Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California is not in drought

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 216 posts

Re: California is not in drought

#41

Post by testfoobar »

We use a lot of water growing nuts in California.

From 2015: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/almonds-nuts...

"it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. Residents across the state are being told to take shorter showers and stop watering their lawns, but the acreage devoted to the state’s almond orchards have doubled in the past decade. The amount of water that California uses annually to produce almond exports would provide water for all Los Angeles homes and businesses for almost three years."

Re: California is not in drought

#42

Post by okareaman »

0xB31B1B wrote: post #24
okareaman wrote: post #7

Desalination of seawater will be the norm in the future and people then will wonder how we ever got by without it

We don't need desal, there is plenty of water if we dont waste water on golf courses and lawns in the desert.

I tend to agree with you. If water is precious then why is it so cheap? The avg family uses thousands of gallons a month. It's difficult to get people at current prices to stop wasting water. California farmers pay an average of $70 per acre-foot for water to irrigate crops (326,000 gallons) I live in an apt in California that doesn't even meter it. I can use all I want and the price is included in the rent. We have to get out of this mindset that water is a free gift from the sky and start pricing it in such a way that solutions to shortages become cost effective to implement.

Re: California is not in drought

#43

Post by mullingitover »

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water.

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...

Re: California is not in drought

#44

Post by kardianos »

mullingitover wrote: post #43

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...

Do you eat money?

Re: California is not in drought

#45

Post by beambot »

pixl97 wrote: post #22
Cerium wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I don't want to feel like I'm acting amorally when I want to water my garden. If I go over my allotment of naturally provided water, then I should start paying desalination rates, but I should not feel bad because I'm not "saving enough" compared to my neighbors.

No snowflake will take blame for the avalanche.

I don't want to put words in the GP's mouth... but I believe GPs point is more akin to "one snowflake = one snowflake" (to use your analogy).

In other words: California does not value water equally between use cases -- to the point where certain crops are exploiting that imbalance. E.g. almonds might be a special case since, while water intensive, there may be fewer alternative geographies. Cattle, however, are plenty-viable elsewhere & shouldn't receive such an imbalanced incentive to consume water.

One natural starting point: One liter of water is priced uniformly regardless of use...

Re: California is not in drought

#46

Post by rednerrus »

kardianos wrote: post #44
mullingitover wrote: post #43

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...

Do you eat money?

I get all my calories watching Doogie Howser reruns.

Re: California is not in drought

#47

Post by kemiller »

npsimons wrote: post #25
devmunchies wrote: post #14

California has plenty of water for California. Now, whether it can continue to be a fruit and nut agricultural hub for the rest of the country is another thing to consider.

Beef and dairy use more water, use more land, generate more GHG[0]. Deal with animal agriculture first, then we can talk about the fruits and nuts. [0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths

The water and land that they use isn't necessarily useful for other crops. Marginal pasture land can't be magically turned into cropland but almond orchards can.

Re: California is not in drought

#48

Post by d110af5ccf »

lumost wrote: post #39
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brine disposal has always been my concern. I haven't come across anything promising but I'm well out of the loop.

wouldn't releasing brine into the ocean be viable with a suitable dispersal mechanism? Or are there additional chemicals released from the plant?

Yes. We already do this for all sorts of things, including sewage. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_outfall)

Re: California is not in drought

#49

Post by cronix »

ummonk wrote: post #9
chrisco255 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we moved 50 million people there in the past 60 years so clearly nature must stop the mega drought cycle.

It has nothing to do with the people. The majority of the water is used for agriculture, which supplies the nation and even the world with water-hungry food.

> The majority of the water is used for agriculture, which supplies the nation and even the world with water-hungry food.

It kind of sounds like it has everything to do with people, unless people aren't eating that agriculture or eating whatever that agriculture eventually feeds.

Re: California is not in drought

#50

Post by zbrozek »

rsj_hn wrote: post #40
slavoingilizov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly do wells and cisterns prevent wildfires? Like many others this technology treats the symptom and doesn’t solve the problem.

The technology to prevent wildfires is controlled burns. The Ohlone indians would regularly do controlled burns, reducing the density of trees by 90%. A combination of anti-controlled burn mentality, building expensive homes in forested areas, and an antipathy to "greedy loggers" has turned California into a tinderbox waiting to go off. The state needs to liquidate 90% of its forests ASAP, because reducing carbon emi…

Many CA communities make it hard to cut down trees ("conservationism"), and also don't religiously enforce clearance rules that they do have on the books. The combination means that there's a huge pileup of fuel even in suburban neighborhoods.

To those downvoting - this is a town-owned parcel in my neighborhood, just a few miles down the hill from the CZU complex evacuation zone. https://i.imgur.com/PVUoUVg.jpg

Post reply on HN