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

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

lite.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 385 posts

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

#311

Post by mr_toad »

bigiain wrote: post #205
barry-cotter wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There’s an extremely simple way to solve this problem that would work; Everyone pays the same price for water. If the government is not going to do that then blame the government.

Are you suggesting the same dollars per gallon? Because I callus also see a reasonable argument to charge for water in percentage or person that per gallon. As the article mentions, some people are perfectly happy to pay more money. Which’d be fine if there was a guaranteed supply with enough for everyone. But that’s not how the water supply in CA is today. Poor people should not die of dehydration just because rich…

> Poor people should not die of dehydration

Places that do charge for water (places like Perth, Western Australia) charge a few dollars per thousand litres - enough for several months of drinking water. Nobody is going to die from dehydration.

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

#312

Post by nradov »

Thorrez wrote: post #310
gsk22 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For other natural resources, sure. But without water humans _die_. That's not subjective.

How about making the price graduated. Each household has a low price up to a certain point (a reasonable amount for indoor use of the household) and after that it's market price.

Some households have more residents than others. I don't particularly want intrusive government monitoring of who lives where just for the sake of water allocations. No thanks.

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

#313

Post by mr_toad »

icelancer wrote: post #280
vippy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you live, but I see many fewer plastic bags drifting like so many tumbleweeds since the imposition of plastic bag fees and taxes where I live.

This is a great example of regulations that feel good but are probably net negative. Paper bags require more energy and are worse for the environment than plastic bags on net [0][1]. Reusable bags are improperly sanitized and typically quite dirty, something that was pretty relevant in 2020 (and theoretically going forward). [2] [0]: https://ecomyths.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/scho0711buan... [1]: https://cascade…

Walking down the street a few days ago I saw someone had put out an entire trash bag full of reusable bags.

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

#314

Post by nradov »

gsk22 wrote: post #309
nradov wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has a different option about equity when it comes to distribution of natural resources. It's highly subjective.

For other natural resources, sure. But without water humans _die_. That's not subjective.

Don't be ridiculous. No one is seriously proposing completely cutting people off from water. Flow restrictors still allow customers enough water for personal consumption and hygiene.

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

#315

Post by bobthepanda »

nradov wrote: post #312
Thorrez wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about making the price graduated. Each household has a low price up to a certain point (a reasonable amount for indoor use of the household) and after that it's market price.

Some households have more residents than others. I don't particularly want intrusive government monitoring of who lives where just for the sake of water allocations. No thanks.

I don’t know that any such tiered pricing needs to be down to the liter.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that agricultural water from individual farms dwarfs that of individual residences, so you just need to find the cutoff at which residential allowance stops applying.

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

#316

Post by sgc »

jefftk wrote: post #185
shlurpy wrote: post #120

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.

You could charge tiered rates where the quantities we're talking about are incredibly expensive, enough to discourage use, without affecting what households that use far less pay. (Or, you could, if this was legal under California law)

That would always wind up bankrupting at least some poor soul caught unawares. I would only support that if there were clear warnings delivered to the specific user in question beforehand (not a blanket notice to everyone that they might, but to one person indicating that they will be charged if they don't change, because they have already gone into a draconian penalty tier), in a way that you were absolutely certain the person had received notice.

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

#317

Post by Thorrez »

RosanaAnaDana wrote: post #85
lostdog wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand. Isn't the point of tiered rates so that the customer reduces their water usage?

Is it? One might assume on fce value and with a bit of charity that's the point. But districts are in a contradictory position. They are being mandated by state of California to reduce water usage. If they did so by mandating caps, this could work. However, their revenues would drop linearly with use in a flat rate scenario. If, rather, a district goes without caps and uses a tiered price structure, they can up the p…

Are the water authorities really earning much from these massive users? This[1] says they fined Kim Kardashian $2,325 for overuse. That's nothing to her. They have plenty of room to increase those prices and earn more money. They have 2 goals: earn money and reduce usage. The solution to both is to raise prices. Why aren't they doing it? As long as the lowest tier is wide enough for all reasonable household indoor use and has a low price, I don't see why it would have a big negative impact on regular people. Sure their lawns will turn brown. But it sounds to me like that's inevitable; there's simply not enough water to keep everyone's lawns green.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2022/08/24/1119112184/kim-kardashian-kev...

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

#318

Post by HWR_14 »

colechristensen wrote: post #301
mistersquid wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm surprised they still blame the lawn and havent moved on to pools or something more easily associated with wealth to really try and stir the poor vs rich debate. I understand these figures may not mean anything because private individuals consume relatively imperceptible amounts of water compared to (the agriculture) industry. But reflect for a moment that Kim Kardashian blew through over one quarter million gal…

For context vs the quarter million figure for a month for a celebrity: yesterday it rained about 20 million gallons of water on my family’s small Iowa farm. Like a middle class income size of farm.

Or, to put it a different way she used as much water as 4 acres of farmland in California (averaged over all crops, only 3 acres if its growing almonds).

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

#319

Post by HWR_14 »

lazide wrote: post #307
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eh, back east water isn’t life and death You'd have said that in the UK and Western Europe if you're less than 100 years old ... until this summer. Sure, it may not literally be life or death the way it could be if you were lost on foot in the deserts of Nevada, but the prospect of running out of water for agriculture in certain parts of what has hitherto been a well-watered part of the world became quite tangible…

‘literally life and death’ is exactly what I mean. And it doesn’t require being on foot for it to be so. Las Vegas could literally not be more than a tiny town of desert rats without the water rights on the Colorado they have, same with Phoenix. Instead they’re huge bustling metropolises. Even with the issues going on in Europe, crops may die, farmers may go bankrupt - but no one will be literally without water and d…

Las Vegas has been conserving water recently though. With like 50% more people they use like 50% less water than in the 1990's.

Okay, I'm pretty sure I'm wrong about the numbers, but the people went up and total water went down.

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

#320

Post by hedora »

darkteflon wrote: post #298
hedora wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The summer after they passed the plastic bag ban, I worked near the SF bay. Nearly every day, I'd watch a garbage scow go out full, and come back empty. I often wonder if those scows are still operating. I'd guess one load put as much plastic in the bay as a year of litter.

You’re saying the city is dumping plastic in the bay? I may be misunderstanding your comment.

Someone definitely used to, even after the bag ban. No idea if they still do.
Post reply on HN