NPR: There's never been such a severe shortage of homes in the U.S.

[YttriumNitrate]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

This could definitely be a possibility if the Boring company's price quote is more than just fanboy fiction.
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-the-boring-company-10-million-dollars-per-mile-price-tag-game-changer/

[zolotiyeruki]

The interesting thing, to me, is that I think it’s possible to get all of those urban advantages in much smaller cities that aren’t all concentrated on the coasts.

Agreed. It's not as if there's Manhattan or suburbs with nothing in between. Small cities are great and there are a ton of great options all over the country.

Agreed! And this is one of the points that I was ineffectively trying to make--historically, there was a practical need and benefit to large cities, especially if you're in manufacturing.  But if you're in software, the only argument I've heard in favor of the west coast is "that's where the programmers are."  With the rise of remote work, though, do they *have* to be there?

[bacchi]

I expect that a stable water supply will be a big determinant. Building huge suburban developments, complete with grass lawns, on land that is historically desert has never been a sustainable long-term housing solution.

Speaking of water limitations, it looks like lake Mead might get to the Tier 2 threshold (1050 feet) this coming summer. I believe at that level, the first of Las Vegas' three water intakes goes dry.
http://mead.uslakes.info/level.asp

Lake Powell hit another threshold this year and Arizona farmers already have to deal with less water. Scottsdale will cut off far-flung communities in 2023 -- it's currently supplying the homes with tanker trucks (!).

The Hoover Dam "no flow" point is 895 feet. That might be reached within 10 years.

[bacchi]

The interesting thing, to me, is that I think it’s possible to get all of those urban advantages in much smaller cities that aren’t all concentrated on the coasts.

Agreed. It's not as if there's Manhattan or suburbs with nothing in between. Small cities are great and there are a ton of great options all over the country.

Agreed! And this is one of the points that I was ineffectively trying to make--historically, there was a practical need and benefit to large cities, especially if you're in manufacturing.  But if you're in software, the only argument I've heard in favor of the west coast is "that's where the programmers are."  With the rise of remote work, though, do they *have* to be there?

Didn't this happen in Boise and didn't all the locals complain about the increased housing prices?

Same thing would happen if hundreds of Silly Valley software developers descended on Ames, Iowa* and bought up the central housing stock.



* Or KC, or Tulsa, or Grand Rapids.

[PDXTabs]

Didn't this happen in Boise and didn't all the locals complain about the increased housing prices?

Yup, and Boise is the textbook example of single family only zoning. Boise has not one, not two, but three different types of R1 zoning:

Code: [Select]

Residential
R-1A (Single Family Residential, Large Lot): Zone intended for predominately single-family residential uses on lots 20,000 feet or larger, with average lot width of 100 feet, a maximum height of 35 feet and with up to 2.1 units allowed per acre.
R-1B (Single Family Residential, Suburban): Zone intended for predominately single-family residential uses on lots 9,000 feet or larger, with an average lot width of 75 feet, a maximum height of 35 feet and with up to 4.8 units allowed per acre.
R-1C (Single Family Residential, Urban): Zone intended for predominately single-family residential uses on interior lots of 5000 feet or larger (7000 feet for corner lots), with an average lot width of 50 feet (70 feet for corner lots), a maximum height of 35 feet and with up to 8.0 units allowed per acre.
- https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning-and-development-services/planning-and-zoning/zoning-and-overlay-districts/

[nereo]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

If we intend to keep supporting a bunch of southwestern developments that are poorly planned, overly populated, and ill-suited to the natural climate, doesn't desalination of the closer Pacific Ocean make more sense from various perspectives than tunneling through the Rockies?

Rail tankers would probably be the most economical solution for transporting water uphill or across long distances. It works that way for oil (pipelines generally go downhill). And you actually wouldn't have to go as far as the Great Lakes. East Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri are soaking wet places with lots of lakes.

So are Oregon and Washington - and both are a lot closer.

[FINate]

Didn't this happen in Boise and didn't all the locals complain about the increased housing prices?

Yup, and Boise is the textbook example of single family only zoning. Boise has not one, not two, but three different types of R1 zoning:

Code: [Select]

Residential
R-1A (Single Family Residential, Large Lot): Zone intended for predominately single-family residential uses on lots 20,000 feet or larger, with average lot width of 100 feet, a maximum height of 35 feet and with up to 2.1 units allowed per acre.
R-1B (Single Family Residential, Suburban): Zone intended for predominately single-family residential uses on lots 9,000 feet or larger, with an average lot width of 75 feet, a maximum height of 35 feet and with up to 4.8 units allowed per acre.
R-1C (Single Family Residential, Urban): Zone intended for predominately single-family residential uses on interior lots of 5000 feet or larger (7000 feet for corner lots), with an average lot width of 50 feet (70 feet for corner lots), a maximum height of 35 feet and with up to 8.0 units allowed per acre.
- https://www.cityofboise.org/departments/planning-and-development-services/planning-and-zoning/zoning-and-overlay-districts/

Yes to all of this and both of you. Boise home prices have skyrocketed with an influx of remote workers. Not just from Silicon Valley, but also WA, OR, TX, CO, UT, NY, FL... really, all over the country. I have nothing against people moving here, but I'm not happy about the rapid increase in housing prices even though we own.

