

[WestTexan]

^I don't know how much water Ogallala contains at any point in time. But according to Wikipedia, the Ogallala is under 174,000 square miles through out the Great Plains in portions of the eight states of South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas. With miniscule population growth and more efficient agricultural methods, I believe that water usage is not expected to increase in the Great Plains.

My friends and relatives in West Texas certainly agree that tapping the Ogalla for the benefit of DFW is a horrible idea. I think its another water source that we should at least study.

[mdunlap1]

^I agree, but the problem is how to encourage conservation while supply is still abundant. If we raise the price, we risk losing businesses to areas with cheaper water. The two quick solutions that come to mind are to wait for water to become scarce or to encourage conservation through incentives.

Hey, I'm all for conservation and persuasive campaigns to encourage such behavior. Persuasion is not coercion though. I check out when people start advocating the coercion of others into doing what they think is best. That's where the slope gets slippery.

[mdunlap1]

^Conceptually, I absolutely agree that this region should conserve more and learn to live within its means. However, don't most planners agree that even with significant gains in conservation, DFW's projected growth rate will require the region to seek other water sources within 50 years?

Any planner that tells you he knows what technologies will be around 50 years from now with regards to water is someone you need to get way away from. He likely has ulterior motives for his predictions.

There's a whole long line of Malthusian planners who have been left looking really dumb with their dire predictions about the state of natural resources decades into the future. Free people coming up with new inventions have constantly beaten them.

[AndyIvey]

^Probably, but in 50 years desalinization plants may be the answer, who knows.
One of the things I do not get about this technology is why no one talks about using wave action to power it. However, what to do with the massive amount of salt left over might be a bigger issue. Simply pumping into the depths of the ocean could have long-term affects.

[Tnekster]

Doesn't Saudi Arabia use desalinzation plants? I wonder what they do with the left over minerals?

[Insidetheloop]

You can easily sell the by-product salt.

[NThomas]

I can think of 11 reasons why we wont go dry:

01. Benbrook Lake
02. Eagle Mountian Lake
03. Grapevine Lake
04. Joe Pool Lake
05. Lake Arlington
06. Lake Lewisville
07. Lake Ray Roberts
08. Lake Ray Hubbard
09. Lake Worth
10. Lavon Lake
11. Mountian Creek Lake

[AndyIvey]

While Dallas has first crack at most of the region's water, what happens when demand increases or supply decreases? We end up with higher water prices. Any high use industry will shy away from the area. This can be prevented by encouraging conservation. This should also be a hot topic for environmentalists that fear what negative impact the creation of a new reservoir (already proposed) will have on the area.

[Boredkid]

Its interesting that this was almost a year ago and just this month it was brought up again in D mag.

[Tnekster]

^What did they say?

[Boredkid]

Pretty much the same thing, though its more urgent. Also spoke about how much water the average person uses and how much is wasted. I read it a few weeks ago and gave the mag to a friend so dont remeber everything is said.

[Tnekster]

Unless we get some much needed rain this winter water is going to be on the top of the legislative agenda next year. Dallas may have designed and built the water system up here but the state can easily come in and claim it as a statewide resource that Dallas has to share. Look for the burbs to make a play at this. It's easier to leach off of Dallas than it is to design and build thier own system. Besides, they are much too busy trying to steal companies from each other to worry about water.

[Boredkid]

here is a link to D's story

http://www.dmagazine.com//article.asp?articleid=1126

[dfwcre8tive]

Dust Bowl-like drought projected
02:19 PM CDT on Thursday, April 5, 2007
By RANDY LEE LOFTIS / The Dallas Morning News
rloftis@dallasnews.com
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/040607dnmetdrought.35a817bb.html

Texas almost certainly faces a future of perpetual drought as bad as the record dry years of the 1950s because of global warming, climate scientists say in a study published Thursday.

The trend toward a drier, hotter southwestern United States, including all of Texas, probably has already begun and could become strikingly noticeable within about 15 years, according to a study led by Richard Seager of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

Drought conditions are expected to resemble the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s and Texas' worst-ever drought of the 1950s, Dr. Seager said. Unlike those droughts, however, the new conditions won't be temporary, the study found.

"This time, once it's in, it's in for good," Dr. Seager said.

The drought projections come one day before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world body on global warming, releases its latest report on the effects of a changing climate. The panel's reports summarize published science on global temperature trends and environmental effects.

