Is Arizona the new Texas?

[James Bond Agent 007]

Geeze, I thought it was obvious but the Salt and Gila Rivers are nothing compared to the Nile and Euphrates, which is was somebody was referring to earlier.

Originally Posted by Obadno

Thank you for displaying your blithering ignorance.

Phoenix rests in a flat valley at the confluence of several rivers and creeks, this has resulted in a massive aquifer and agriculture in this area for quite literally thousands of years.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Gila River:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9145...7i13312!8i6656
Salt River, which doesn't always even have water in it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4113...7i16384!8i8192

Now if you absolutely insist on putting a large city in the middle of the desert the least you can do is find a desert with a really large river, like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0159...!7i6144!8i3072
Or this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3746...!7i7168!8i3584

That way you can get your city up to several million people and not have to worry about building huge infrastructure projects piping water from possibly hundreds of miles away.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Geeze, I thought it was obvious but the Salt and Gila Rivers are nothing compared to the Nile and Euphrates, which is was somebody was referring to earlier.

If the Gila River watershed were a state, it would be the 20th largest in the US. It is 60,000 square miles.

Don't forget about "America's Nile" the Colorado River that serves 40 million people, irrigation for 4 million acres of land, 12 billion kWh of hydroelectricity each year and is very much a river of significance on par with a Nile or Euphrates in terms of historical and modern day human settlements.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Gila River:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9145...7i13312!8i6656
Salt River, which doesn't always even have water in it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4113...7i16384!8i8192

Now if you absolutely insist on putting a large city in the middle of the desert the least you can do is find a desert with a really large river, like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0159...!7i6144!8i3072
Or this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3746...!7i7168!8i3584

That way you can get your city up to several million people and not have to worry about building huge infrastructure projects piping water from possibly hundreds of miles away.

You do know that those google images of the Salt and Gila rivers are dry because of dams upstream and water diverted into canals, right?

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Gila River:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.9145...7i13312!8i6656
Salt River, which doesn't always even have water in it:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4113...7i16384!8i8192

Now if you absolutely insist on putting a large city in the middle of the desert the least you can do is find a desert with a really large river, like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@30.0159...!7i6144!8i3072
Or this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3746...!7i7168!8i3584

That way you can get your city up to several million people and not have to worry about building huge infrastructure projects piping water from possibly hundreds of miles away.

You people have such a shallow understanding of how water in these places works or how its managed.

dunning Kruger effect in full technicolor in this thread.

Yes Arizona has no water, we will be a ruin in 10 years. Nobody thought about this because we are dumb backwards hicks.

Now please dont move here.

[Camelback]

Here's the dry Salt River, part of the Gila River watershed:

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by Camelback

If the Gila River watershed were a state, it would be the 20th largest in the US. It is 60,000 square miles.

Don't forget about "America's Nile" the Colorado River that serves 40 million people, irrigation for 4 million acres of land, 12 billion kWh of hydroelectricity each year and is very much a river of significance on par with a Nile or Euphrates in terms of historical and modern day human settlements.

Yeah, large drainage, but what's the cubic feet/second flow? Is it near the Nile? or even the Euphrates? The average for the Gila is 247 cfps, the Euphrates is over 12,000, the Nile is near 50,000 in Cairo, which is half what it is leaving Aswan.

So, are you getting the context yet? Mere trickles, compared to the Ohio, Missouri, even the Arkansas, doesn't supply a metro like Phoenix. How is Gila Bend using all that leftover flow? wait....

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by Camelback

Here's the dry Salt River, part of the Gila River watershed:

From Wikipedia:

Below the diversion dam, the bed of the Salt River is dry, except following rain or upstream runoff. The USGS stream gage at 51st Avenue, Phoenix, records no flow at all on many days—in 2009, for example, there was no flow for most of the year, except during parts of February and March when the river's discharge reached an average of 87 cubic feet per second (2.5 m3/s).[8] The diversion capacity at Granite Reef Diversion Dam is 3,600 cubic feet per second (100 m3/s), with 2,000 cubic feet per second (57 m3/s) for the Arizona Canal, and 1,600 cubic feet per second (45 m3/s) for the Southern Canal.[9]

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by fonzi

Yeah, large drainage, but what's the cubic feet/second flow? Is it near the Nile? or even the Euphrates? The average for the Gila is 247 cfps, the Euphrates is over 12,000, the Nile is near 50,000 in Cairo, which is half what it is leaving Aswan.

