171–180 of 385 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Water is a necessity. Making it unaffordable literally is a death sentence. Those who would mass murder poor people rather then have a yellow lawn are morally reprehensible.
Did someone force all of these people to move to cities built in the middle of a desert?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did someone force all of these people to move to cities built in the middle of a desert?
Do you want the food that is produced in the CA Central Valley (a huge, huge proportion of all US produce) or not?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22136304/2022-8-15-ne...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Poor people do have the money to pay a market rate. It’s not expensive if you’re not trying to water a lawn.
It seems like this could be solved by having improvements paid for by people who don't mind paying so much and would like more water. And in a drought, it means there is more supply, as well as people who can cut back on water usage without much sacrifice.
I've always wondered why they don't build more pipelines to balance the water supply --- many other states have plenty of water available.
Chile 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
Seems like we should subsidize farmers with grants for improved water use instead of just giving them cheap endless water.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...in the same sense that we are literally importing water whenever anyone buys a computer (~400 gallons), a phone (~200 gallons), a polyester shirt (~3500 gallons), or a pair of jeans (~1800 gallons) not made locally. I.e., not at all. Most of the water used to make those things doesn't end up in those things. Same with almonds.
Your analogy doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun. The discussion is about water being consumed. Production consumes water, and when we then export the product it is reasonable to say that the function is, in essence, exporting the water, because the water is consumed during production. Saudi Arabia grows their alfalfa in California instead of locally. The only reason they've done this is to use our water ins…
I’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water there for them to use.
I also take issue with the term “our water” like you have some “manifest destiny” to seize someone else’s property rights because you feel you are more entitled to it than the current legal owner. They thought ahead, bought property/water rights and are using them in a way you disagree with. Fair enough, pay them more than the utility they currently derive from their usage and everyone walks away happy campers.
I’m not convinced that bashing the “A-listers” is productive. Urban water shortages can, with a bit of political will, be addressed by money. It seems to me that allowing people to buy large amounts of water at an appropriate price is just fine and maybe even a good idea. (Even at egregious CA private utility electricity rates, the energy needed to desalinate water is rather less expensive than the cost of residentia…
I was somewhat skeptical, but it does look like this comment is correct on the whole. An average household uses around .75 cubic meters of water per day, and it takes around 3.5 kWh to desalinate that much water using reverse osmosis (at scale, probably some best case. I didn't look too hard). On Silicon Valley Power (suck it PG&E losers), I pay around $0.11/kWh. So a full day's water would cost me around $0.40, or a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you want the food that is produced in the CA Central Valley (a huge, huge proportion of all US produce) or not?
This is a straw man, no one is suggesting to stop growing food on irrigated farmland but to focus on efficient irrigation and grow things more suitable for the limited water, see the suggestions from the SNWA https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22136304/2022-8-15-ne...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Agriculture is also a small portion of the state’s GDP Be careful not to fall into the GDP trap. This is a place where free markets looking for efficiencies will cost you in p99 events. It's one thing when there's a toilet paper or semiconductor shortage. It's another when it's food, so it makes sense for governments to subsidize farm production, whether it's though cheap water or buying surplus product, to ensure…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pistachios are a high-value crop, and other places under drought like the La Mancha region of Spain are also switching from olives and wheat to pistachios. Compare this to alfalfa, an ultra-low-value crop the Saudis are growing in California because they bought senior water rights, then shipping to Saudi to feed cows, essentially laundering water. Agricultural water is heavily subsidized in California, and the absurd…
This is not just the story of California, but the entire US southwest. Unlike back east, where water is subject to municipal authority and policy (thus allowing a town/city/county/state to decide what the best way to use the water is, especially in times of actual or imminent shortages), the western states ended up with this absurd "water rights" concept that prevents effective policy making.
In the west, water is scarce and the most limited resource in most areas - and literally life and death.
An old saw here is, ‘whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over’