The latest IPCC report is expected to outline already observed global trends, such as the loss of polar ice, changes in rainfall and hurricanes, and shifts in crops and natural habitats, as well as projecting future trends based on increasingly sophisticated computer projections of the coming climate.

What the future climate will be remains uncertain, since many factors such as greenhouse gas emissions trends could change. For that reason, climate scientists call their scenarios for the future projections instead of predictions.

The IPCC, reflecting the bulk of scientific findings, concluded that it is "very likely" -- defined as greater than 90 percent -- that the observed warming since the mid-20th century was due to human influences. The panel says atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, are higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years, and probably 800,000 years.

The IPCC projects a further increase in global average temperatures of 3.2 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit during this century.

Previous studies have projected an increase in drought conditions in the arid southwestern United States and northern Mexico as average temperatures rise and large-scale humidity patterns change, but the Columbia-led study, published in Thursday's issue of the journal Science, fills in numerous details. Researchers from the federal government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Princeton University, the private National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Tel Aviv University also participated.

The Columbia research team examined the output of 19 climate models that made a total of 49 projections of future rainfall, temperatures and evaporation in the Southwest. All but the three of the projections concluded that the region will face a serious increase in drought conditions as early as 2021.

"The models agree strongly on this," Dr. Seager said.

The study examines the expected changes in precipitation in North America in 2021-2040 compared to 1950-2000. It projects much wetter conditions in the polar regions, with the precipitation decreasing steadily toward the southwest.

All of Texas would receive significantly less rain, while the deficit in Arizona, western Mexico, the Yucatan peninsula and nearly all of Central America would see extreme drought.

Texas' chief water planner said the drought projections do not change the state's forecasts of future water needs. State law already requires the Texas Water Development Board to assume that future conditions will match the worst drought on record, the 1950s dry spell, said William Mullican, the agency's planning director.

"Besides, the plan is reviewed and updated every five years, so if there's a change, we can adjust," he said.

However, a leading opponent of the water board's extensive plans to build new reservoirs said a hotter, dryer Texas should dictate a new emphasis on conservation instead of creating more lakes to catch rain that will become increasingly scarce. Opponents contend that the state water plan far exaggerates future water needs and underplays the potential for reducing water use.

"The water plan, as it is structured now, has virtually no conservation," said Janice Bezanson, executive director of the Texas Committee on Natural Resources, an Austin-based nonprofit group. "If we're going to have a permanent drought, people really will do what's necessary to conserve."

White Rock Lake in 1956:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/img/04-07/0404whiterockdrought.jpg

[columbiasooner]

http://tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleID=070421_7_G4_spanc71037

Readers Forum: Oklahoma comes first in water proposal

By JAMES M. OLIVER
4/21/2007

Oklahoma comes first. From day one, the Tarrant Regional Water District's proposal for gulfbound water from the state of Oklahoma has always stated that the water needs of Oklahoma will come first.

In order to clear up any confusion about our proposal, let me first explain our organization and reasons behind submitting applications for water permits from the three river basins in Oklahoma. The Tarrant Regional Water District provides water supply to the western third of the Fort Worth/Dallas Metroplex. The district supplies water to 11 counties with a combined population of 1.6 million. This gulfbound water is needed, as a vital part of our 60-year water plan that includes the addition of new res ervoirs as well as an extremely active water conservation campaign.

The state of Oklahoma has more water than it can use or is ever likely to use. In fact, the annual flow availability of the Kiamichi River alone is enough to serve 11 areas the size of Oklahoma City. Some of Oklahoma's largest reservoirs aren't even tapped for municipal water needs, but the ones that are can provide about four times the water the state needs. And while some counties in the western part of the state are experiencing drought conditions, it's not because
of a lack of water -- it's a lack of infrastructure needed to get the water to them.

Tarrant Regional Water District has proposed to gather less than 7 percent of the gulfbound surface water that flows directly into the Red River and continues on to the Gulf of Mexico. This gulfbound water will be gathered a few miles upstream of the Red River. In an average year, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board indicates that 7.1 billion gallons per day flows into the Red River.

Tarrant Regional Water District is requesting only 411 million gallons per day. This leaves a balance of 6.4 billion gallons that will continue to flow into the Red River. Absolutely no water will be taken out of Oklahoma reservoirs. Recreational activities will not be affected. No ground water will be taken. Should there be no water flowing into the Red River because of a drought condition, there will be no water for us to take.