So, are you getting the context yet? Mere trickles, compared to the Ohio, Missouri, even the Arkansas, doesn't supply a metro like Phoenix. How is Gila Bend using all that leftover flow? wait....

The population of Arizona is 7 million. Egypt's population is 100 million, Sudan 42 million, South Sudan 13 million....the Nile runs through numerous African nations. Iraq's population is 40 million, Syria 18 million, Turkey add on another 84 million.

On a per capita cubic feet basis, the rivers serving the 7 million people in AZ is sufficient. Can AZ grow to 100 million? No.

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by Camelback

The population of Arizona is 7 million. Egypt's population is 100 million, Sudan 42 million, South Sudan 13 million....the Nile runs through numerous African nations. Iraq's population is 40 million, Syria 18 million, Turkey add on another 84 million.

On a per capita cubic feet basis, the rivers serving the 7 million people in AZ is sufficient. Can AZ grow to 100 million? No.

You made at least part of my argument for me. The Nile flows all the way through to the Med with no issues, and the Euphrates into the Persian Gulf, despite those much larger populations. That's not the case for the Gila, Salt, or even the Colorado much of the time. The Salt and Gila are only partially supplying the Valley right now! I already posted what the ground water tables are doing. Yet, you think these lofty plans for Maricopa and Buckeye, and the gobs more sprawl are just peachy? Seriously, that's just not conducive with longevity.

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by fonzi

You made at least part of my argument for me. The Nile flows all the way through to the Med with no issues, and the Euphrates into the Persian Gulf, despite those much larger populations. That's not the case for the Gila, Salt, or even the Colorado much of the time. The Salt and Gila are only partially supplying the Valley right now! I already posted what the ground water tables are doing. Yet, you think these lofty plans for Maricopa and Buckeye, and the gobs more sprawl are just peachy? Seriously, that's just not conducive with longevity.

You just won't stop.

You live in the Verde Valley and as a rural AZ resident, you rely and draw from ground water, yet complain that ground water is being depleted. You are the problem in your region, yet you still want to project your angst on other parts of Arizona that have proven water supplies that barely use ground water as their source (provided the numbers earlier).

Nobody said the Gila was the Nile and fortunately the Gila and Colorado River watersheds combined don't have to serve the enormous population of East Africa or modern day Mesopotamia.

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by Camelback

You just won't stop.

You live in the Verde Valley and as a rural AZ resident, you rely and draw from ground water, yet complain that ground water is being depleted. You are the problem in your region, yet you still want to project your angst on other parts of Arizona that have proven water supplies that barely use ground water as their source (provided the numbers earlier).

Nobody said the Gila was the Nile and fortunately the Gila and Colorado River watersheds combined don't have to serve the enormous population of East Africa or modern day Mesopotamia.

You draw from the Verde River too and SRP comes up here to make sure you get your precious share! Ground water is what we have and we don't draw from sources nearly 200 miles away, unlike you! So your little jab doesn't phase me at all.

You and others down there won't stop with the hubris, which is going to be the eventual undoing of what was a reasonably sized resort town/state capital, in a state that could previously live within it's means. It's a victim of it's what makes it attractive.

Believe me, I plan on leaving the Verde Valley, as I did the Valley of the smoggy sun. 250k in Yavapai County is too much for the watershed, especially having to make sure you can flush your commode down there.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Camelback

If the Gila River watershed were a state, it would be the 20th largest in the US. It is 60,000 square miles.

Don't forget about "America's Nile" the Colorado River that serves 40 million people, irrigation for 4 million acres of land, 12 billion kWh of hydroelectricity each year and is very much a river of significance on par with a Nile or Euphrates in terms of historical and modern day human settlements.

The Colorado River is OK, but it's - what 200 miles from Phoenix? C'mon! That's ridiculous! At least it's closer to Las Vegas.

The Gila River is this wimpy little thing. A city of maybe 200K might be OK along it, but a city of millions is ridiculous.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Camelback

You do know that those google images of the Salt and Gila rivers are dry because of dams upstream and water diverted into canals, right?

