Residential is around 7% (similar to losses from evaporation).
Residential per-capita use has been declining for decades. Agricultural use per acre or flat or rising.
Stopping development has little to do with the water issues in the SW (it might still be a good idea, but this is not the main reason why)
http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-ab...
We would barely have to cut agricultural use in order to completely cover the water needs of doubling the entire population of the US southwest. Yes, surface and ground water sources are "stressed", but residential use is only going to get more and more efficient on a per-capita basis. Even though growing population creates more absolute need, in as world where agriculture is flood-irrigating fields or spray irrigating alfalfa (losing an outrageous amount to evaporation), we should start with the "easy" problems first. Pay farmers to install drip systems, for a start.
Why should the rest of the country subsidize these people lifestyle choices to live in an inhospitable area?
I’d be willing to support subsidizing moving them to a new location that’s better suited to living in, but I have no interest in helping pay for people to spit in reality’s eye so they can live in a place they have emotional/cultural ties to
2. humans have lived in the area for thousands of years. Yes, it doesn't fit into a northern European notion of "the kind of place humans should live", but it fits entirely into the southern European, north African and Arabic culture and living patterns. These cultures (along with the native Americans ones that flourished here for millenia) have developed sophisticated ways of living in this sort of climate and landscape.
3. it's not unlivable, it's just unfarmable (note that this is different from subsistence ag. or gardening).
Well then it sounds like they have a local solution to the issue and don’t need to bother us
> humans have lived in the area for thousands of years.
And then humans changed the environment.
> it's not unlivable
If it’s not unliveable then they should be able to support themselves, no?
Midwest river flooding, hurricanes all through the gulf coast, rising sea levels, tornadoes, New York was flooded from a hurricane, and Texas was pretty ravaged by some cold weather recently.
What place is so perfect for people to live in that doesn't face any challenges from climate change?
If they do not have the resources to make the move, I have complete empathy for them and am willing to vote for politicians who will allocate my tax dollars towards helping those people out of their current issue.
If, however, they refuse to move because of some non economic reason then that is a lifestyle choice they will have to shoulder the burden of. If one of my representative politicians tries to use my tax dollars to help them continue their untenable lifestyle choices I will vote for their competitor.
Also
> Midwest river flooding, hurricanes all through the gulf coast, rising sea levels, tornadoes, New York was flooded from a hurricane, and Texas was pretty ravaged by some cold weather recently
Don’t include Texas in that. The other groups have had weather systems of increasing severity that are massively expensive to build against. Texas had weather they declared was unforseeable when they had hit the temperature multiple times in the previous 20-30 years and refused to spend a relatively small amount of money to winterize their generators and mitigate the problem.
[1] https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-...
[0] Or any other place with a reasonable natural amount of rainfall. Nothing special about Ohio for this purpose.
I live in NM. The agriculture sector here produces less than 8% of both the calories and pounds of food consumed within the state. Most of the beef production in NM is exported out of state (and country).
So if the "burden is on the consumer", it's on people who don't live in US southwest, and that has to stop. The fever dreams of the 1930s/40s bureau of reclamation have done so much damage.
