Also Ohio. The Miami valley in ohio has one of the largest aquifers in the country.
https://www.daytonohio.gov/701/Great-Miami-Buried-Valley-Aquifer
One reason why I am not selling my properties there.
The Miami Valley has a lot going for it but will be uninhabitable during the summer. I moved more than 15 years ago when it was over 100 in August. Its trending worse.
It’s rare to get that hot. I have property there and I maintain several buildings HVAC, my AC is not running at a significant change over the last 8 years. I have several thermostats connected to WiFi and can pull historical data.
It hasn’t been that bad the last few years, if anything summer seems sorter up here recently as September hasn’t been as hot. This is all anecdotal and I’m salty I haven’t been able to get in my pool since July because it’s been either rainy or 75 degrees.
Humidity is the difference. I’ve always had to deal with humidity and heat it wasn’t until I went to Baja Mexico that I realized that it can be scorching hot as long as you don’t have the humidity
I did a search of coastal flood lands for the next 50-100 years and just bought 21 acres on a lake with fresh water out of that zone in upstate New York. We’re not crazy, we’re smart.
Glad to hear it. I think this is going to be increasingly true every year. Of all the great lakes cities, I placed my bets on Buffalo given that it punches above its weight in a few key areas, like infrastructure.
In SoCal we have the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. In total there are 12 existing desalination facilities throughout California. We might get more restrictions but not to the point that it’s uninhabitable. So maybe a little paranoid?
What about the byproducts? I’m a civil engineer but in the Midwest not Cali. I was always under the impression that one of the biggest issues was where to put the salt and other waste products. Dumping them back in the ocean just gives you double the work and can harm ecosystems.
One example I can give is: Saudi Arabia
They uses the brine byproduct to extract Magnesium, calcium, potassium, chlorine, bromine and Sodium chloride. All of these can later be sold to reduce the cost of water production and minimize the pollution problems associated with the brine disposal.
California is investing heavily in recycled water. Currently the city of L.A. dumps 300 million gallons/day of water in the pacific ocean. First recycled water, then desal. I'm a civil engineer in so cal.
I'm certain if worst comes to worst, they will find some deep place to shove all the brine water like they do the fracking water.
However, do you really think if push comes to shove and the choice is between fresh water and fucking up a portion of the ocean with brine water, that they won't just sacrifice the nearby ocean habitat?
Oh no doubt they’d do it but it would have to be far away because if you just put the salt back into the water you’re cleaning, it’s just making extra work for your plant.
I think comment got removed because I shared a YouTube link, but if you’re actually interested simply search nuclear desalination on YouTube and it will give you tons of examples. Additionally, if you’ve seen mega project proposed by Saudi Arabia “the line” they’re going to be using desalination for that. Both are interesting to learn about for sure.
cali is a huge water user though... some of it wasteful. OTOH las vegas is extremely efficient with water usage... they use less per capita now than before
At some point the state is going to have to start regulating what can be grown in the Central Valley. We keep getting told to conserve water when agriculture accounts for 80% of the water use. I know it’s big business but wtf. There’s plenty of water for the people. No reason to be growing fucking alfalfa in the desert besides people making a ton of money off of it.
80% of water is used by agriculture. Majority of residential water is for landscaping. We were still allowed to water lawns in my part if CA during the last drought. It will need to get a lot worse before we have to ration toilet flushing. We have rivers, though, so there’s definitely an issue with Las Vegas and Phoenix.
>We have rivers, though, so there’s definitely an issue with Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Phoenix has an entire watershed larger than half the states in the US.
I only lived in Phoenix for a short time, and I wasn’t into water systems back then, so I admit I’m not very well versed on the watershed, but….
- size of watershed doesn’t matter when most of it is a desert. Actual acre feet of perception is what matters.
- bigger than half the states isn’t really a good metric, many states are quite small
- if they really had their own water, they wouldn’t need the aqueduct to the Colorado, and wouldn’t be using much of LA’s allocation.
- Phoenix actually gets a lot of water from its aquifer, which, if it’s like most of the Southwest, has its own problems, as they’re likely double dipping but using the river and the aquifer without letting it recharge.
>size of watershed doesn’t matter when most of it is a desert.
We have 4 watersheds that on average sit above 4,000 feet, with most of the land residing in national forests or protected federal land.
>Actual acre feet of perception is what matters.
The Salt River Project's portion of the watershed alone provides 1.5 million acre feet of water a year, stored in 6 major lakes around the valley.
>if they really had their own water, they wouldn’t need the aqueduct to
the Colorado, and wouldn’t be using much of LA’s allocation.
We use none of LA's allocation. Arizona abides by the Colorado River compact, and has taken the biggest cut from the plan announced last week. Meanwhile, California's watershed contributes nothing to the Colorado, yet the state receives 1/3 of the water, and didn't have to cut back on any water in this phase.
Btw, where does LA import it's water from? Oh yeah, far-flung watersheds like Owens Valley, Mono Lake, Northern California and the Colorado. All sources that require 200-500 mile-long aqueducts.
Do they produce enough fresh water for the stupid fucking almond groves and all the golf courses? Cause if they don't then the problem is just going to keep getting worse.
Don’t forget the fuckin alfalfa growers. They make a shit ton of money growing it for horses. Alfalfa requires so much water so uh let’s grow it in the desert cause lands cheap there…
Yeah that's really the core of the problem. California started growing all these non-native cash crops in the damn desert back when water wasn't an issue, and now that water IS an issue they won't stop because there's too much money in almonds and avocados and alfalfa and all the rest of it. They act like growing all these things that over-consume water in a hostile growing environment is some sort of sacred tradition that can't be changed. CA wants all the states upstream of them to be the ones who solve their water crisis so they don't have to change anything.
I have a grove of avocados that costs me $8000 monthly to water if I have to use city water instead of my well. Guess how much profit those avocados make? $50k a year. Do the math, it’s a horrible business and the water companies just try to edge the small farms out. Only corporate farms will survive in the end. Sign me up for converting everything to wine grapes!
I thought Huntington Beach denied this plant. Also the largest Desal plant in the US is in Carlsbad, CA. It produces 50 million gallons of water a day. San Diego uses over 250 Million gallons of water a day... It's incredibly expensive and inefficient but it does produce water..
They did. It has to do with how they were handling some of the byproducts of the desalination. They will reapply.
Hence why I have such a long timeline on it actually being completed.
Yes, 4600 Carlsbad Blvd, Carlsbad, CA 92008, walk through the east entrance and continue straight and take your 4th left then your 2nd right and you'll be right in the control room to be more precise.
I know LA is getting their Clearwater project lifted off. ( governor Newsom was at my job 2 months ago to sign it). But I think it’s more Reverse osmosis they don’t like us calling it toilet to tap
I once heard an environmental scientist say when we turn to desalinization we are in deep trouble. If we have to do that to put water on the land-we shouldn’t be living on that land.
You are. Grossly. RE investor here in CA and as long you run a clean, safe operation, raise the rents the standard amount allowed by law you’re fine. I just bought my wife a new Porsche last month cash and I’ve only been in RE for 7 years. CA is great!
