The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
1–10 of 385 posts
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#2I wonder what it will take for people to start leaving the state. And it's going to be the wealthy who leave first.
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#3In a dry year agriculture uses as much as 50% of all water, urban use ranges between 8-13%.
https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/jtf/JTF...
Agriculture is effectively unrestricted by law in their water use. I think we may be targeting the wrong group
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#4The obvious solution here is to have a tiered pricing system for water, where the price per gallon increases with consumption.
Increase the price of the higher tiers and/or rate of increase until consumption drops to level you need.
And then you don’t need to pay government employees to drive around and inspect celebrity lawns all day.
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#5In a dry year agriculture uses as much as 50% of all water, urban use ranges between 8-13%. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/jtf/JTF... Agriculture is effectively unrestricted by law in their water use. I think we may be targeting the wrong group
Agriculture is also a small portion of the state’s GDP and we could do without some of the most water-intensive crops, such as almonds. There won’t be food insecurity or famine if we cut back on almonds.
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#6I wonder what it will take for people to start leaving the state. And it's going to be the wealthy who leave first.
The wealthy can afford to stay, and the poor can’t afford to leave. Watch the middle class, as those are the most likely to move first.
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#7I wonder what it will take for people to start leaving the state. And it's going to be the wealthy who leave first.
California has the largest economy in the U.S. and (if it were its own nation) the fifth largest in the world, with agricultural production/processing representing under 3% of total state GDP. There's lots of money and lots of strategies for mitigating water problems, including things like desalinization on a scale never seen before.
In contrast, Arizona is relatively poor and landlocked. It seems like they're far more likely to be the canary in the coal mine.
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#8The obvious solution here is to have a tiered pricing system for water, where the price per gallon increases with consumption. Increase the price of the higher tiers and/or rate of increase until consumption drops to level you need. And then you don’t need to pay government employees to drive around and inspect celebrity lawns all day.
As the saying goes, "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor."
There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. It may raise more money, but I can't imagine that it would deter consumption much, as it's already the rich using the most water.
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#9Chile has private, water brokers.
Water goes to the highest bidder
The industry employs hundreds of people.
I bet this would be a disaster for CA farmers, though
Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor
#10The obvious solution here is to have a tiered pricing system for water, where the price per gallon increases with consumption. Increase the price of the higher tiers and/or rate of increase until consumption drops to level you need. And then you don’t need to pay government employees to drive around and inspect celebrity lawns all day.
As the saying goes, "when the punishment is money, it's only a punishment for the poor." There are plenty of mega-wealthy people in California who would pay the premium to maintain their image of wealth, no matter how large. It may raise more money, but I can't imagine that it would deter consumption much, as it's already the rich using the most water.
> it's already the rich using the most water
That's not true. The main water use is agriculture, which is a pretty small portion of our GDP and would cut down usage if we raised prices.