If Oklahoma recognizes that a gulfbound water program is a good deal for both states, Tarrant Regional Water District will pay a fair price for this gulfbound water. Our proposal could provide millions of dollars per year that could be used to address Oklahomas water infrastructure needs or any other purpose that the citizens of Oklahoma decide.

Oklahoma and Texas have a rich and storied rivalry that Tarrant Regional Water District has great respect for. We believe that these allegiances and differences should be played out on the athletic field not when it comes to sharing a valuable natural resource that otherwise would disappear to the benefit of no one. In our proposal Oklahoma is #1.

Please take a look at our Web site, www.TRWD.com. We have put together a short three-minute educational video that explains our proposal. If anyonehas questions or comments call our toll-free gulfbound water hotline at (888) 485-3426.



James M. Oliver is general manager of Tarrant Regional Water District.

By JAMES M. OLIVER

[RobertB]

We believe that these allegiances and differences should be played out on the athletic field not when it comes to sharing a valuable natural resource that otherwise would disappear to the benefit of no one. In our proposal Oklahoma is #1.
Louisiana, on the other hand, comes in at about #50. The Red River flows through more than two states, you know.

I'm also a bit worried by another of the Tarrant folks' arguments. In the early 1980s, Tulsa went through a pretty desperate time, with mandatory odd-even lawn watering and a big marketing push: "Don't Desert Tulsa!" Water wells sprung up in back yards all over town, along with signs in lush, green yards saying "WELL WATER".

Perhaps it was an infrastructure problem then, as is alluded to in the Tarrant letter. I know that by the mid '80s, the restrictions were relaxed, and the billboards said "Water Well Done! You didn't Desert Tulsa."

So maybe Oklahoma indeed doesn't have to worry from a water supply viewpoint. But I moved from Tulsa to Bossier City in 1986, and spent a fair amount of time checking out the Red River in that neck of the woods. I know it's not required, but wouldn't it be nice if someone in Tarrant County could take a few minutes to let us know that we're not going to dry up the mudbug supply?

[columbiasooner]

The water would be taken right before it flows into the Red River 180 miles downstream of Tulsa.

The amount of water that will be allocated by the permits will not affect water flow into LA.

[LH_Newbie]

We still have an underlying issue of using water at a rate of 250-260 gallons per person per day. Using 250 gal/day/capita, 411 million gallons would support 1.6 million more people. Since we added 832K people in DFW during the last 6 years, this would allow for 12 more years of growth at it's current rate. I'm still concerned about our usage rate.

I have yet to see any "aggressive" programs for water conservation. Three things could DRASTICALLY cut our water usage:

1. Low flow shower head (2.5GPM of less)... most new shower heads meet this spec - there are even some as low as 1 to 1.5GPM. New designs don't feel like you're skimping either.
2. Low usage toilets - they now use 1.6 gallons per flush.
3. Proper lawn watering - deep watering via timers WITH RAIN SENSORS.

#1 and #3 are very, very inexpensive things we can do easily... at a cost of $100-200 total, they will actually pay for themselves in 9-18 months - so not only does it help our water issue, it saves you money.

Obviously, replacing toilets in our home would cost a bit more, but they still save money in the long run - in the neighborhood of 3-5 years.

I saw a company that makes a roughly 1.1 gallon per minute shower head that costs something disgustingly cheap like $7-8 per unit when bought in bulk. IMO... the city would do itself a great service if it were to give these out to citizens. There are lots of people in our city that just won't spend money replacing shower heads for a multitude of reasons, but if we provide them free of charge... the city would get a wonderful benefit. I also believe the city needs to encourage people to replace toilets and install rain sensors with discounts. My dad lives in Grapevine. He got a FREE rain sensor from the city. He was happy to install it, but just too cheap to spend the $15 to buy one. I suspect he's not the only one that thinks this way.

We are by no means "misers" - we have lawn and four mature, gorgeous trees in our yard, but our house uses between 80-120 gal/day/person, depending on the time of year. That will continue to drop as we replace our dishwasher, two more toilets and clothes washer to a front loader in the future.

It sure would be cool to see the cities REQUIRE that all new construction be plumbed with differenciated grey-water and black-water drainage systems. That way, in the future, a simple greywater catchment system could be installed for irrigation - at a very minimal cost today to separate the drainage systems.