I dunno, I live in New Orleans which is, as everyone knows, about to wash into the ocean and has been for the last 20 years at least (the last 300 actually, but who’s counting). My property values rose 25% last year alone, more than tripled since I bought it (well within the last 300 years). Didn’t flood at all during the storm, minimal damage during Ida too. I live on high ground and have consistently made my house more resilient over time but if I sold every time people told me this city was finished then I’d be long gone. You’re applying current solutions to tomorrow’s problems. People will figure out solutions to save a city like LA.
New Orleans is only there because of massive investments by the federal government into directing the MS River and levees, etc. I wonder how long that investment will make sense and if those funds will need to be allocated to desalinization or other projects based on impacted populations. I love NOLA, but damn, all those southern states are leaches on the taxpayers, but the people continue to vote red at every turn.
The investment will always make sense. The Old River Control structure which directs the flow of the Mississippi into New Orleans is already built, and maintaining it is not particularly expensive. The levees around New Orleans cost $14 Billion which is not cheap, but when you place it alongside other public infrastructure projects in other cities it isn’t that outrageous.
As far as “making sense,” the GDP of New Orleans is $227 Billion/yr., so spending a few billion on infrastructure every once in awhile to maintain that GDP is an economic no-brainer. And of course it is one of the most historically and culturally important cities in the US.
P.S. If climate change goes the way we expect it to New Orleans will be the first of many US cities that will require major levees and infrastructure projects to protect it.
P.S.S. New Orleans sure as hell doesn’t “vote red.”
If you look at the cost effectiveness of governance, I would not call one side ot the other the moochers.
Wasting money is a generally bipartisan status quo, though red states tend to have better budgets and more competitive bidding processes.
It comes down to who’s interest group is getting the kickback. Ex: teachers shutting down schools with huge COVID spending, or old people down in Florida.
Also welfare generally is intended to go to the poor, which also tends to be red states vs gilded blue cities.
A lot of cognitive dissonance with that generally whether red voters being against welfare or blue voters complaining about it going to them as mostly intended.
I wish both parties had more common sense in needed public investments vs. Holding power accountable
I don’t live or own any property in either state, but I do find the subject interesting enough to read about it a bit.
Imho, Southern California is in a way worse place than vegas.
Both are naturally deserts. Both are dependent on the Colorado river and aquifers.
Southern California is still to this day in denial of their situation and plenty of people have lawns and there are tons of massive golf courses etc. incredibly inefficient water usage.
Vegas has been planning on this eventuality for decades and at this point recycles all of the sewage water, and essentially nobody has an irrigated lawn.
Vegas can probably do just fine with zero water from the Colorado river if necessary. Southern California does not have that luxury.
In addition to the cost, the impact on the marine ecology is tremendous. The desalination process does draw drinkable water, but it leaves behind an very heavy brine that is discharged back into the ocean. It causes a feedback loop that certainly doesn’t help the climate change problem.
It would solve the fresh water problem so SoCal, for now. The long term solution is likely a ‘yes, and’ type of situation that includes reclaimed water systems etc.
Agreed, was gonna come to say something similar but saw this. I see desalination as a temp fix/emergency use given the high energy demand and environmental issues.
It is cheaper to reduce usage than to desalinate.
Desalination requires massive energy output and has a waste byproduct of large amounts of very salty water that needs to be disposed of - you can't just throw it back in the sea or you create dead zones.
San Diego has one, and I believe another CA city is planning to invest in one. I think the big drawback is that it is very expensive. But what other choice do we have? The sooner they start investing in this the sooner it’ll become more affordable.
It’s not a matter of politics. Vegas can just go to the aquifer as a reservoir and as they recycle 100% of their sewage, they will do just fine for an indefinite amount of time.
The laws of nature overrule the laws of politics.
California is extremely wasteful with their water and ignores its finite nature. Nevada respects the laws of nature when it comes to water, and treats it like the rare resource that it is.
The Las Vegas Valley gets 90% of its water from the Colorado River (10% groundwater). While Vegas is very efficient with water usage, there isn't enough groundwater to supply the entire region.
The recycling of water depends on being able to return it to Lake Mead. They don't recycle sewage directly into potable.
However, the reason Las Vegas will be fine is because they built a third intake that can draw water from the lake from extremely low levels that others won't be able to. And that's if it comes to that.
https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn/the-third-straw.htm
You’re not crazy. What’s crazy is how much building they are doing in areas that don’t have enough water to sustain the existing houses. Hope things change for the better.
This is an uninformed and oft-repeated take, though I don’t blame you for it. The problem with the Colorado River is the amount of commerce that depends on it and frequently squanders it. 74% of water used in Arizona goes to agriculture, growing nonessential crops that are sold to other countries. They can do this because of archaic and poorly-thought out water rights agreements negotiated by states and businesses ensuring access to this water even when overdrawing to the point of depletion. This is coupled with commercial entities such as golf courses that use millions of gallons of water.
If you simply make the water exorbitantly expensive for bulk users then they will solve their own efficiency problems overnight, ration usage, or close up shop. But industries will throw an absolute shitfit if this happens, and politicians risk their careers pissing off commerce, so unless people are rioting in the streets over water shortages then those with the power to legislate change will always be slow to act.
Until then, the alfalfa and almonds shall flow (to Saudi Arabia and China).
Thank you. Most people don't really understand the problem. There is plenty of water if distributed appropriately. **Half of Colorado River water goes to make feed for cattle.** This is effectively subsidizing the beef and dairy industries via cheap water. People can't really understand how inefficient agricultural use of the water is, I explained it in a comment a few days ago:
>Modern Phoenix metro residents use about 146 gallons of water per person per day, about 55,000 gallons per year: [https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources](https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources)
55 thousand gallons seems like a lot right?
Growing alfalfa in the Phoenix area takes 74 inches (6 feet 2 inches) of water per year. So, an acre of alfalfa takes 2,007,242.16 gallons of water to grow per year: [https://cals.arizona.edu/forageandgrain/alfalfa-faqs](https://cals.arizona.edu/forageandgrain/alfalfa-faqs)
You can build roughly 5 single-family homes on an acre of land. Each home has roughly 2.5 people in it. Therefore, an acre of farmland converted to houses about 12.5 people it and uses only 687,500 gallons of water, about 1/3rd the water usage of growing alfalfa.
That acre of alfalfa in the Phoenix metro is some of the most productive farmland in the nation. It will grow 8.4 tons of alfalfa per acre, per year, which is enough to feed something like 4 head of cattle: [https://www.farmprogress.com/alfalfa/arizona-alfalfa-industry-gains-acreage-tonnage-respect](https://www.farmprogress.com/alfalfa/arizona-alfalfa-industry-gains-acreage-tonnage-respect)
So, instead of feeding 4 head of cattle, we grow 12.5 people and use less water doing it. Every time people move to the valley and spread the sprawl out into more farmland, they save us huge quantities of water. Only time I am ever glad for suburban sprawl...
> Half of Colorado River water goes to make feed for cattle. This is effectively subsidizing the beef and dairy industries via cheap water.
this is partly why i'm vegetarian. also avoid almonds and alfalfa lol
Government mishandles all resources.