I live in the North End, which has become VERY spendy over the past 2 years. People want to live here for the reasons I listed up thread. It's a historic close-in neighborhood that sits between downtown and the foothills. The neighborhood was established in the late 19th century, before the rise of automobiles and single family housingzoning, with a network of street trolleys (long since removed) connecting downtown. Small lots, small yards, houses close together, laid out on a grid. There are also a fair number of multi family buildings. Ironically, many of the historic structures in the neighborhood would not be permitted under today's zoning. I find it very odd that the types of neighborhoods people desire are essentially no longer possible to build.

Boise is currently engaged in a process of rezoning, which is always a fraught exercise. Planning and Zoning did a bunch of work and presented a rezoning plan to City Council that tweaked things ever so slightly around the edges. To City Council's credit, they kicked it back to P&Z telling them to go denser and stop planning for a 1970s city (I believe some of the council members have backgrounds in urban planning). They want dense multi family infill. Denser mixed use along transportation corridors. Reduced parking requirements and setbacks. And a bunch of other stuff that's music to my ears. I hope P&Z really listens to them and something more sensible gets approved. More details here: https://boisedev.com/news/2022/03/02/boise-zoning-code-feedback/

[bacchi]

Boise is currently engaged in a process of rezoning, which is always a fraught exercise. Planning and Zoning did a bunch of work and presented a rezoning plan to City Council that tweaked things ever so slightly around the edges. To City Council's credit, they kicked it back to P&Z telling them to go denser and stop planning for a 1970s city (I believe some of the council members have backgrounds in urban planning). They want dense multi family infill. Denser mixed use along transportation corridors. Reduced parking requirements and setbacks. And a bunch of other stuff that's music to my ears. I hope P&Z really listens to them and something more sensible gets approved. More details here: https://boisedev.com/news/2022/03/02/boise-zoning-code-feedback/

If Boise can pull that off, it'd be fantastic. The NIMBYs are lurking in the background, though, and will try to deep-six any sensible plan.

These types of zoning changes are a decent microcosm of the issue with coastal cities. The first/second ring neighborhoods are popular for their dense nature and walkability. The suburbs are less expensive and more car focused. If zoning can create more walkable neighborhoods elsewhere in the city, then the upwards pressure on the first/second ring houses is reduced and everyone can drive less.

[FINate]

If Boise can pull that off, it'd be fantastic. The NIMBYs are lurking in the background, though, and will try to deep-six any sensible plan.

These types of zoning changes are a decent microcosm of the issue with coastal cities. The first/second ring neighborhoods are popular for their dense nature and walkability. The suburbs are less expensive and more car focused. If zoning can create more walkable neighborhoods elsewhere in the city, then the upwards pressure on the first/second ring houses is reduced and everyone can drive less.

I'm cautiously optimistic. While we have our share of NIMBYs here, they don't currently seem to have much sway. That council members are willing to go on the record in support of higher density is encouraging, and I'm pleasantly surprised by the support from the pubic for smarter development. It also helps that the judiciary here generally isn't sympathetic to the NIMBYs. Fingers crossed.

[OtherJen]

If Boise can pull that off, it'd be fantastic. The NIMBYs are lurking in the background, though, and will try to deep-six any sensible plan.

These types of zoning changes are a decent microcosm of the issue with coastal cities. The first/second ring neighborhoods are popular for their dense nature and walkability. The suburbs are less expensive and more car focused. If zoning can create more walkable neighborhoods elsewhere in the city, then the upwards pressure on the first/second ring houses is reduced and everyone can drive less.

I'm cautiously optimistic. While we have our share of NIMBYs here, they don't currently seem to have much sway. That council members are willing to go on the record in support of higher density is encouraging, and I'm pleasantly surprised by the support from the pubic for smarter development. It also helps that the judiciary here generally isn't sympathetic to the NIMBYs. Fingers crossed.

This is a beautiful quote from the judge in your second linked article:

“The numerous existing homes surrounding this area on at least three sides have already caused loss of visual context, loss of wildlife habitat and rural uses, etc.,” Williamson wrote. “And presumably, many of NWNA’s members presumably live in the housing developments surrounding this area, and their housing developments presumably caused the same conditions they now object to.”

[Just Joe]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

If we intend to keep supporting a bunch of southwestern developments that are poorly planned, overly populated, and ill-suited to the natural climate, doesn't desalination of the closer Pacific Ocean make more sense from various perspectives than tunneling through the Rockies?

 I agree. In fact, since there is not enough water in the southwest to support the growing population, then discourage further population growth. Won't the free markets moderate growth? Expensive water, limited supplies, and greater effiiciency?

[Just Joe]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

[clifp]

* - Why do I live in a SFH in a sprawling suburb?  There are lots of reasons.  Because I can get a whole lot more house for the money.  Because I can (relatively) easily modify my house to meet my family's changing needs.  Because I have six kids, some of whom are very loud, and the idea of sharing walls or floors or ceilings with neighbors is laughable.  Because we homeschool, and DW hosts a weekly co-op with 60 people at our house. Because I can grab a ball and go play soccer in the front yard with my kids.  Because it's a quiet neighborhood, away from lots of traffic noise.  Because, while it is considered impolitic to say so, the fact that we're in a middle-class area means there's less crime to worry about.  Because I can plant and grow my own fruit trees.  Because having a decent-sized garage means I can maintain and repair our cars myself.  Because I can go out on my deck and enjoy the view of a muskrat paddling around the shore of the retention pond, hear the frogs croaking at night, and watch spectacular sunrises and sunsets in my bathrobe.  Because I don't need to commute to a high-density area for work.  And, among other things, the politics of my suburb agree with me far more than what I would deal with in a big city.  If you want me to give all of that up, you better have a freaking HUGE carrot to offer. 

