text: 
  
  Our cities' water systems are becoming obsolete - clumsysmurf
  http://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6900959/water-systems-pollution-drinking-water-desalination
  
  ======
  tomohawk
  As far as I can tell, the biggest threat to water in my state are the elected
  politicians. Certain municipalities are dumping raw sewage into the water.
  They claim it is due to not enough money to build proper plants, but they keep
  redirecting the money for other uses. There are now 2 specific taxes to
  address this, and still the cronies end up with all the money.
  
  ~~~
  kissickas
  Where is this? I'd be interested in reading an article if you could link one.
  
  ~~~
  USAnum1
  I learned about this in passing during an urban planning class during
  undergrad (it was a great elective, and I really think more people should
  learn that stuff).
  
  Combined sewer overflow [1] is essentially business as usual in many
  municipalities. I happened to learn about the Detroit sewer system, but even
  King Co in the PNW has this issue [2]. I like to think areas like that would
  think ahead about this, given the high annual rainfall, but separate systems
  are quite the expense.
  
  [1]:
  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer#Combined_sewer_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_sewer#Combined_sewer_overflows_.28CSOs.29)
  [2]:
  [http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/toxic/cs...](http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/ehs/toxic/cso.aspx)
  
  ~~~
  jhalstead
  It happens in Boston too.
  
  [http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm](http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm)
  
  ------
  tim333
  None of the points in the article seem like anything particularly new. Looking
  at the points they mention:
  
  1) Upgrades needed - stuff wears out need maintenance - always has done
  
  2) New populations need new stuff - again same old
  
  3) Global warming may cause drought - or it may make it wetter. There have
  always been droughts - again nothing new
  
  The article also ignores things that are new - in parts of the world ground
  water is being used up and will need a big change when that runs out. Also
  greater prosperity my cause everyone to get pools and golf courses.
  
  ------
  kashkhan
  We will soon be able to make a water treatment plant small enough for a
  neighborhood or even a house, powered by PV panels on the roof. Then the only
  water needed would be the small amount needed to make up for evaporation.
  
  The real problem though is golf courses which use as much water as domestic
  use and ag which uses a whole lot more. We don't have a solution for
  agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably
  have to give up on ag.
  
  ~~~
  7Figures2Commas
  > We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA
  > central valley will probably have to give up on ag.
  
  The Central Valley is probably the most productive agricultural region in the
  world. According to the USGS, "Using fewer than 1% of U.S. farmland, the
  Central Valley supplies 8% of U.S. agricultural output (by value) and produces
  1/4 of the Nation's food, including 40% of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and
  other table foods."[1] California supplies about a third of the nation's
  lettuce and is responsible for more than 90% of the organic output of grapes,
  strawberries and other fruits and vegetables[2].
  
  Ag is an important part of California's economy and a critical part of the
  United States food supply. The loss of California agriculture would be
  devastating to California and the entire nation on a number of levels[3].
  
  I assume you weren't advocating for the state to "give up on ag" but frankly,
  that's not going to happen and treating ag as a silo is not realistic. It's
  easy for many to see this issue as a battle between cities and farms, but most
  people haven't spent any time in the Central Valley and don't understand how
  important and unique it is. The number of people in California who don't
  consume the state's agricultural products and benefit from their contributions
  to the economy is literally 0.
  
  It's cliché, but we literally are all in this together when it comes to water.
  
  [1] [http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-
  centr...](http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-
  valley.html)
  
  [2] [http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-
  update/files/articles/v14...](http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-
  update/files/articles/v14n2_3.pdf)
  
  [3]
  [http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html)
  
  ~~~
  Spooky23
  I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply
  to be concentrated in one region.
  
  I think more pain here is good for the nation. There's no reason all of our
  tree fruits, lettuce, etc need to be trucked out of California. I was in a
  grocery store in Georgia when traveling awhile back, and couldn't find a
  single Georgia peach in the produce area of a store, because California
  agriculture completely dominates.
  
  We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
  etc could easily provide that same output, and there is plenty of water in
  most east coast areas.
  
  ~~~
  7Figures2Commas
  > We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
  > etc could easily provide that same output...
  
  That's unfortunately not true. You need to appreciate just how unique
  California's soil and climate are. Farmers from others parts of the world come
  to California and literally marvel at what we have. In many parts of the world
  the same technologies and techniques that we use are increasingly employed but
  these regions still can't achieve the same yields.
  
  Even if it's possible to grow certain crops in other areas, you will not be
  able to produce in the same quantities as California can and, more
  importantly, you won't achieve the same yields. Settling for substantially
  lower yields effectively means you are accepting less efficient use of local
  resources (water, energy, labor, etc.). That would be counterproductive.
  
  > I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply
  > to be concentrated in one region.
  
  Even if there's some validity to this argument, the reality is that you can
  only reduce the concentration so much. Growing _and_ distributing food at the
  quantity required in an _efficient_ manner necessitates a higher level of
  concentration than might be desired in the ideal world we don't live in.
  
  ~~~
  Spooky23
  I think you need to consider the long game. California was very forward
  thinking in investments in academic agriculture resource... The state is the
  Silicon Valley of produce. That's a miracle, but it only works if key
  assumptions like that awesome climate remain there.
  
  If we are in fact driving into an era of climate change, doing things like
  permanently depleting groundwater may irreparably affect the ability to
  continue the current model. That really worries me... I've never lived in an
  era or place where food wasn't available. That would be a great shock to the
  US if it were to happen.
  
  ------
  Spooky23
  They'll be replaced by populations shifting to places that can actually
  support millions of people.
  
  ~~~
  Klinky
  ...or we'll all start living inside favela-style communities in some dystopian
  future.
  
  ------
  justinator
  > By Brad Plumer
  
  That's quite the coincidence, there.
  
  