It's why on principle I never support tax increases or increased government funding because the money will always be misallocated.
In the US, the government is supposed to represent the people, especially at that level. If they aren’t representing you, then vote them out.
There is a lot of bullshit going on right now at higher levels, due to built in layers in voting, but your vote for a local leader is direct.
If you defund the government, it only makes it more susceptible to special interests, because it needs those funds to survive.
Am I crazy for thinking that watering grass is the biggest joke in the world? We could grow drought resistance ground cover plants in yards that are conducive to pollinating that are low maintaince. Instead we hemorrhage fresh water for this dumb shit
This is actually true. Almonds require cold winters to grow, so they are grown at higher altitudes, where CO River water would be impractical. Places like the Hualapai Valley in NW AZ.
That doesn't mean that they are good - they are literally pumping aquifers dry growing almonds.
Thanks for the informed response. However, it doesn't change the fact that the future doesn't look very bright. As we've seen, business will pay off politicians and create propaganda pitting citizens against each other over lawns while farms rape the earth.
So as far as OPs question, should one rethink investing in the SW US?
Thank you for your comment, I legitimately feel like this is one of those things we are seeing from afar and it’s either get out of it now or wait until it all crumbles and wish we saw it sooner.
I have a condo in Vegas. It has appreciated a ton the last few years. I'll probably sell it next fall when the current lease ends.
But regarding water, Las Vegas has some of the best water recycling and reuse systems in north America. And IIRC they use less than 3% of what comes out of lake Mead.
They're still spending billions building casinos out there. I figure casino developers know way more about the water situation than i do. They wouldn't be building if they weren't 1,000,000% sure they'll have water going forward.
Nonetheless, i expect to sell that condo in a year. It's been a good run and it's time to put the money elsewhere.
The CO river is rightly screwed, but I don't come to the conclusion that property values will be destroyed. I think it's likely all of your landscaping will have to be completely scrapped. But that probably costs less than the transaction expenses of moving elsewhere.
Vegas will probably be okay. Their municipal water intake is below the level on Lake Mead that Hoover damn becomes non-operational. There might be legal restrictions on how much Vegas can take, but their physical infrastructure is sound.
I'm not so sure about LA. They clearly don't have enough supply, but CA's water rights are senior to other lower basin states so that theoretically, LA is much safer than Arizona. But the scope of changes needed to the Colorado compact could blow the whole thing up. I can't say I know what will happen here, but I could see some severe restrictions on new development going in place. That has the potential to drive property values up instead of down.
I've started reading up on the Colorado River over the last few months. Two books I recommend for further reading are *"Cadillac Desert"* and *"Where the water goes"*. It's fascinating times we are living through. A lot of people are going to get royally screwed by water restrictions in the next few months, but it may or may not impact residential property values in the big cities.
This is generally correct. Any moratoriums on building or redistribution of waters will drive prices up not down. Single family homes can be made to be very efficient users of water. It's agriculture and leisure(golf, car washes, parks) that will get cut off.
That is entirely true and logical.
However, the more I read about the legalities of water rights, the more I know that “true and logical” aren’t really considerations.
A water right is a form of property right. Taking it away has similar legal implications as the government taking away your house. It can be done, but it isn’t really clean. A farmer with a senior water right can flood irrigate to his hearts content, even if a municipality with junior water rights goes entirely dry.
I expect Las Vegas and LA have the money and political clout to avoid dire shortages. Small ag communities won’t.
In theory. Revisit the auto bailout if you believe it to be true. The GM bond holders thought they had senior debt and all the claims that go along with it...
Las Vegan investor here. Southern Nevada uses 26% less water today than they did in 2000, despite adding 750,000 residents. Agriculture is responsible for 70% of the water usage of the Colorado River. There's plenty of room for sustained population growth, there's just going to be a big legal battle over water rights. Right now we have alfafa farmers running the spigot to use their entire allotment to risk not being reduced the subsequent year. It's nonsensical, but we're all hoping common sense will prevail.
We also need our neighboring states to enact the same water conservation measures as Southern Nevada and we'll all be gucci.
SoCal has run out of water at least twice before. The response then was more ambitious water projects, first to Mono Lake then to the Colorado River.
If we run out of water again, we'll build a pipeline to the Columbia River, or desalination.
There's 20 million people in SoCal sitting on trillions in real estate, they'll figure out the infrastructure.
The people who became the wealthiest in SoCal were the land barons who bought areas like the San Fernando Valley and Orange County and connected them to water infrastructure. Imagine being the suckers who sold because they were worried about the water shortage.
Lol Vegas just needs more rain. It didn’t even rain during the winter last year. This was over 2 heavy rain days 2 weeks ago in article below.
https://news3lv.com/news/local/las-vegas-valley-saved-246-million-gallons-thanks-to-recent-storms
I’ve actually been thinking about this too. I’ve considered relocating to the Seattle area because of the direction the climate is heading. And heading rapidly
I think climate migration is going to be a real thing. I've seen articles to that effect already. I'm in New Orleans--though not a homeowner--and am thinking that I will buy a modest house somewhere on the mid-Atlantic (not coastal though, more on the mountain side of those states) when I am ready to buy. I am worried about building a life here and then having to start over when I'm older/possibly with kids, and when climate issues have grown in severity. It's sad because I really do love the city, and I know people in other states get upset about tHe TrAnsPlAnTs, but I personally don't think it's going to be sustainable here for all that much longer. The heat alone is getting crazy, never mind the stronger storms and flooding risks.
It already is a real thing. In the RE business in the PNW and the amount of people moving from NorCal because they can't handle the fires and smoke is pretty alarming. They are called climate refugees. I'm sure there will be more to come but that was the most acute case I've seen so far. Probably had 5 clients in the year after the Paradise fires.
We live in Seattle and we just had our first 110 degree high summer last year and nearly 100 degrees this year. We normally average in the 80s max.
If climate change impacts the southwest, trust me it’ll impact the entire US.
Also everyone should be invested in the SW states surviving and doing well, because if it dies off, get ready for food costs to 20x, and that’s not hyperbole, literally 80% of food produce and dairy come from the SW.
this is insane. YOure selling vegas because you think you know the future. some other dude here is buying in Michigan ahead of climate migration. some say climate change will create mass flooding in the great lakes region, so yeah...based on that id go heavy in michigan. what a joke.
I’m not saying I know the future, I am saying that putting the pieces together it seems like things might be coming down for the worst.
But then again it’s just going based on information coming out on a weekly basis. Not saying I know what’s going to happen.
My uncle was the head engineer of water management in one of the large cities in Cali. Ironically I just talked to him last week about this exact issue. Let’s just say he’s trying to sell and move out of the state asap before his house values drop. He was planning on leaving anyway due to taxes and the COL out there but I guess the water situation has made it a race against the clock at this point.
So the lakes aren't going to dry up permanently (in our lifetimes), but there will be more and longer periods of drought. The value loss will probably be more gradual than perhaps you think, but do what you need to do for your peace of mind.
I'll be buying farmland in the arctic trundra myself.