While I understand your point here, and suspect many (most?) Americans share the same thought process, I'll point out that these are all LIFESTYLE choices. Suburban sprawl is unequivocally bad for the environment and climate change, and it's generally bad for people (too much sedentary time in a car vs. walking). You can play soccer in a neighborhood park. Dense neighborhoods can be both low crime and quiet (e.g. many European cities). There are other models for hosting large social functions, such as community centers. You can get farm fresh produce at farmer's markets. You can still work on your own cars and do other projects by renting space at a community shop. These are all possible in a well designed and thriving city, we just aren't very good at creating these types of places in the US because so much of our energy goes into sprawl and an antiquated unsustainable vision of the "American Dream."

I'd love to see some links to recent (last 5 years or so) studies supporting this.  I know this was popular 20 years ago, I just doubt it is true anymore. In Bill Gates's book how to avoid a climate crisis, he makes scores of suggestions. None of them is pack everyone into densely populated urban centers.  The number #1 source of greenhouse gases is building things responsible for 31%  compared to transportation which is only 16%.  Single family homes, can and generally are built primarily of renewable wood, where as skyscraper have to be built with steel and concrete. Steel is  very hard to make greener, and concrete is virtually impossible because it relies on chemical reaction which produces a ton of CO2. This means there is an order of magnitude more CO2 being released to build 1,500' foot condo than 1500 foot house.

Apartment buildings are also one of the biggest barriers to more widescale EV adoption. They require extensive retrofiting to install charging stations, and they lack sufficient roof space to put on solar panels to generate electricity.  I'm essentially off the grid, my PV system produces as much electricity as I consume in my house, plus charging my EV. That's something an apartment dweller can't do.

[FINate]

I'd love to see some links to recent (last 5 years or so) studies supporting this.  I know this was popular 20 years ago, I just doubt it is true anymore. In Bill Gates's book how to avoid a climate crisis, he makes scores of suggestions. None of them is pack everyone into densely populated urban centers.  The number #1 source of greenhouse gases is building things responsible for 31%  compared to transportation which is only 16%.  Single family homes, can and generally are built primarily of renewable wood, where as skyscraper have to be built with steel and concrete. Steel is  very hard to make greener, and concrete is virtually impossible because it relies on chemical reaction which produces a ton of CO2. This means there is an order of magnitude more CO2 being released to build 1,500' foot condo than 1500 foot house.

Apartment buildings are also one of the biggest barriers to more widescale EV adoption. They require extensive retrofiting to install charging stations, and they lack sufficient roof space to put on solar panels to generate electricity.  I'm essentially off the grid, my PV system produces as much electricity as I consume in my house, plus charging my EV. That's something an apartment dweller can't do.

Your argument assumes I'm only talking about high rises. As already mentioned, I'm not. There's a lot of middle ground between single family suburban sprawl and high rises.

In most places it's feasible to build up to 6 stories (about 85 ft) using wood construction. Blocks of mixed use 6 story buildings are far better than sprawl, and make for a pleasant neighborhood footprint. This is how most European cities are configured, with relatively few people living in central districts. And you know what, it makes for really nice, livable cities.

Single family suburban sprawl, on the other hand, IS much more carbon intensive, including construction itself. Consider how much cement and pavement is used to create a typical subdivision with relatively few homes. Sprawled out roads and sidewalks, drainage, and earthworks. Each home needs its own cement foundation (vs. multiple homes per foundation). Then every home has its own landscaping that uses water. Per capita, higher density housing uses a lot less energy and water. On top of all this there's all the driving.

The issue of EVs and apartments is easy, especially for new construction: Add charging stations for residents. If this isn't possible then EV owners can do what owners of ICE vehicles already do... fill up at a station, perhaps while grocery shopping or whatever. Oh look, apartment buildings in the Boise metro area are already planning for this.

As for solar panels, why do we assume these need to be roof top? My city is nicknamed the City of Trees, so solar panels already don't work well for most homes because there are too many shade trees. Instead, we put large solar farms in the desert. Problem solved.

[nereo]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

No.  No country has ever done a tunneling project like you describe for anything, anywhere.  Because tunneling is ludicrously expensive, and tunneling through granite is the most expensive option of all.

[LennStar]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

Are you talking about this little 10 billion project?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

[Michael in ABQ]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

If we intend to keep supporting a bunch of southwestern developments that are poorly planned, overly populated, and ill-suited to the natural climate, doesn't desalination of the closer Pacific Ocean make more sense from various perspectives than tunneling through the Rockies?

 I agree. In fact, since there is not enough water in the southwest to support the growing population, then discourage further population growth. Won't the free markets moderate growth? Expensive water, limited supplies, and greater effiiciency?

I remember having a conversation years ago with someone studying economics and he did a study on the elasticity of demand for water. Bottom line was water had to be about 5-10x more expensive to make a meaningful impact on consumer behavior. I live in the southwest and our water/sewer bill (not including trash) is about $50-75/month. We have no grass or irrigation - just gravel and a few hardy shrubs that we never water so that's completely household consumption. However, with 6 kids that's multiple showers/baths per day, 1-2 loads of laundry every single day, and running the dishwasher 1-2 times every day (plus washing some larger dishes in the sink). Even if our water bill was $250 a month, we're not going to stop washing clothes, washing dishes, or bathing.

