Grand Prairie Has the AirHogs. But Dallas Has the "Water Hogs."

By Robert Wilonsky Wed., Jul. 15 2009 at 8:00 AM

Categories: News

Pin It

RetroRazor

Don't know what's more interesting: This morning's Wall Street Journal story that ties together Dallas's efforts to take a long drink from the Neches River and Oklahoma's water supply, or the comments attached to the story. Let's start with the story, in which outgoing assistant city manager Ramón Míguez acknowledges the city's rep as "a water hog"; again, Tom Hicks, seriously. But he says we need the water ... or else: "The only way that this region can sustain its economic growth has to be working a mutually agreeable agreement with a region that is richer than we are and simply does not need the water as we do." Folks in Oklahoma and along the Neches disagree. Then jump on over to the comments, where one "Newton Wilson" writes, "Dallas is about as cool as Aids. Dallas-ites are gluttons, devouring all the water, coke, and Prada in sight." That's not an official slogan, is it?

Like this Story?

Sign up for the Weekly Newsletter: Our weekly feature stories, movie reviews, calendar picks and more - minus the newsprint and sent directly to your inbox.

Write Comment

Email to Friend

Print Article

Related Content

@Scott- Almost any metro area can be said to have "ample" water if you draw it from a large enough area. I don't share Bob's ideas that Dallas can never and should never grow larger than it is. You point out one of many ways we could meet our water needs. But the refusal from Oklahoma should be a wake up call to Dallas that it can't just take from others indiscriminately. The problem is that I don't see it getting that message right now. Luckily for Dallas, Colorado is going to see a major need for water conservation long before us, as I think they have fewer easy solutions and water will literally be a constraint on their ability to grow. Whether we choose to take a cue from them is debatable, but I think the guide will be there.
Bob, your assumptions aren't really based on much with regard to Dallas. The OK watershed has 3 times the water that Manhattan uses. Currently that water runs dew South to the Red River. Once that water hits the Red River it is useless, due to saline and sulfur in the river. Your basic premise isn't wrong, it's just general. Dallas is truly a lush climate, there is ample water, if we can get these lakes built in the East, we'll have substantial water resources. That said, we have incredible ability to get more use out of our current water supply. We've not even considered grey/brown water for irrigation, that alone could double our water resources.
So Bob, what's your proposal? Border fence around the DFW? Involuntary sterilization? Mass deportation of non-natives? Tax breaks for companies that don't grow?
Time to accept that Dallas is reaching its capacity. If people really think this region can support 13.1 million they're dreaming. Is this predicated on a massive influx of rains and water creation over the next 40 years? If we realize that we do not need to have the center and hub of the world be Dallas, and that everyone can be happy with a smaller sustainable population here, I am sure we could all be happy. 6 million people is still pretty big. There is a reason why in days gone by the centers of industry and commerce were in New York, Chicago, and the rust belt cities: They had access to ample water supplies that could support large amounts of agriculture and people, plus facilitate trade through regions connected by water ways. It seems the areas of the country experiencing the most growth in the past decade seem to completely ignore this fact, and now we are left with the Las Vegases, Phoenixes and to a lesser extent, the Dallases of the world. I will give Dallas credit for not trying to be a metropolis in the middle of a desert, but it is still very hot and dry here for the most part. Not an area up to the task of supporting 13 million people in one location.
@JF: No, they don't! Their cats do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WofFb_eOxxA
@ROB- clearly, people who have many bathrooms flush them as a leisure activity, leading to increased water usage
<i>Sprawling cities packed with houses featuring big lawns and many bathrooms typically don't use water very efficiently, experts and environmentalists say.</i> The big water-sucking lawns I understand, but how does the number of bathrooms affect water usage?
Ram��ez just announced his resignation yesterday. The DMN points out that he was encharge of the Trinity River project in addition to water.
Anyone reading this article needs to contact the North Texas Municipal Water District and ask them how Dallas is going to be with Water for the next 50 years. I believe they know. Maybe even Mr. Hicks needs to speak with them......or has he???
re comments that Dallas could solve its water waste issue with higher rates. We already have one of the highest rate structures in the country, courtesy your city council, who voted to raise rates and divert part of that to the fund the city uses to attract development. Still, high water bills have not encouraged many folks to use less water or keep their sprinklers repaired. Maybe the problem is we have too much money, not too little water.
The best line in the article is the bizarre idea that it would be "impossible" for Dallas to continue to grow without access to this water. If the water wasn't available (and it wasn't just a question of price/access negotiation), we would be forced to find a way to make due, and we probably would solve the problem through conservation. But Dallas doesn't actually believe that it has a water problem. It thinks it has a neighbor problem, in that its neighbors won't give it what it wants.