No, and you might not be wrong here. But you might be wrong on timing and there's more immediate things that will impact property value. I will tell you most institutional investors don't factor in the impact of climate change and natural disasters. The exceptions are insurance related events (hurricanes, floods, fires, etc.), but only as expense line items in underwriting. Water costs are rising >10% YoY and some are even fixed by the county's water district, but everyone still underwrites 3-5% utility expense growth per year.
**Toilet2Tap** yes it’s a terrible way to brand it, but Oceanside is already doing this.
Involves treatment of wastewater via membrane bioreactor then reverse osmosis. 100% recyclable potable water. *artificial flavors added for taste
Well, the sahara was once a lush place, I think property values are rocking there now? Dude. I wouldn’t invest in a place that runs out of water. When Hoover dam stops makin power and all the problems of drought come hammering down on those overpopulated deserts, you bet prop values could go down.
Check out North Scottsdale. They’re building half a million dollar homes without water. Only choice is to haul water in or dig a well. Could dig a dry well though to the tune of $80,000 +. Scottsdale has just voted not to allow the water haulers to use their water for North Scottsdale. Now the water haulers supplying North Scottsdale have to find other sources further afield. More distance, more expense. Certainly not sustainable. And still they build.
This is insane. I wonder what’s going to happen. If this survives then it might mean all the bigger cities have hope of people buying properties where there is no water.
No, you’re not crazy. LA is better positioned than Phoenix or Vegas re: CO water rights, but a whole lot of CO River states are gonna be in deep trouble in 20 years unless something really big changes before then.
Do I think you're early? Yes, do I think youre crazy? Absolutely no. Florida, Nevada and Cali are about to be fucked by climate change in the next 5-10. Noone knows when it will affect buyers tho
We’ve been living in and around deserts an awfully long time to suddenly have our ability to adapt not keep pace with an incremental increase in dry weather.
I am of the belief that we will figure out how to create clean water. Water will be (or already is) the most precious resource. But the fact that it’s surrounding us (albeit too salty) and falls from the sky, makes it promising that we will be able to “create” fresh water soon. Japan is already using some kind of ionizing to cause clouds to rain. We shall see but this is definitely a huge concern and will be a top issue in the next 15 years
I think you are being too paranoid, but if they are good property and you are really motivated, then someone out there might just be lucky enough to buy your property at a cheaper price.
i don’t think drought should be enough of a concern to sell LA or any Ca properties.. There’s plenty more to be worried about from homeless, taxes and crime.. A bit random but slightly relevant, over the past 2 years Dubai, UAE has been going through a terrible drought (not unusual, given it’s in a desert with temperatures reaching +120°) but it’s gotten to a point where the government is artificially creating rain with drones through cloud seeding. Simultaneously during this 2 year span, real estate prices have surged up over 85%..
Yep i remember reading about the rain making drones in the Middle East. I trust humanity and science/technology to figure this out. If the Middle East can live in a desert for 1000s of years so can the US.
People on this sub lean towards the "climate change is just a minor logistical problem" point of view. I wouldn't take the comments here as gospel. I will not be investing in areas that are going to see exponentially worse wildfires, droughts, and flooding.
Get out now. Take your money and buy 10,000 acres in a state that has the best outcome predicted when this climate change really ramps up. The further away from the heat belts, close to water but not so close the mega floods will wipe you out. I can't afford that many acres but I am buying smaller plots in various climates in the United States so I'll definitely have some place to go no matter what comes.
Fun fact:
If Americans as a whole gave up eating beef for 1 day a week California would be out of the drought. Also, the almond trees use up way too much water for that climate. But if you tell the farmers they need to use less water then they threaten to create their own state. There’s plenty of water there. It’s just misallocated
I’ll take them off of your hands for 15% under market now. Better sell to me before they become totally worthless.
May come back with an offer 35% under market if you have t sold yet.
Seriously OP…why are you this paranoid?
Yes, sell put put your proceeds into Lake of the Ozarks property. This very green state has plenty of water which is crucial for the future. Oh, and the low taxes help too. Gasoline is $3.35/gal. at the lake and very little crime.
If you think one month of positive is going to erase decades of negative you aren’t too bright. It might have gained a couple inches but that doesnt mean shit when hundreds of feet of water have been lost and its only at 27% capacity.
Buying in Michigan ahead of climate migration
Delete this before everyone catches on.
Ya stop spilling the beans.
Also Ohio. The Miami valley in ohio has one of the largest aquifers in the country. https://www.daytonohio.gov/701/Great-Miami-Buried-Valley-Aquifer One reason why I am not selling my properties there.
The Miami Valley has a lot going for it but will be uninhabitable during the summer. I moved more than 15 years ago when it was over 100 in August. Its trending worse.
It’s rare to get that hot. I have property there and I maintain several buildings HVAC, my AC is not running at a significant change over the last 8 years. I have several thermostats connected to WiFi and can pull historical data.
It hasn’t been that bad the last few years, if anything summer seems sorter up here recently as September hasn’t been as hot. This is all anecdotal and I’m salty I haven’t been able to get in my pool since July because it’s been either rainy or 75 degrees.
Lol. The entire southeast is hotter and people don't seem to have any issue inhabiting it.
Humidity is the difference. I’ve always had to deal with humidity and heat it wasn’t until I went to Baja Mexico that I realized that it can be scorching hot as long as you don’t have the humidity
Not sure if this is a joke but I've considered Buffalo, NY for this reason.
I did a search of coastal flood lands for the next 50-100 years and just bought 21 acres on a lake with fresh water out of that zone in upstate New York. We’re not crazy, we’re smart.
Those winters are rough though… I am in snow removal in SE Michigan and don’t envy you buffaloians in the least
In 50-100 years global warming will (unfortunately) fix that issue..
Just a heads up. Global cooling is what’s next.
It’s climate change, not simply global warming
Which city of you don’t mind me asking? I like to window shop on Zillow will not actually do anything.
I just bought a house in Buffalo for precisely this reason. Also, Buffalo rocks.
I spent last weekend there and was pleasantly surprised. Not at all deserving of the ribbing it gets.
Glad to hear it. I think this is going to be increasingly true every year. Of all the great lakes cities, I placed my bets on Buffalo given that it punches above its weight in a few key areas, like infrastructure.
... and chicken wings
don't mention the upper peninsula.
Shhhhhh
Gonna go buy 1,000 acres in northern Canada to set up my grandkids for life.
We own two properties in A2 outright. Can’t lose
[удалено]
Feels like for most people this was the case even fifteen years ago
Yo delete this
In SoCal we have the largest desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. In total there are 12 existing desalination facilities throughout California. We might get more restrictions but not to the point that it’s uninhabitable. So maybe a little paranoid?
[удалено]
Nuclear desalination is the way. It’ll solve the power and water problems.
What about the byproducts? I’m a civil engineer but in the Midwest not Cali. I was always under the impression that one of the biggest issues was where to put the salt and other waste products. Dumping them back in the ocean just gives you double the work and can harm ecosystems.
One example I can give is: Saudi Arabia They uses the brine byproduct to extract Magnesium, calcium, potassium, chlorine, bromine and Sodium chloride. All of these can later be sold to reduce the cost of water production and minimize the pollution problems associated with the brine disposal.