Here in New Mexico the overwhelming majority of water is used for agriculture as opposed to residential/commercial or industrial use. At some point the cost of water to grow a field of hay would seem to be cost prohibitive but as long as people want to raise livestock they'll pay for hay. Also, water rights in the west tend to be based on first use so those water rights established by farmers and ranchers 100-150 years ago take precedence over most everyone else allowing them to get groundwater and in some cases surface water, far cheaper than they might otherwise.

https://www.ose.state.nm.us/WUC/wucTechReports/2015/pdf/2015%20WUR%20final_05142019.pdf

10% - Public water use for residential/commercial
5% Industrial/mining/power production/etc.
80% Agriculture
20% Losses to evaporation and canals (most water for agriculture is transported in unlined canals so a lot of water soaks into the ground so this number overlaps with agriculture).

I'm not sure about the numbers for other southwest states but that's a pretty striking difference especially if you look at a satellite map of NM and see just how little land is used for irrigated cropland (probably 5% or less - and heavily concentrated along the few rivers in the state).

[Spiffy]

Rail tankers would probably be the most economical solution for transporting water uphill or across long distances. It works that way for oil (pipelines generally go downhill). And you actually wouldn't have to go as far as the Great Lakes. East Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri are soaking wet places with lots of lakes.
[/quote]

There is no part of Texas that is soaking wet now and very likely never will be again.

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?TX

[zolotiyeruki]

Heh, the idea of digging an >800 mile tunnel (from Denver to LA) through granite sounds rather expensive, indeed.

[FINate]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

No.  No country has ever done a tunneling project like you describe for anything, anywhere.  Because tunneling is ludicrously expensive, and tunneling through granite is the most expensive option of all.

Additionally, any pipeline connecting the Great Lakes to the west must cross the Continental Divide. According to Mr Google, the elevation of the Great Lakes is around 500' whereas the lowest point on the Continental Divide is around 4000' in southern New Mexico, and it's not clear to me that even this is a viable route without crossing into Mexico. In any case, it's interesting to open Google Maps with the Terrain feature on and look at the lay of the land. It's not like you can tunnel for 30 or even 100 miles under the Rockies. They aren't just high, but also massive and super wide. The entire land mass is elevated.

It would be far more economical and sensible for people to move to the Midwest. More water, less wildfire danger.

[PDXTabs]

In fact, since there is not enough water in the southwest to support the growing population, then discourage further population growth. Won't the free markets moderate growth? Expensive water, limited supplies, and greater effiiciency?

Eventually. But water isn't distributed in a free market fashion. It is distributed with water right, as mentioned my Michael in ABQ.

[PDXTabs]

If we intend to keep supporting a bunch of southwestern developments that are poorly planned, overly populated, and ill-suited to the natural climate, doesn't desalination of the closer Pacific Ocean make more sense from various perspectives than tunneling through the Rockies?

I expect that one day we will stop supporting them, although I might not live long enough to see that day.

[OtherJen]

I remember having a conversation years ago with someone studying economics and he did a study on the elasticity of demand for water. Bottom line was water had to be about 5-10x more expensive to make a meaningful impact on consumer behavior. I live in the southwest and our water/sewer bill (not including trash) is about $50-75/month. We have no grass or irrigation - just gravel and a few hardy shrubs that we never water so that's completely household consumption. However, with 6 kids that's multiple showers/baths per day, 1-2 loads of laundry every single day, and running the dishwasher 1-2 times every day (plus washing some larger dishes in the sink). Even if our water bill was $250 a month, we're not going to stop washing clothes, washing dishes, or bathing.

That seems insanely cheap. That's less than my husband and I pay for municipal water each month in a state surrounded by freshwater, for two people with daily showers, no dishwasher, dishes get washed 1x per day, a few loads of laundry per week.

I wonder whether artificially low water charges have fueled unsustainable development in the southwest.

[ChpBstrd]

I remember having a conversation years ago with someone studying economics and he did a study on the elasticity of demand for water. Bottom line was water had to be about 5-10x more expensive to make a meaningful impact on consumer behavior. I live in the southwest and our water/sewer bill (not including trash) is about $50-75/month. We have no grass or irrigation - just gravel and a few hardy shrubs that we never water so that's completely household consumption. However, with 6 kids that's multiple showers/baths per day, 1-2 loads of laundry every single day, and running the dishwasher 1-2 times every day (plus washing some larger dishes in the sink). Even if our water bill was $250 a month, we're not going to stop washing clothes, washing dishes, or bathing.

That seems insanely cheap. That's less than my husband and I pay for municipal water each month in a state surrounded by freshwater, for two people with daily showers, no dishwasher, dishes get washed 1x per day, a few loads of laundry per week.

I wonder whether artificially low water charges have fueled unsustainable development in the southwest.

In my soaking-wet area of the Deep South, I pay about $40/month for combined water, sewer, and trash for a 3 person household. That's about 2/3rd what @Michael in ABQ is paying for a household of twice as many people in a desert. In our area, water is so cheap that you'd have to be doing major irrigation or filling a pool to move the bill off of the minimum charge by a significant amount. We're only paying for the upkeep of the processing plant and municipal pipes. The water itself costs virtually nothing.

So overall I agree. If there is some sort of water shortage emergency, it's not being reflected in the prices. Desert cities may be draining their aquifers while resisting politically unpopular cost increases. This could be easily masked because the pipes all cost the same amount to maintain until the aquifer goes dry. Until you reach that emergency point, there is no immediate pressing justification for higher rates.

[iris lily]

If you tax the value of vacant land suitable for development, it will just change the behavior of developers. Now they might wait to purchase and entitle the land (get zoning/planning permissions and approvals to actually build something) until they're ready to build. Maybe they'll just get an option on the land instead of buying it outright - pretty hard to justify taxing land that has an option to purchase - especially when that option is not publicly disclosed anywhere.

