~30 ft subsidence at a California farm from extraction of the groundwater. Agricultural use is immense and wipes out historic rivers, lakes, even seas and slowly replenished groundwater reserves and something like 40% of water used is wasted because the sun just evaporates it before it used by the crops.
Everyone (agricultural or data center) would be far less wasteful if they had to at least pay for the true value of the water they’re extracting in their local area, i.e. a lot more if it’s scarcer/from slowly replenishing sources. Though that would probably result in a lot of economic relocation to wetter areas as many business models in dry areas become unviable.
Hey, look, it’s the Roman Polanski documentary Chinatown.
Everyone (agricultural or data center) would be far less wasteful if they had to at least pay for the true value of the water they’re extracting
Currency is, itself, just an accounting construct. There is no “true value of the water” that people pay for because the thing they used to pay for it is predicated on rapid economic growth rather than efficient allocation of resources.
One might ask the question “What is material cost-benefit of 30’ of subsidence?” Like, how is California worse (or better) off thanks to the harvesting of that groundwater? Given that the state is one of the most popular places in the country to live, I might suggest the 40M residents are better for that water harvesting than they would have been without it.
I might also suggest that a public sector dedicated to balancing the resident water demands and industry water-use demands could improve the rate/volume of consumption. But that would require a public voting base / private executive staff that valued the long-term health of the state rather than the short term economic growth of the local neighborhoods.
People would love to live in a state with Mediterranean climate mostly year-round regardless of subsidence. You can say it would reduce agricultural jobs if charging for unsustainable water use put down farms dependent on it and that would make California less attractive economically. But even assuming the entire hulk of California agriculture was destroyed, that’s in the low single digit percentage of the state’s economic activity.
It’s not just a matter of that the soil went down. The water was extracted from a matrix of soil and water, and the soil sinks because the matrix of soil and air no longer stands up to the weight above it and gets compacted down. Less voids in the soil means that when rain comes in, instead of seeping down and recharging aquifers it piles up on the surface in sheets that then race down to lower elevations in floods that sweep away whatever is in their path. And with enough extraction and lessened recharge eventually the wells stop working and force the issue. Everyone suffers from natural disasters for the benefit of a few who just so happened to get water rights from early settlement.
~30 ft subsidence at a California farm from extraction of the groundwater. Agricultural use is immense and wipes out historic rivers, lakes, even seas and slowly replenished groundwater reserves and something like 40% of water used is wasted because the sun just evaporates it before it used by the crops.
Everyone (agricultural or data center) would be far less wasteful if they had to at least pay for the true value of the water they’re extracting in their local area, i.e. a lot more if it’s scarcer/from slowly replenishing sources. Though that would probably result in a lot of economic relocation to wetter areas as many business models in dry areas become unviable.
It’s not just agriculture and data centers either, manufacturing uses a lot too.
Hey, look, it’s the Roman Polanski documentary Chinatown.
Currency is, itself, just an accounting construct. There is no “true value of the water” that people pay for because the thing they used to pay for it is predicated on rapid economic growth rather than efficient allocation of resources.
One might ask the question “What is material cost-benefit of 30’ of subsidence?” Like, how is California worse (or better) off thanks to the harvesting of that groundwater? Given that the state is one of the most popular places in the country to live, I might suggest the 40M residents are better for that water harvesting than they would have been without it.
I might also suggest that a public sector dedicated to balancing the resident water demands and industry water-use demands could improve the rate/volume of consumption. But that would require a public voting base / private executive staff that valued the long-term health of the state rather than the short term economic growth of the local neighborhoods.
People would love to live in a state with Mediterranean climate mostly year-round regardless of subsidence. You can say it would reduce agricultural jobs if charging for unsustainable water use put down farms dependent on it and that would make California less attractive economically. But even assuming the entire hulk of California agriculture was destroyed, that’s in the low single digit percentage of the state’s economic activity.
It’s not just a matter of that the soil went down. The water was extracted from a matrix of soil and water, and the soil sinks because the matrix of soil and air no longer stands up to the weight above it and gets compacted down. Less voids in the soil means that when rain comes in, instead of seeping down and recharging aquifers it piles up on the surface in sheets that then race down to lower elevations in floods that sweep away whatever is in their path. And with enough extraction and lessened recharge eventually the wells stop working and force the issue. Everyone suffers from natural disasters for the benefit of a few who just so happened to get water rights from early settlement.