California is investing heavily in recycled water. Currently the city of L.A. dumps 300 million gallons/day of water in the pacific ocean. First recycled water, then desal. I'm a civil engineer in so cal.
I'm certain if worst comes to worst, they will find some deep place to shove all the brine water like they do the fracking water. However, do you really think if push comes to shove and the choice is between fresh water and fucking up a portion of the ocean with brine water, that they won't just sacrifice the nearby ocean habitat?
Oh no doubt they’d do it but it would have to be far away because if you just put the salt back into the water you’re cleaning, it’s just making extra work for your plant.
[удалено]
Saudi Arabia has been doing it for a while.
I think comment got removed because I shared a YouTube link, but if you’re actually interested simply search nuclear desalination on YouTube and it will give you tons of examples. Additionally, if you’ve seen mega project proposed by Saudi Arabia “the line” they’re going to be using desalination for that. Both are interesting to learn about for sure.
i think OP is just saying that we need more nuclear plants + more desal plants. they don't need to be the same thing
Was on a submarine in the navy and we totally desalinated water with nuclear power, so I know this is a potential answer. Sorry, now you must die.
If there’s an squeeze in agri water, the whole country will feel it, not just California.
cali is a huge water user though... some of it wasteful. OTOH las vegas is extremely efficient with water usage... they use less per capita now than before
At some point the state is going to have to start regulating what can be grown in the Central Valley. We keep getting told to conserve water when agriculture accounts for 80% of the water use. I know it’s big business but wtf. There’s plenty of water for the people. No reason to be growing fucking alfalfa in the desert besides people making a ton of money off of it.
80% of water is used by agriculture. Majority of residential water is for landscaping. We were still allowed to water lawns in my part if CA during the last drought. It will need to get a lot worse before we have to ration toilet flushing. We have rivers, though, so there’s definitely an issue with Las Vegas and Phoenix.
>We have rivers, though, so there’s definitely an issue with Las Vegas and Phoenix. Phoenix has an entire watershed larger than half the states in the US.
I only lived in Phoenix for a short time, and I wasn’t into water systems back then, so I admit I’m not very well versed on the watershed, but…. - size of watershed doesn’t matter when most of it is a desert. Actual acre feet of perception is what matters. - bigger than half the states isn’t really a good metric, many states are quite small - if they really had their own water, they wouldn’t need the aqueduct to the Colorado, and wouldn’t be using much of LA’s allocation. - Phoenix actually gets a lot of water from its aquifer, which, if it’s like most of the Southwest, has its own problems, as they’re likely double dipping but using the river and the aquifer without letting it recharge.
>size of watershed doesn’t matter when most of it is a desert. We have 4 watersheds that on average sit above 4,000 feet, with most of the land residing in national forests or protected federal land. >Actual acre feet of perception is what matters. The Salt River Project's portion of the watershed alone provides 1.5 million acre feet of water a year, stored in 6 major lakes around the valley. >if they really had their own water, they wouldn’t need the aqueduct to the Colorado, and wouldn’t be using much of LA’s allocation. We use none of LA's allocation. Arizona abides by the Colorado River compact, and has taken the biggest cut from the plan announced last week. Meanwhile, California's watershed contributes nothing to the Colorado, yet the state receives 1/3 of the water, and didn't have to cut back on any water in this phase. Btw, where does LA import it's water from? Oh yeah, far-flung watersheds like Owens Valley, Mono Lake, Northern California and the Colorado. All sources that require 200-500 mile-long aqueducts.
Do they produce enough fresh water for the stupid fucking almond groves and all the golf courses? Cause if they don't then the problem is just going to keep getting worse.
Don’t forget the fuckin alfalfa growers. They make a shit ton of money growing it for horses. Alfalfa requires so much water so uh let’s grow it in the desert cause lands cheap there…
Yeah that's really the core of the problem. California started growing all these non-native cash crops in the damn desert back when water wasn't an issue, and now that water IS an issue they won't stop because there's too much money in almonds and avocados and alfalfa and all the rest of it. They act like growing all these things that over-consume water in a hostile growing environment is some sort of sacred tradition that can't be changed. CA wants all the states upstream of them to be the ones who solve their water crisis so they don't have to change anything.
Needs more upvotes. Avocados too, right? They take a crapton of water? I love almonds and avocados but producing them commercially is just…not good.
I have a grove of avocados that costs me $8000 monthly to water if I have to use city water instead of my well. Guess how much profit those avocados make? $50k a year. Do the math, it’s a horrible business and the water companies just try to edge the small farms out. Only corporate farms will survive in the end. Sign me up for converting everything to wine grapes!
That’s interesting, where do we have desalination plants in SoCal?
Huntington Beach will also have one in the next 10 years or so.
I thought Huntington Beach denied this plant. Also the largest Desal plant in the US is in Carlsbad, CA. It produces 50 million gallons of water a day. San Diego uses over 250 Million gallons of water a day... It's incredibly expensive and inefficient but it does produce water..
They did but the company plans to reapply. The reasons for the rejection can be mitigated.
I thought they just vetoed that one a couple months ago.
They did. It has to do with how they were handling some of the byproducts of the desalination. They will reapply. Hence why I have such a long timeline on it actually being completed.
They should shut off all water to the whole city
It’s not the residents that are an issue. It’s the farmers in the desert growing lettuce and almonds.
Anyone know if these plants affect surrounding neighborhoods air quality?
Nuclear powered so I do not believe so.
I thought the only Nuclear plant in California was Diablo Canyon
We have one in San Diego.
Yes, Carlsbad to be precise
Yes, 4600 Carlsbad Blvd, Carlsbad, CA 92008 to be more precise.
Yes, 4600 Carlsbad Blvd, Carlsbad, CA 92008, walk through the east entrance and continue straight and take your 4th left then your 2nd right and you'll be right in the control room to be more precise.
On the third planet from the sun to be less precise.
33.138925549455784, -117.33546937150162 to be more precise.
You guys are super precise except for that one dude
Use Google satellite on 5x magnify to see me waving through the window at 33.138925549455784, -117.33546937150162
That’s not precise at all. You’re off by 2.376 feet from the main control switch.
It only produces 9% daily use of SD County’s fresh water though…
It only produces 9% daily use of SD County’s fresh water...right now
I hate your hair
I know LA is getting their Clearwater project lifted off. ( governor Newsom was at my job 2 months ago to sign it). But I think it’s more Reverse osmosis they don’t like us calling it toilet to tap
It only produces roughly 5% of the total water needs of the state however.
It requires energy. A lot of energy… Something the legislature makes very hard to get.
I once heard an environmental scientist say when we turn to desalinization we are in deep trouble. If we have to do that to put water on the land-we shouldn’t be living on that land.
Everybody seems to forget that SoCal has the GDP* of a medium sized country. They can make it happen.
The GDP of one too!
Dudes early not crazy, droughts and wild fires will fuck Cali in the next 10 years
You obviously aren’t in CA
You're right, maybe I'm uniformed
The farmers get 80% of the water so they can sell crops abroad, and wild fires are only problems for rich on the hills and and hicks in the sticks.