But someone is paying the tax.  If the builder isn't buying it, then someone still owns it.  And that person can either sell it for a rate that makes sense to a builder, or they can pay the tax on it.

If the purpose of all of this is a combination of more houses existing, more tax revenue, and more affordable housing, that still works. 

Though mostly I'm thinking of land that has already been zoned for residential use.

I am not entirely sure which taxing entity collects the vacant building tax in this taxing utopia scheme, but it sound like it would be the municipality? Which would be hilariously unproductive for my city where the municipality is the largest owner of vacant buildings within its jurisdiction by far. There are 12,000 vacant buildings owned by the City of St Louis.

[Just Joe]

In fact, since there is not enough water in the southwest to support the growing population, then discourage further population growth. Won't the free markets moderate growth? Expensive water, limited supplies, and greater effiiciency?

Eventually. But water isn't distributed in a free market fashion. It is distributed with water right, as mentioned my Michael in ABQ.

I keep learning stuff here. Thanks...

[Abe]

I remember having a conversation years ago with someone studying economics and he did a study on the elasticity of demand for water. Bottom line was water had to be about 5-10x more expensive to make a meaningful impact on consumer behavior. I live in the southwest and our water/sewer bill (not including trash) is about $50-75/month. We have no grass or irrigation - just gravel and a few hardy shrubs that we never water so that's completely household consumption. However, with 6 kids that's multiple showers/baths per day, 1-2 loads of laundry every single day, and running the dishwasher 1-2 times every day (plus washing some larger dishes in the sink). Even if our water bill was $250 a month, we're not going to stop washing clothes, washing dishes, or bathing.

That seems insanely cheap. That's less than my husband and I pay for municipal water each month in a state surrounded by freshwater, for two people with daily showers, no dishwasher, dishes get washed 1x per day, a few loads of laundry per week.

I wonder whether artificially low water charges have fueled unsustainable development in the southwest.

In my soaking-wet area of the Deep South, I pay about $40/month for combined water, sewer, and trash for a 3 person household. That's about 2/3rd what @Michael in ABQ is paying for a household of twice as many people in a desert. In our area, water is so cheap that you'd have to be doing major irrigation or filling a pool to move the bill off of the minimum charge by a significant amount. We're only paying for the upkeep of the processing plant and municipal pipes. The water itself costs virtually nothing.

So overall I agree. If there is some sort of water shortage emergency, it's not being reflected in the prices. Desert cities may be draining their aquifers while resisting politically unpopular cost increases. This could be easily masked because the pipes all cost the same amount to maintain until the aquifer goes dry. Until you reach that emergency point, there is no immediate pressing justification for higher rates.

Michael’s water bill is the same as mine, but my family half the size and living in a flood-prone city (Houston, we have water!) A lot of it funds flood control, so there’s that factor desert people don’t need to deal with.

[Michael in ABQ]

I remember having a conversation years ago with someone studying economics and he did a study on the elasticity of demand for water. Bottom line was water had to be about 5-10x more expensive to make a meaningful impact on consumer behavior. I live in the southwest and our water/sewer bill (not including trash) is about $50-75/month. We have no grass or irrigation - just gravel and a few hardy shrubs that we never water so that's completely household consumption. However, with 6 kids that's multiple showers/baths per day, 1-2 loads of laundry every single day, and running the dishwasher 1-2 times every day (plus washing some larger dishes in the sink). Even if our water bill was $250 a month, we're not going to stop washing clothes, washing dishes, or bathing.

That seems insanely cheap. That's less than my husband and I pay for municipal water each month in a state surrounded by freshwater, for two people with daily showers, no dishwasher, dishes get washed 1x per day, a few loads of laundry per week.

I wonder whether artificially low water charges have fueled unsustainable development in the southwest.

In my soaking-wet area of the Deep South, I pay about $40/month for combined water, sewer, and trash for a 3 person household. That's about 2/3rd what @Michael in ABQ is paying for a household of twice as many people in a desert. In our area, water is so cheap that you'd have to be doing major irrigation or filling a pool to move the bill off of the minimum charge by a significant amount. We're only paying for the upkeep of the processing plant and municipal pipes. The water itself costs virtually nothing.

So overall I agree. If there is some sort of water shortage emergency, it's not being reflected in the prices. Desert cities may be draining their aquifers while resisting politically unpopular cost increases. This could be easily masked because the pipes all cost the same amount to maintain until the aquifer goes dry. Until you reach that emergency point, there is no immediate pressing justification for higher rates.

Michael’s water bill is the same as mine, but my family half the size and living in a flood-prone city (Houston, we have water!) A lot of it funds flood control, so there’s that factor desert people don’t need to deal with.

Flash floods are the issue here. So we do have a regional flood control authority (AMAFCA: Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control) but their funding comes from property taxes. They get about 2% of every dollar collected of property taxes - which works out to about $60/year for our house. They're responsible for building and maintaining the arroyos (dry streambeds/concrete lined channels) that most water runs into when it rains (eventually draining into the Rio Grande River). We get a lot of monsoon rains in the summer so it may rain an inch in 20-30 minutes and then stop. On dry ground the rain doesn't get absorbed very well so you get flash floods.

[PDXTabs]

Combined water/sewer bills are weird. This is my most recent bill for three months and it is substantially more than if I moved a dozen miles in any direction.

