The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

Post by VBprogrammer » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 8:15 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #56

z3c0 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this premise is sufficient in any scenario where there are disparities in the distribution of a plentiful resource, as is the case in countries with privatized water. However, when the resource is no longer plentiful, it is unwise to try the "let the market fix it" route (always a popular one on HN), because the resource in question can be consumed much faster than the systems you are describing can combat it…

>However, when the resource is no longer plentiful My previous comment mentioned acquisition methods up to and including desalination, which would make the resource virtually unlimited. If the rich want to water their huge mansion grounds and are willing to pay for a desalination plant to do it, why stop them? If they're willing to do that, and we can take a portion of that money to subsidize water supply for the poo…

Post by kortilla » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 8:20 PM UTC

skybrian wrote: post #106

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #22

I just want to make a note and an aside to the whole conversation happening around water right now. Aside from the 9000lb gorilla of ag/industrial versus urban/ suburban water use, I think that its clear that tiered rate based structures are a clear failure. We knew this half a decade ago, but its become impeccably clear with articles like these. Its very very easy to see blame the millionaire/ elite class in this si…

It seems weird to say that higher prices for the rich are the problem. It seems like they should be part of the solution? Yes, that means rich people fund the system. Ideally instead of just paying for staff and maintenance, this also funds new sources of water, like desalination plants, which benefit everyone in a drought. I mean, you don't want poor people paying for that stuff, right? For one thing, they don't hav…

Post by shlurpy » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #47

Someone wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t see why the argument “We aren’t the worst offenders by a long stretch” would ever imply “we shouldn’t be prosecuted” I agree they should target the other groups, but I also don’t see why they shouldn’t target people using precious water just to have a green lawn in a place where lawn grass can’t really survive without watering.

Because the sacrifice should be shared by all water users, and homeowners are far from the primary consumers of water. When agriculture uses most of the water, and the most water in agriculture goes to luxury foods like almonds and pistachios, it’s ridiculous to be investigating homeowners while not asking farmers to reduce consumption.

Post by bergenty » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 8:25 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #5

hadlock wrote: post #3

In 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.

Post by throwaway09223 » Sun, Aug 28, 2022, 8:26 PM UTC

z3c0 wrote: post #33

throwaway09223 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but your complaint is that it's punishing the poor. The reason we need to properly price water isn't to increase costs for municipal use. Those rates can stay the same, or even be reduced. The problem is that the agricultural sector is paying a fraction of the prices that municipalities pay -- or in some cases they are paying nothing at all.

My complaint isn't that it punishes the poor, it's that it doesn't deter the rich, who are - in the context of the article - the primary issue. I just invoked an old saying to draw attention to the disparity. A tiered pricing model would likely not change anything for the poor. Agriculture and overuse of water is a different discussion that this restrictor does not presume to address.