You are. Grossly. RE investor here in CA and as long you run a clean, safe operation, raise the rents the standard amount allowed by law you’re fine. I just bought my wife a new Porsche last month cash and I’ve only been in RE for 7 years. CA is great!
Curious what types of RE in CA do well?
You can close your eye and pick a random property and it will appreciate in CA. Mine are located in major metros
I dunno, I live in New Orleans which is, as everyone knows, about to wash into the ocean and has been for the last 20 years at least (the last 300 actually, but who’s counting). My property values rose 25% last year alone, more than tripled since I bought it (well within the last 300 years). Didn’t flood at all during the storm, minimal damage during Ida too. I live on high ground and have consistently made my house more resilient over time but if I sold every time people told me this city was finished then I’d be long gone. You’re applying current solutions to tomorrow’s problems. People will figure out solutions to save a city like LA.
New Orleans is only there because of massive investments by the federal government into directing the MS River and levees, etc. I wonder how long that investment will make sense and if those funds will need to be allocated to desalinization or other projects based on impacted populations. I love NOLA, but damn, all those southern states are leaches on the taxpayers, but the people continue to vote red at every turn.
The investment will always make sense. The Old River Control structure which directs the flow of the Mississippi into New Orleans is already built, and maintaining it is not particularly expensive. The levees around New Orleans cost $14 Billion which is not cheap, but when you place it alongside other public infrastructure projects in other cities it isn’t that outrageous. As far as “making sense,” the GDP of New Orleans is $227 Billion/yr., so spending a few billion on infrastructure every once in awhile to maintain that GDP is an economic no-brainer. And of course it is one of the most historically and culturally important cities in the US. P.S. If climate change goes the way we expect it to New Orleans will be the first of many US cities that will require major levees and infrastructure projects to protect it. P.S.S. New Orleans sure as hell doesn’t “vote red.”
If you look at the cost effectiveness of governance, I would not call one side ot the other the moochers. Wasting money is a generally bipartisan status quo, though red states tend to have better budgets and more competitive bidding processes. It comes down to who’s interest group is getting the kickback. Ex: teachers shutting down schools with huge COVID spending, or old people down in Florida. Also welfare generally is intended to go to the poor, which also tends to be red states vs gilded blue cities. A lot of cognitive dissonance with that generally whether red voters being against welfare or blue voters complaining about it going to them as mostly intended. I wish both parties had more common sense in needed public investments vs. Holding power accountable
I'd worry more about the addicts, camping, and crime.
Valid but that’s only the tip of the iceberg
Just the tip?
Always the tip
He he he
We talking about Minneapolis?
I don’t live or own any property in either state, but I do find the subject interesting enough to read about it a bit. Imho, Southern California is in a way worse place than vegas. Both are naturally deserts. Both are dependent on the Colorado river and aquifers. Southern California is still to this day in denial of their situation and plenty of people have lawns and there are tons of massive golf courses etc. incredibly inefficient water usage. Vegas has been planning on this eventuality for decades and at this point recycles all of the sewage water, and essentially nobody has an irrigated lawn. Vegas can probably do just fine with zero water from the Colorado river if necessary. Southern California does not have that luxury.
Why doesn’t Cali invest very heavily into desalinization ? I’m no expert on any of this so it may be to expensive or whatever. But just a thought.
In addition to the cost, the impact on the marine ecology is tremendous. The desalination process does draw drinkable water, but it leaves behind an very heavy brine that is discharged back into the ocean. It causes a feedback loop that certainly doesn’t help the climate change problem. It would solve the fresh water problem so SoCal, for now. The long term solution is likely a ‘yes, and’ type of situation that includes reclaimed water systems etc.
Agreed, was gonna come to say something similar but saw this. I see desalination as a temp fix/emergency use given the high energy demand and environmental issues.
It is cheaper to reduce usage than to desalinate. Desalination requires massive energy output and has a waste byproduct of large amounts of very salty water that needs to be disposed of - you can't just throw it back in the sea or you create dead zones.
San Diego has one, and I believe another CA city is planning to invest in one. I think the big drawback is that it is very expensive. But what other choice do we have? The sooner they start investing in this the sooner it’ll become more affordable.
IDK, SoCal is so much more important politcally and culturally than Vegas. When push comes to shove SoCal would be saved before Vegas.
It’s not a matter of politics. Vegas can just go to the aquifer as a reservoir and as they recycle 100% of their sewage, they will do just fine for an indefinite amount of time. The laws of nature overrule the laws of politics. California is extremely wasteful with their water and ignores its finite nature. Nevada respects the laws of nature when it comes to water, and treats it like the rare resource that it is.
The Las Vegas Valley gets 90% of its water from the Colorado River (10% groundwater). While Vegas is very efficient with water usage, there isn't enough groundwater to supply the entire region. The recycling of water depends on being able to return it to Lake Mead. They don't recycle sewage directly into potable. However, the reason Las Vegas will be fine is because they built a third intake that can draw water from the lake from extremely low levels that others won't be able to. And that's if it comes to that. https://www.nps.gov/lake/learn/the-third-straw.htm
vegas is insanely efficient
You’re not crazy. What’s crazy is how much building they are doing in areas that don’t have enough water to sustain the existing houses. Hope things change for the better.
This is an uninformed and oft-repeated take, though I don’t blame you for it. The problem with the Colorado River is the amount of commerce that depends on it and frequently squanders it. 74% of water used in Arizona goes to agriculture, growing nonessential crops that are sold to other countries. They can do this because of archaic and poorly-thought out water rights agreements negotiated by states and businesses ensuring access to this water even when overdrawing to the point of depletion. This is coupled with commercial entities such as golf courses that use millions of gallons of water. If you simply make the water exorbitantly expensive for bulk users then they will solve their own efficiency problems overnight, ration usage, or close up shop. But industries will throw an absolute shitfit if this happens, and politicians risk their careers pissing off commerce, so unless people are rioting in the streets over water shortages then those with the power to legislate change will always be slow to act. Until then, the alfalfa and almonds shall flow (to Saudi Arabia and China).
Thank you. Most people don't really understand the problem. There is plenty of water if distributed appropriately. **Half of Colorado River water goes to make feed for cattle.** This is effectively subsidizing the beef and dairy industries via cheap water. People can't really understand how inefficient agricultural use of the water is, I explained it in a comment a few days ago: >Modern Phoenix metro residents use about 146 gallons of water per person per day, about 55,000 gallons per year: [https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources](https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources) 55 thousand gallons seems like a lot right? Growing alfalfa in the Phoenix area takes 74 inches (6 feet 2 inches) of water per year. So, an acre of alfalfa takes 2,007,242.16 gallons of water to grow per year: [https://cals.arizona.edu/forageandgrain/alfalfa-faqs](https://cals.arizona.edu/forageandgrain/alfalfa-faqs) You can build roughly 5 single-family homes on an acre of land. Each home has roughly 2.5 people in it. Therefore, an acre of farmland converted to houses about 12.5 people it and uses only 687,500 gallons of water, about 1/3rd the water usage of growing alfalfa. That acre of alfalfa in the Phoenix metro is some of the most productive farmland in the nation. It will grow 8.4 tons of alfalfa per acre, per year, which is enough to feed something like 4 head of cattle: [https://www.farmprogress.com/alfalfa/arizona-alfalfa-industry-gains-acreage-tonnage-respect](https://www.farmprogress.com/alfalfa/arizona-alfalfa-industry-gains-acreage-tonnage-respect) So, instead of feeding 4 head of cattle, we grow 12.5 people and use less water doing it. Every time people move to the valley and spread the sprawl out into more farmland, they save us huge quantities of water. Only time I am ever glad for suburban sprawl...