Code: [Select]

Service                      Usage  Rate per CCF    Charges
 Water Volume                7 CCF      $  6.029      42.20
 Sewer Volume                7 CCF      $ 11.920      83.44
 Stormwater Off-site                                  64.40
 Stormwater On-site                                   34.68
 Portland Harbor Superfund                             3.60
 Base Charge                                          60.18
Total                                               $288.50


[Just Joe]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

No.  No country has ever done a tunneling project like you describe for anything, anywhere.  Because tunneling is ludicrously expensive, and tunneling through granite is the most expensive option of all.

Additionally, any pipeline connecting the Great Lakes to the west must cross the Continental Divide. According to Mr Google, the elevation of the Great Lakes is around 500' whereas the lowest point on the Continental Divide is around 4000' in southern New Mexico, and it's not clear to me that even this is a viable route without crossing into Mexico. In any case, it's interesting to open Google Maps with the Terrain feature on and look at the lay of the land. It's not like you can tunnel for 30 or even 100 miles under the Rockies. They aren't just high, but also massive and super wide. The entire land mass is elevated.

It would be far more economical and sensible for people to move to the Midwest. More water, less wildfire danger.

https://youtu.be/30foJiPUrBA

If they can tunnel under the Alps can't Americans tunnel under the Rockies?

[nereo]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

No.  No country has ever done a tunneling project like you describe for anything, anywhere.  Because tunneling is ludicrously expensive, and tunneling through granite is the most expensive option of all.

Additionally, any pipeline connecting the Great Lakes to the west must cross the Continental Divide. According to Mr Google, the elevation of the Great Lakes is around 500' whereas the lowest point on the Continental Divide is around 4000' in southern New Mexico, and it's not clear to me that even this is a viable route without crossing into Mexico. In any case, it's interesting to open Google Maps with the Terrain feature on and look at the lay of the land. It's not like you can tunnel for 30 or even 100 miles under the Rockies. They aren't just high, but also massive and super wide. The entire land mass is elevated.

It would be far more economical and sensible for people to move to the Midwest. More water, less wildfire danger.

https://youtu.be/30foJiPUrBA

If they can tunnel under the Alps can't Americans tunnel under the Rockies?

Can’t tell if this is supposed to be sarcastic or not.
It’s a 55km tunnel extension (about 34 miles) costing $11B. To avoid most of the gravity/pumping issues the tunnel (s) would need to be over 1,000 miles.

I don’t see how that is even remotely plausible.

[FINate]

Tunnel under.... lol...

The Eisenhower tunnel (bigger and fancier, but same idea - and yes, I'm just talking about the westbound tunnel) cost about $120 million in 1973 dollars, and it's 1.7 miles long.

That's roughly, in today's dollars, $500 million per mile. And you *still* have to get the water to ~5000 foot elevation even if you only want to do a few hundred miles of tunneling.

-W

Don't the Swiss do projects like these for train tunnels?

No.  No country has ever done a tunneling project like you describe for anything, anywhere.  Because tunneling is ludicrously expensive, and tunneling through granite is the most expensive option of all.

Additionally, any pipeline connecting the Great Lakes to the west must cross the Continental Divide. According to Mr Google, the elevation of the Great Lakes is around 500' whereas the lowest point on the Continental Divide is around 4000' in southern New Mexico, and it's not clear to me that even this is a viable route without crossing into Mexico. In any case, it's interesting to open Google Maps with the Terrain feature on and look at the lay of the land. It's not like you can tunnel for 30 or even 100 miles under the Rockies. They aren't just high, but also massive and super wide. The entire land mass is elevated.

It would be far more economical and sensible for people to move to the Midwest. More water, less wildfire danger.

https://youtu.be/30foJiPUrBA

If they can tunnel under the Alps can't Americans tunnel under the Rockies?

They didn't "tunnel under the Alps," they built tunnels in part of the Alps. It's a super impressive long tunnel at about 40 miles. But it's for trains, not water.

Smaller sections of tunnel could be constructed under the highest peaks for a water project, but the entire continent around the Rocky Mountains is uplifted thousands of feet. So from around 500' elevation at the Great Lakes, with a very long gentle slope for hundreds of miles up to around 5000'. It's not practical.

Besides, this entire idea reeks of presumption and entitlement. Why does anyone suppose the Great Lake states want to send their water to SoCal or the Desert SW? "We want to live where it's always sunny, and we're going to look down on you for living in a 'terrible' climate, but send us your water. Whah!"

[seattlecyclone]

Why tunnel a pipe through the Rockies when you can go up and over instead? As long as you're piping the water to somewhere lower-elevation than the Great Lakes it should work, right?

[FINate]

Why tunnel a pipe through the Rockies when you can go up and over instead? As long as you're piping the water to somewhere lower-elevation than the Great Lakes it should work, right?

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep16790

[FINate]

I get the sense that people still don't understand what it means to get water up and over the western US, so maybe this visual will help:

[nereo]

Or maybe just look at it this way:  we’ve been building tunnels and pipelines for centuries, and there’s been an acute need to get more water in western states for decades.  Yet no project - public or private - has built a water line over the Rockies. It’s not like we suddenly have the technology or that no one has thought about it before.  It’s simple economics - it would be astronomically expensive, and there are cheaper options (which actually are being built).