Brian

[Golden Eagle]

This is not a Tulsa issue. This is an OKC issue.

Most of OKC's water actually comes from SE Oklahoma. We own the deed to Sardis Lake, from there the Kiamichi Basin water is pumped up to OKC.

Tarrant County might want to look somewhere else for their water than Oklahoma, like, on their side of the Red River, which by the way is also owned by the State of Oklahoma.

Do you all not have any water down in Texas? The whole issue of the State of OK vs. Tarrant Water District lawsuit is one of much bias on both sides, threatening to bring up old border war issues that have been dead for as long as .... a few months.

In Oklahoma we just want to have a right to our own land on this side of the river without Texas constantly saying that they either own it and/or the water underneath it.

[columbiasooner]

Permits call for water 75 miles downstream of Lake Sardis.

The Red River is not "owned" by OK. Although the boundary of OK is the south side of the Red, the water rights are governed by the Red River Compact.

[tamtagon]

Judge blocks Dallas plans for Fastrill Reservoir in East Texas

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/070208dnmetreservoir.3fc13e6.html

11:13 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 1, 2008
By RUDOLPH BUSH / The Dallas Morning News
rbush@dallasnews.com

The city of Dallas suffered a significant setback Tuesday to its plans to build a massive water reservoir in East Texas.

A federal judge in Dallas threw out much of the city's lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, shuttering for now a key element of Dallas's long-range water plan, a proposed Fastrill Reservoir to supply water to the city for decades.

"If the ruling stands and the city does not prevail on its remaining claims, the city will not be able to build Fastrill Reservoir," said First Assistant City Attorney Chris Bowers. ....

[eirin]

^ Fantastic. I didn't even know plans for a new reservoir existed. We don't need another one. We have plenty of lakes, and if demand increases, people can just cut back on their water usage. We already use way too much. The lakes built around here were mostly for regulation of the flow of the Trinity many years ago, but are now primarily being used as reservoirs.

[LH_Newbie]

I can't tell you how many times I see people watering their lawn in the middle of the day - such a waste of water. We water our lawn ONCE A WEEK in the middle of the summer - but run it through three cycles in the very early morning hours. By runnnig through 3 shorter cycles, we minimize runoff and ensure the water has time to deeply penetrate the ground. If everyone did this (including commercial properties), we could conserve massive amounts of water. In general, we North Texans are VERY wasteful of our water.

The same thing goes for rain/freeze sensors... they are a requirement of code, but I see many, many people watering during or right after a good rain. Wasteful...

Brian

PS: We do have a "foundation zone" that we run on a short cycle several times a week, depending on the time of year. Obviously, we can't let the foundation be neglected.

[Alex Rodriguez]

"Dust Bowl-like drought projected"
02:19 PM CDT on Thursday, April 5, 2007


Ha! Was that like 3 days before the deluge started coming down last year, and we got 50 inches of rain in 6 months? It's been dry the last 8 weeks, but all the area lakes are full or very close to it. One good rain and they will be in their flood plains again.

[MarkL2023]

^ Fantastic. I didn't even know plans for a new reservoir existed. We don't need another one. We have plenty of lakes, and if demand increases, people can just cut back on their water usage. We already use way too much. The lakes built around here were mostly for regulation of the flow of the Trinity many years ago, but are now primarily being used as reservoirs.


I disagree. Certainly people should cut back on usage but with the rate that the Metro is growing, foresight is a wonderful thing. It will certainly be easier to do it now than it will in 10, 30 or 50 years

[FoUTASportscaster]

The DFW region sees water use by its citizens at a rate of 50% to double what the average person in SA uses. If we conserved water like they have to, then we could double growth and not need a single new lake.

Personally, I don't think we need to take peoples land, destroy the natural environment and build another man-made lake, just so Jerry jones can use 11,000 gallons of water a month only to keep his lawn green, but that's just me.

[LDSR]

"Dust Bowl-like drought projected"
02:19 PM CDT on Thursday, April 5, 2007


Ha! Was that like 3 days before the deluge started coming down last year, and we got 50 inches of rain in 6 months? It's been dry the last 8 weeks, but all the area lakes are full or very close to it. One good rain and they will be in their flood plains again.

If the dust bowl happened once, it can happen again. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it....