Tell me this: How many people could the waters of the Gila River watershed ALONE support? It's "normal" I suppose, that Phoenix gets it water from nearby mountains, but in addition to that they're pumping water all the way from the Colorado River some 200 miles away.

BTW for the Gila River picture I went out of my way to try to grab a shot of an upstream location. And you can tell from the photo it was never a particularly big river in the first place. Same with the Salt River.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by fonzi

You made at least part of my argument for me. The Nile flows all the way through to the Med with no issues, and the Euphrates into the Persian Gulf, despite those much larger populations. That's not the case for the Gila, Salt, or even the Colorado much of the time. The Salt and Gila are only partially supplying the Valley right now! I already posted what the ground water tables are doing. Yet, you think these lofty plans for Maricopa and Buckeye, and the gobs more sprawl are just peachy? Seriously, that's just not conducive with longevity.

Precisely! The Salt River and the Gila Rivers are hardly in the same category as the Nile. Some of the Arizonans here seem to think it is.

If you have a city of millions, you need LOTS of water. If you have to build all these elaborate public works to ship it in from hundreds of miles away, that tells you that you have a crappy location for a city and the place exists solely to pander to the hedonistic desires of people who hate snow and humidity.

[Omaharocks]

I used to work in water resource management in Albuquerque.

This is a much more complex matter than simply looking at surface water availability in the immediate area. Trust me, bringing a condescending sense of superiority from the midwest won't change the facts on the ground.

There are many factors at play:

What is the carrying capacity of the watershed? What are the groundwater resources and how has it fluctuated historically? What is the population? How much water is the metro area using on a per capita basis? What's the water catchment from nearby mountains? How much is used by agriculture?

The fact of the matter is, Arizona still has a relatively small population relative to its water resources. As others have noted, it's water usage has gone down in recent years, not up, even despite population growth.

Even in places like Tucson that have very few water resources, and only gets about 1/3rd the rainfall as the average U.S. city, are doing fine. Tucson only uses a fraction of the water that the average U.S. city does, and with reclamation technology, it could stand to use far less still. It is not in a particularly precarious situation, but Phoenix even less so.

Growth in places like Albuqerque and Tucson is tied to water rights - if you can't connect to the city's water supply, your water rights won't be sufficient and you won't be able to develop because your property would have no value, so it basically acts like an even more effective urban growth boundary than what exists in Portland. And it is all very closely monitored.

Large cities running dry is an extremely unlikely scenario, however rural parts of the southwest that are on well water are playing with fire - that's where you have the risk.

Should Arizona have allowed such rampant growth in Phoenix? Probably not.

Are the current growth rates sustainable? No (but isn't that true anywhere that's growing? Growth can't happen forever folks)

Will it run out of water anytime soon? Also, no.

Keep in mind, fellow midwesterners, the Ogallala aquifer supplies almost a third of the U.S. agricultural land, and has dropped by about 10% over the past fifty years. It exists beyond it's carrying capacity, and is unsustainable at it's current usage.

But again, is this really a major concern? Not really, because a variety of water management technologies make it relatively easy to make do with a far lower amount of water than we do today.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Precisely! The Salt River and the Gila Rivers are hardly in the same category as the Nile. Some of the Arizonans here seem to think it is.

If you have a city of millions, you need LOTS of water. If you have to build all these elaborate public works to ship it in from hundreds of miles away, that tells you that you have a crappy location for a city and the place exists solely to pander to the hedonistic desires of people who hate snow and humidity.

You do not know what you are talking about. You look like a complete idiot.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Originally Posted by Obadno

You do not know what you are talking about. You look like a complete idiot.

Tell me this: If deserts are perfectly fine place to build big cities, why aren't there tons of huge cities in the Sahara and Australian deserts?

[James Bond Agent 007]

Why aren't there any big cities here?

[Omaharocks]

Because either there isn't water in those places, or there aren't the resources to do extensive water reclamation as there is in the U.S., or both.

I shouldn't have to say this, but not all deserts are the same. The Australian Central Desert is not ringed by mountains that draw precipitation, and therefore doesn't have the available ground or surface water to support cities.

Somewhere more analogous to Phoenix is Santiago, Chile. Similar amount of precipitation per year, in a very arid country, but with mountains on the outskirts that allow for sufficient water.