[NorCal]

I'd love to see some links to recent (last 5 years or so) studies supporting this.  I know this was popular 20 years ago, I just doubt it is true anymore. In Bill Gates's book how to avoid a climate crisis, he makes scores of suggestions. None of them is pack everyone into densely populated urban centers.  The number #1 source of greenhouse gases is building things responsible for 31%  compared to transportation which is only 16%.  Single family homes, can and generally are built primarily of renewable wood, where as skyscraper have to be built with steel and concrete. Steel is  very hard to make greener, and concrete is virtually impossible because it relies on chemical reaction which produces a ton of CO2. This means there is an order of magnitude more CO2 being released to build 1,500' foot condo than 1500 foot house.

Apartment buildings are also one of the biggest barriers to more widescale EV adoption. They require extensive retrofiting to install charging stations, and they lack sufficient roof space to put on solar panels to generate electricity.  I'm essentially off the grid, my PV system produces as much electricity as I consume in my house, plus charging my EV. That's something an apartment dweller can't do.

I read an article about this within the last few months, but I unfortunately can’t find the link.

One of those online household carbon footprint calculators decided to look at everyone’s self-reported carbon footprint and sort it by zip code. It wasn’t a full scientific study, but I did find the results interesting.

Their conclusion was that the lowest emission households are in both urban and rural areas, while suburban zip codes were dramatically higher. They mostly attributed this to lifestyle decisions of these families, and not necessarily the homes themselves.

I do think Bill Gates’s book is one of the best resources to understand climate change outside of the IPCC reports. I just recall that he went to great lengths to make sure his proposals aren’t forcing people to change their lifestyles. I wouldn’t take his personal reluctance to prescribe lifestyle changes as a conclusion that better urban planning won’t make a difference.

[NorCal]

This is the "economics" of building a water pipeline that i was speaking of. The rockies are in the way, and that's a massive lift which would require hundreds of pumping stations along the way.

Tunnel under the Rocky Mtns, not over.

This could definitely be a possibility if the Boring company's price quote is more than just fanboy fiction.
https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-the-boring-company-10-million-dollars-per-mile-price-tag-game-changer/

I guess it’s not common knowledge that we already pump water through the Rockies. Most of Colorado’s precipitation is on the western side of the Continental Divide, but most of the water users are on the eastern side. Denver gets something like 2/3 of its water from the Western Slope. I believe they started some of these tunnels for agriculture back in the late 1800’s if I remember my history correctly.

https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2021/07/22/plumbing-the-rockies-vast-infrastructure-gets-water-where-its-needed/

[Log]

Here’s a recent (long) video I enjoyed on this subject: https://youtu.be/4ZxzBcxB7Zc

The housing crisis affects everything.

[FINate]

The housing crisis affects everything.

Indeed it does. We're often asked why we left Santa Cruz because in many ways it's a wonderful and beautiful city that I still love and don't want to shit on it here. And yet it has multiple serious societal issues, and the more I thought about these the more I was convinced they are mostly rooted in a manufactured housing crisis. So my short answer to why we left is "it's complicated, but simply put, NIMBYism."

Although we owned our house there outright, I couldn't bring myself to raise my kids into adulthood in that environment. And from an ethical standpoint, I didn't want to be part of a system that was doing so much harm. The final straw for me was seeing struggling renters protesting against an affordable housing development... at that point I just kinda figured this place is fucked. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and there are some recent encouraging changes with more high density projects getting approved and built (it helps that the state is applying pressure on cities). But at the same time, they are so far behind on housing that it will take 10+ years to really make a dent, which is too late for my kids. But who knows, if the housing crisis is ever solved maybe I'll move back to a flat/apartment after the kids fly the coop.

[Log]

The housing crisis affects everything.

Indeed it does. We're often asked why we left Santa Cruz because in many ways it's a wonderful and beautiful city that I still love and don't want to shit on it here. And yet it has multiple serious societal issues, and the more I thought about these the more I was convinced they are mostly rooted in a manufactured housing crisis. So my short answer to why we left is "it's complicated, but simply put, NIMBYism."

Although we owned our house there outright, I couldn't bring myself to raise my kids into adulthood in that environment. And from an ethical standpoint, I didn't want to be part of a system that was doing so much harm. The final straw for me was seeing struggling renters protesting against an affordable housing development... at that point I just kinda figured this place is fucked. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and there are some recent encouraging changes with more high density projects getting approved and built (it helps that the state is applying pressure on cities). But at the same time, they are so far behind on housing that it will take 10+ years to really make a dent, which is too late for my kids. But who knows, if the housing crisis is ever solved maybe I'll move back to a flat/apartment after the kids fly the coop.

I’m really encouraged by top-down zoning from states which has passed in both California and Oregon. Neither goes nearly far enough, but in time, this path could be a total game-changer. At the hyper-local level, it is very frequently in voters’ best short-term interests to be NIMBYs. So just don’t allow those decisions to be made at the local level.

I’ve become so frustrated lately with otherwise-intelligent people (mostly boomers, though could be anyone) just having complete nonsense irrational views about housing affordability. A distant family member who owns two separate million dollar single family homes (one detached, one rowhouse) was complaining about a condo tower going up in the downtown of her city because the condos were million dollar luxury condos. No self awareness at all about how much worse her homes were for the housing crisis than a new tower which fit dozens of units on a single lot.

And then it’s on to “foreign investors” and “greedy developers” and whatever other boogeymen they can invent rather than confronting that voters did this, by pretending that this country was wealthy enough for everyone to live in a detached single family home, when that is and always has been a complete fantasyland.

[nereo]

The housing crisis affects everything.

Indeed it does. We're often asked why we left Santa Cruz because in many ways it's a wonderful and beautiful city that I still love and don't want to shit on it here. And yet it has multiple serious societal issues, and the more I thought about these the more I was convinced they are mostly rooted in a manufactured housing crisis. So my short answer to why we left is "it's complicated, but simply put, NIMBYism."