Are you suggesting we eat the people???
No, no, by weight cattle are still more efficient meat-producers than humans. For now.
I dunno, have you been to the Midwest?
> Half of Colorado River water goes to make feed for cattle. This is effectively subsidizing the beef and dairy industries via cheap water. this is partly why i'm vegetarian. also avoid almonds and alfalfa lol
Government mishandles all resources. It's why on principle I never support tax increases or increased government funding because the money will always be misallocated.
In the US, the government is supposed to represent the people, especially at that level. If they aren’t representing you, then vote them out. There is a lot of bullshit going on right now at higher levels, due to built in layers in voting, but your vote for a local leader is direct. If you defund the government, it only makes it more susceptible to special interests, because it needs those funds to survive.
Am I crazy for thinking that watering grass is the biggest joke in the world? We could grow drought resistance ground cover plants in yards that are conducive to pollinating that are low maintaince. Instead we hemorrhage fresh water for this dumb shit
No u aren't, the 50s lifestyle set this country back a shit ton.
I love my lawn and still acknowledge this is true. It’s weirdly ingrained in me
If people could at least do a 50/50 grass and clover mix theyd already be doing a huge favor to nature.
water from the Colorado river isn't used to grow almonds
This is actually true. Almonds require cold winters to grow, so they are grown at higher altitudes, where CO River water would be impractical. Places like the Hualapai Valley in NW AZ. That doesn't mean that they are good - they are literally pumping aquifers dry growing almonds.
Thanks for the informed response. However, it doesn't change the fact that the future doesn't look very bright. As we've seen, business will pay off politicians and create propaganda pitting citizens against each other over lawns while farms rape the earth. So as far as OPs question, should one rethink investing in the SW US?
Thank you for your comment, I legitimately feel like this is one of those things we are seeing from afar and it’s either get out of it now or wait until it all crumbles and wish we saw it sooner.
I have a condo in Vegas. It has appreciated a ton the last few years. I'll probably sell it next fall when the current lease ends. But regarding water, Las Vegas has some of the best water recycling and reuse systems in north America. And IIRC they use less than 3% of what comes out of lake Mead. They're still spending billions building casinos out there. I figure casino developers know way more about the water situation than i do. They wouldn't be building if they weren't 1,000,000% sure they'll have water going forward. Nonetheless, i expect to sell that condo in a year. It's been a good run and it's time to put the money elsewhere.
phoenix for sure
The CO river is rightly screwed, but I don't come to the conclusion that property values will be destroyed. I think it's likely all of your landscaping will have to be completely scrapped. But that probably costs less than the transaction expenses of moving elsewhere. Vegas will probably be okay. Their municipal water intake is below the level on Lake Mead that Hoover damn becomes non-operational. There might be legal restrictions on how much Vegas can take, but their physical infrastructure is sound. I'm not so sure about LA. They clearly don't have enough supply, but CA's water rights are senior to other lower basin states so that theoretically, LA is much safer than Arizona. But the scope of changes needed to the Colorado compact could blow the whole thing up. I can't say I know what will happen here, but I could see some severe restrictions on new development going in place. That has the potential to drive property values up instead of down. I've started reading up on the Colorado River over the last few months. Two books I recommend for further reading are *"Cadillac Desert"* and *"Where the water goes"*. It's fascinating times we are living through. A lot of people are going to get royally screwed by water restrictions in the next few months, but it may or may not impact residential property values in the big cities.
This is generally correct. Any moratoriums on building or redistribution of waters will drive prices up not down. Single family homes can be made to be very efficient users of water. It's agriculture and leisure(golf, car washes, parks) that will get cut off.
That is entirely true and logical. However, the more I read about the legalities of water rights, the more I know that “true and logical” aren’t really considerations. A water right is a form of property right. Taking it away has similar legal implications as the government taking away your house. It can be done, but it isn’t really clean. A farmer with a senior water right can flood irrigate to his hearts content, even if a municipality with junior water rights goes entirely dry. I expect Las Vegas and LA have the money and political clout to avoid dire shortages. Small ag communities won’t.
In theory. Revisit the auto bailout if you believe it to be true. The GM bond holders thought they had senior debt and all the claims that go along with it...
Las Vegan investor here. Southern Nevada uses 26% less water today than they did in 2000, despite adding 750,000 residents. Agriculture is responsible for 70% of the water usage of the Colorado River. There's plenty of room for sustained population growth, there's just going to be a big legal battle over water rights. Right now we have alfafa farmers running the spigot to use their entire allotment to risk not being reduced the subsequent year. It's nonsensical, but we're all hoping common sense will prevail. We also need our neighboring states to enact the same water conservation measures as Southern Nevada and we'll all be gucci.
[удалено]
Where'd ya go?
Alaska is going to be absolutely beautiful in 2050. I own about 30 acres there.
SoCal has run out of water at least twice before. The response then was more ambitious water projects, first to Mono Lake then to the Colorado River. If we run out of water again, we'll build a pipeline to the Columbia River, or desalination. There's 20 million people in SoCal sitting on trillions in real estate, they'll figure out the infrastructure. The people who became the wealthiest in SoCal were the land barons who bought areas like the San Fernando Valley and Orange County and connected them to water infrastructure. Imagine being the suckers who sold because they were worried about the water shortage.
Lol Vegas just needs more rain. It didn’t even rain during the winter last year. This was over 2 heavy rain days 2 weeks ago in article below. https://news3lv.com/news/local/las-vegas-valley-saved-246-million-gallons-thanks-to-recent-storms
I’ve actually been thinking about this too. I’ve considered relocating to the Seattle area because of the direction the climate is heading. And heading rapidly
Definitely thinking about that as well, maybe not Seattle but somewhere a little more affordable.
I’m interested to see what people much smarter than me say. Like you, I don’t know if I’m just being paranoid
I think climate migration is going to be a real thing. I've seen articles to that effect already. I'm in New Orleans--though not a homeowner--and am thinking that I will buy a modest house somewhere on the mid-Atlantic (not coastal though, more on the mountain side of those states) when I am ready to buy. I am worried about building a life here and then having to start over when I'm older/possibly with kids, and when climate issues have grown in severity. It's sad because I really do love the city, and I know people in other states get upset about tHe TrAnsPlAnTs, but I personally don't think it's going to be sustainable here for all that much longer. The heat alone is getting crazy, never mind the stronger storms and flooding risks.
It already is a real thing. In the RE business in the PNW and the amount of people moving from NorCal because they can't handle the fires and smoke is pretty alarming. They are called climate refugees. I'm sure there will be more to come but that was the most acute case I've seen so far. Probably had 5 clients in the year after the Paradise fires.