[Spjz]

The DFW region sees water use by its citizens at a rate of 50% to double what the average person in SA uses. If we conserved water like they have to, then we could double growth and not need a single new lake.Oh man, you should see the lawns down here. Even in Alamo Heights and Olmos Park (SA's Park Cities) the lawns are not watered during dry stretches. We've not had near as much rain as DFW so my yard has looked like Death Valley until last week. If I actually owned my house I would rip out most of the grass and replace it with native shrubs and crushed limestone.

[LDSR]

Oh man, you should see the lawns down here. Even in Alamo Heights and Olmos Park (SA's Park Cities) the lawns are not watered during dry stretches. We've not had near as much rain as DFW so my yard has looked like Death Valley until last week. If I actually owned my house I would rip out most of the grass and replace it with native shrubs and crushed limestone.

That's funny, I just got back from Universal City and houses in that part of SA have lush lush lawns (St. Augustine). People water like there's no tomorrow. SA always seems to be ~4-5 degrees cooler than Dallas so I think that helps.

[Spjz]

That's funny, I just got back from Universal City and houses in that part of SA have lush lush lawns (St. Augustine). People water like there's no tomorrow. SA always seems to be ~4-5 degrees cooler than Dallas so I think that helps.Do you know if those folks are on SAWS or private pumps?

[AndyIvey]

I'm not sure why taking land to build a lake is any worse than using the police power of government to make people use however much water someone feels is appropriate. In both cases you are forcing people to make decisions they wouldn't freely make. Why not simply let the cost of water determine how much you use? If water becomes more scarce, its cost should increase.

[Spjz]

I'm not sure why taking land to build a lake is any worse than using the police power of government to make people use however much water someone feels is appropriate. In both cases you are forcing people to make decisions they wouldn't freely make. Why not simply let the cost of water determine how much you use? If water becomes more scarce, its cost should increase.I think the most pragmatic answer to your question is the fact that we are a democracy where 51 percent of the vote rules the day. If you let local water districts (or private individuals for that matter) freely indulge in a natural resource that is essential to human health and life, then eventually the price will increase to an amount that curbs demand. Once a significant amount of the state's population becomes uneasy with the rising price they will go to the legislators who will introduce new regulations. Furthermore, many businesses who depend on water (restaurants, theme parks, industrial sites) might opt for the predicable terrain of regulation rather than the unpredictability of the free market.

[MarkL2023]

^^^ A few things. Raising the price of water becomes tricky because people use it for basic necessities like drinking, flushing, showering. That is easily overcome though by some kind of cap per person per household that is a lower cost with additional water usage being charged at a higher rate but I suppose this is more thinking out loud.

Anyway, as far as water usage in Dallas to San Antonio is concerned, I would say they are apples and oranges. People in Phoenix use much less water than we do but because they are in a dryer climate with different natural vegetation/etc, they use less. San Antonio is a dryer climate, though admittedly more similar to Dallas's than Phoenix's, so to compare water usage isn't exactly fair. Now you could argue many things to combat this including, but not limited to, non-natural trees/plants and flat out waste. Either way, it's in the city's and region's best interest to encourage more responsible water usage while not forcing anyone to do anything. People aren't fond of regulation nor are they fond of water restrictions. While forcing people off their land to form a new reservoir is sad, it also serves to provide a lot more good than bad. Millions more people will need water so for a few residents (dozens or hundreds probably) losing land is not as much of a concern (not to say that it isn't one at all). Also, if we ending up needing more water (and obviously Boone T. Pickens and I think we will) then creating a reservoir now will displace fewer people than creating one in 50 years.

And, lets not forget that these people would be fairly compensated and could then buy lakefront property. :)

[eirin]

Do you realize how unsustainable Phoenix is? I think you're arguing up the wrong tree... literally. They've imported so much vegetation to Phoenix, it no longer remotely resembles what it did before the 20th century. They are using large amounts of water in a desert climate that they could be using more efficiently in a more temperate, and wet climate. Phoenix is also one of the worst examples of sprawl and misallocated resources in the history of the United States. Las Vegas and Phoenix are prime examples of this. They are both drawing on a water source that can't sustain the growth demands they are putting on it. They are wasting a lot of water that otherwise would not be wasted.

[downtownguy25]

I think the most pragmatic answer to your question is the fact that we are a democracy where 51 percent of the vote rules the day.

Yet again, the US is not a democratic country, the US is a republic.