Although we owned our house there outright, I couldn't bring myself to raise my kids into adulthood in that environment. And from an ethical standpoint, I didn't want to be part of a system that was doing so much harm. The final straw for me was seeing struggling renters protesting against an affordable housing development... at that point I just kinda figured this place is fucked. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and there are some recent encouraging changes with more high density projects getting approved and built (it helps that the state is applying pressure on cities). But at the same time, they are so far behind on housing that it will take 10+ years to really make a dent, which is too late for my kids. But who knows, if the housing crisis is ever solved maybe I'll move back to a flat/apartment after the kids fly the coop.

Barry Swenson?
Small world - I too lived, love and left Santa Cruz. It was a hard decision to make.
Friends/Family from outside SC would constantly ask my why housing was so bat s*** expensive in SC (at the time I think we were the 2nd or 3rd highest median SFH cost in the nation) and it was nearly impossible to explain that it was largely because the community staunchly resisted expansion projects, and that ironically some of the stiffest opponents were the very people for whom affordable housing projects would benefit.
#keepsantacruzwierd

[FINate]

The housing crisis affects everything.

Indeed it does. We're often asked why we left Santa Cruz because in many ways it's a wonderful and beautiful city that I still love and don't want to shit on it here. And yet it has multiple serious societal issues, and the more I thought about these the more I was convinced they are mostly rooted in a manufactured housing crisis. So my short answer to why we left is "it's complicated, but simply put, NIMBYism."

Although we owned our house there outright, I couldn't bring myself to raise my kids into adulthood in that environment. And from an ethical standpoint, I didn't want to be part of a system that was doing so much harm. The final straw for me was seeing struggling renters protesting against an affordable housing development... at that point I just kinda figured this place is fucked. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and there are some recent encouraging changes with more high density projects getting approved and built (it helps that the state is applying pressure on cities). But at the same time, they are so far behind on housing that it will take 10+ years to really make a dent, which is too late for my kids. But who knows, if the housing crisis is ever solved maybe I'll move back to a flat/apartment after the kids fly the coop.

Barry Swenson?
Small world - I too lived, love and left Santa Cruz. It was a hard decision to make.
Friends/Family from outside SC would constantly ask my why housing was so bat s*** expensive in SC (at the time I think we were the 2nd or 3rd highest median SFH cost in the nation) and it was nearly impossible to explain that it was largely because the community staunchly resisted expansion projects, and that ironically some of the stiffest opponents were the very people for whom affordable housing projects would benefit.
#keepsantacruzwierd

I know the Swenson family indirectly -- friends of friends thing. No, I'm originally from Monterey County, so even after 2 decades in Santa Cruz I was still regarded as something of a second-rate local. Xenophobia runs deep when a scarcity mindset takes hold. People debate who is "more local" (and therefore should have more say in things) based on how many generations their family has been in Santa Cruz. Because, you know, those with family roots back to the displacement and oppression of actual native people, and that benefited from land theft, clearly hold the moral high ground /eyeroll. Not a good look for a place that prides itself on progressive values. In any case, I getting too negative. Lots of great people there and I think there's a real possibility that some of this insanity is fixed in the years ahead. Wishing them the best.

[mm1970]

The housing crisis affects everything.

Indeed it does. We're often asked why we left Santa Cruz because in many ways it's a wonderful and beautiful city that I still love and don't want to shit on it here. And yet it has multiple serious societal issues, and the more I thought about these the more I was convinced they are mostly rooted in a manufactured housing crisis. So my short answer to why we left is "it's complicated, but simply put, NIMBYism."

Although we owned our house there outright, I couldn't bring myself to raise my kids into adulthood in that environment. And from an ethical standpoint, I didn't want to be part of a system that was doing so much harm. The final straw for me was seeing struggling renters protesting against an affordable housing development... at that point I just kinda figured this place is fucked. I genuinely hope I'm wrong, and there are some recent encouraging changes with more high density projects getting approved and built (it helps that the state is applying pressure on cities). But at the same time, they are so far behind on housing that it will take 10+ years to really make a dent, which is too late for my kids. But who knows, if the housing crisis is ever solved maybe I'll move back to a flat/apartment after the kids fly the coop.

Barry Swenson?
Small world - I too lived, love and left Santa Cruz. It was a hard decision to make.
Friends/Family from outside SC would constantly ask my why housing was so bat s*** expensive in SC (at the time I think we were the 2nd or 3rd highest median SFH cost in the nation) and it was nearly impossible to explain that it was largely because the community staunchly resisted expansion projects, and that ironically some of the stiffest opponents were the very people for whom affordable housing projects would benefit.
#keepsantacruzwierd

I know the Swenson family indirectly -- friends of friends thing. No, I'm originally from Monterey County, so even after 2 decades in Santa Cruz I was still regarded as something of a second-rate local. Xenophobia runs deep when a scarcity mindset takes hold. People debate who is "more local" (and therefore should have more say in things) based on how many generations their family has been in Santa Cruz. Because, you know, those with family roots back to the displacement and oppression of actual native people, and that benefited from land theft, clearly hold the moral high ground /eyeroll. Not a good look for a place that prides itself on progressive values. In any case, I getting too negative. Lots of great people there and I think there's a real possibility that some of this insanity is fixed in the years ahead. Wishing them the best.

Replace "Santa Cruz" with "Santa Barbara" and...same