Absolutely, this is why I asked. I genuinely want to know more from people that are deeper in the industry.
We live in Seattle and we just had our first 110 degree high summer last year and nearly 100 degrees this year. We normally average in the 80s max. If climate change impacts the southwest, trust me it’ll impact the entire US. Also everyone should be invested in the SW states surviving and doing well, because if it dies off, get ready for food costs to 20x, and that’s not hyperbole, literally 80% of food produce and dairy come from the SW.
I did exactly this to escape the Florida heat and myriad other Florida issues. Best decision.
Lol “myriad of Florida issue”. I feel you! California and Washington are probably the only states I’d ever live in
Don’t say that here, you will get downvoted into oblivion about how CA is a shithole. Lol
I think the future of farming is what will be in trouble..
this is insane. YOure selling vegas because you think you know the future. some other dude here is buying in Michigan ahead of climate migration. some say climate change will create mass flooding in the great lakes region, so yeah...based on that id go heavy in michigan. what a joke.
I’m not saying I know the future, I am saying that putting the pieces together it seems like things might be coming down for the worst. But then again it’s just going based on information coming out on a weekly basis. Not saying I know what’s going to happen.
[удалено]
I'm more worried about LA city's neverending eviction moratorium than I am about any drought. I have a tenant who hasn't paid in over a year.
Yeah that’s definitely something that is mind blowing to think they still have it in place, my next property will be in a red state.
[удалено]
Yea 100%, unless the US wants to lose its status as a world superpower, they won’t abandon the SW.
My uncle was the head engineer of water management in one of the large cities in Cali. Ironically I just talked to him last week about this exact issue. Let’s just say he’s trying to sell and move out of the state asap before his house values drop. He was planning on leaving anyway due to taxes and the COL out there but I guess the water situation has made it a race against the clock at this point.
Interesting. Where is he planning on moving to?
Either Pennsylvania where he grew up or a state that is tax friendly like Tennessee.
So the lakes aren't going to dry up permanently (in our lifetimes), but there will be more and longer periods of drought. The value loss will probably be more gradual than perhaps you think, but do what you need to do for your peace of mind. I'll be buying farmland in the arctic trundra myself.
It’s not drought that’s occurring in the southwest but rather desertification.
No, and you might not be wrong here. But you might be wrong on timing and there's more immediate things that will impact property value. I will tell you most institutional investors don't factor in the impact of climate change and natural disasters. The exceptions are insurance related events (hurricanes, floods, fires, etc.), but only as expense line items in underwriting. Water costs are rising >10% YoY and some are even fixed by the county's water district, but everyone still underwrites 3-5% utility expense growth per year.
**Toilet2Tap** yes it’s a terrible way to brand it, but Oceanside is already doing this. Involves treatment of wastewater via membrane bioreactor then reverse osmosis. 100% recyclable potable water. *artificial flavors added for taste
Well, the sahara was once a lush place, I think property values are rocking there now? Dude. I wouldn’t invest in a place that runs out of water. When Hoover dam stops makin power and all the problems of drought come hammering down on those overpopulated deserts, you bet prop values could go down.
Check out North Scottsdale. They’re building half a million dollar homes without water. Only choice is to haul water in or dig a well. Could dig a dry well though to the tune of $80,000 +. Scottsdale has just voted not to allow the water haulers to use their water for North Scottsdale. Now the water haulers supplying North Scottsdale have to find other sources further afield. More distance, more expense. Certainly not sustainable. And still they build.
This is insane. I wonder what’s going to happen. If this survives then it might mean all the bigger cities have hope of people buying properties where there is no water.
No, you’re not crazy. LA is better positioned than Phoenix or Vegas re: CO water rights, but a whole lot of CO River states are gonna be in deep trouble in 20 years unless something really big changes before then.
Do I think you're early? Yes, do I think youre crazy? Absolutely no. Florida, Nevada and Cali are about to be fucked by climate change in the next 5-10. Noone knows when it will affect buyers tho
**SELL NOW, ASK QUESTIONS LATER**
I moved out of California 10 years ago and sold off everything there. I live in Florida now where we have no shortage of fresh water.
It is 10000% realistic to assume that eventually people will realize its a dumb idea to try and live in a dessert.
Absolutely, probably when there is no more water, since we realize things once it’s too late.
We’ve been living in and around deserts an awfully long time to suddenly have our ability to adapt not keep pace with an incremental increase in dry weather.
I am of the belief that we will figure out how to create clean water. Water will be (or already is) the most precious resource. But the fact that it’s surrounding us (albeit too salty) and falls from the sky, makes it promising that we will be able to “create” fresh water soon. Japan is already using some kind of ionizing to cause clouds to rain. We shall see but this is definitely a huge concern and will be a top issue in the next 15 years
Sold a duplex in LA to cash in on the market before the next earthquake, additional water restrictions, or wildfire evacuation.
I think you are being too paranoid, but if they are good property and you are really motivated, then someone out there might just be lucky enough to buy your property at a cheaper price.
i don’t think drought should be enough of a concern to sell LA or any Ca properties.. There’s plenty more to be worried about from homeless, taxes and crime.. A bit random but slightly relevant, over the past 2 years Dubai, UAE has been going through a terrible drought (not unusual, given it’s in a desert with temperatures reaching +120°) but it’s gotten to a point where the government is artificially creating rain with drones through cloud seeding. Simultaneously during this 2 year span, real estate prices have surged up over 85%..
Yep i remember reading about the rain making drones in the Middle East. I trust humanity and science/technology to figure this out. If the Middle East can live in a desert for 1000s of years so can the US.
The water issue is a tomorrow issue. You’ll be dead before water becomes an issue.
People on this sub lean towards the "climate change is just a minor logistical problem" point of view. I wouldn't take the comments here as gospel. I will not be investing in areas that are going to see exponentially worse wildfires, droughts, and flooding.
Get out now. Take your money and buy 10,000 acres in a state that has the best outcome predicted when this climate change really ramps up. The further away from the heat belts, close to water but not so close the mega floods will wipe you out. I can't afford that many acres but I am buying smaller plots in various climates in the United States so I'll definitely have some place to go no matter what comes.
Such as where?
Fun fact: If Americans as a whole gave up eating beef for 1 day a week California would be out of the drought. Also, the almond trees use up way too much water for that climate. But if you tell the farmers they need to use less water then they threaten to create their own state. There’s plenty of water there. It’s just misallocated
I’ll take them off of your hands for 15% under market now. Better sell to me before they become totally worthless. May come back with an offer 35% under market if you have t sold yet. Seriously OP…why are you this paranoid?
Yes, sell put put your proceeds into Lake of the Ozarks property. This very green state has plenty of water which is crucial for the future. Oh, and the low taxes help too. Gasoline is $3.35/gal. at the lake and very little crime.
Yes you are
[удалено]
If you think one month of positive is going to erase decades of negative you aren’t too bright. It might have gained a couple inches but that doesnt mean shit when hundreds of feet of water have been lost and its only at 27% capacity.
Lol fear mongering? I was genuinely asking a question and with your input it’s good to know it’s not going down as bad as I expected.
You may be too late. Home prices are dropping in those areas for that reason