California has about one year of water left • Hacker News Board

Re: California has about one year of water left

#81

Post by api » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:07 PM UTC

victoro wrote: post #61

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

Perhaps you should crack open that Econ 101 textbook first, because that same Econ 101 textbook would likely have water as the canonical example used to explain elasticity of demand. Demand for water is inelastic, both for agriculture and home use, so letting the "supply and demand curve" take care of it would likely cause a sharp increase in price in a very short period of time, which, from a policy perspective, see…

Agricultural and home use are inelastic, but irrigation of suburbs and similar luxury uses are not.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#82

Post by acslater00 » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

victoro wrote: post #61

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

Perhaps you should crack open that Econ 101 textbook first, because that same Econ 101 textbook would likely have water as the canonical example used to explain elasticity of demand. Demand for water is inelastic, both for agriculture and home use, so letting the "supply and demand curve" take care of it would likely cause a sharp increase in price in a very short period of time, which, from a policy perspective, see…

This is not true. Demand for water is inelastic in the short term only.

The (obvious) effect of increasing water prices over the medium and long term would be the displacement of water hungry crops such as almonds and rice, as it would no longer be economical to farm them in California. The equilibrium level of water consumption would be much lower as a result.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#83

Post by Animats » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

Water use in California is mostly agriculture. Almond, rice, and hay production in California is going to stop. Rice and hay can come from elsewhere. Almonds are almost entirely from California, and they come from trees, so no place else can pick up the demand quickly.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#84

Post by baddox » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #16

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

If water costs more, that's a signal to entrepreneurs to invest money into methods of providing water, and also a signal to everyone to conserve water, both of which are exactly what you should want if you're worried about the supply of water.

The issue of very poor people being unable to afford water is obviously important, but completely separate.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#85

Post by modeless » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:08 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #16

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

Give me a break. Metered residential water servive in LA is less than a penny a gallon! There's nobody who couldn't afford water to drink even if we doubled or tripled the price. Nobody in the entire state!

Re: California has about one year of water left

#86

Post by nosuchthing » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

noobermin wrote: post #32

So it looks like there is suddenly water everywhere in the solar system...except for California.

In the absence of fresh water, it becomes a matter of the energy required to clean / desalinate / or distill contaminated water.

Abundant clean renewable energy would solve "rare" water issues.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#87

Post by omegaham » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #68

aasarava wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess who uses 80% of the water in CA? It's not the poor and middle class, it's agriculture, typically run by large corporations. Guess how much agriculture contributes to CA's GDP? 2%. It's possible to alter the way water is used in the state in ways that benefit the residents and don't screw the poor and middle class.

The poor and the middle class, screwed by lower food prices. Agriculture (food) actually does have benefits for nearly everyone, you know.

If you have to, you can subsidize food costs for the poor later on.

Right now, the subsidy is going to the wrong place.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#88

Post by thrill » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

victoro wrote: post #61

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

Perhaps you should crack open that Econ 101 textbook first, because that same Econ 101 textbook would likely have water as the canonical example used to explain elasticity of demand. Demand for water is inelastic, both for agriculture and home use, so letting the "supply and demand curve" take care of it would likely cause a sharp increase in price in a very short period of time, which, from a policy perspective, see…

A sharp increase in price is exactly how to gain focus. The only damage to policy will be the at-last recognition that this can has been kicked down the road by every policy setter for the last two decades.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#89

Post by bko » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:09 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #16

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

> The average American uses about 90 gallons of water each day in the home, and each American household uses approximately 107,000 gallons of water each year. For the most part, we use water treated to meet drinking water standards to flush toilets, water lawns, and wash dishes, clothes, and cars. In fact, 50-70 percent of home water is used for watering lawns and gardens.Nearly 14 percent of the water a typical homeowner pays for is never even used—it leaks down the drain. ... The national average cost of water is $2.00 per 1,000 gallons. The average American family spends about $474 each year on water and sewage charges. American households spend an additional $230 per year on water heating costs.[0]

I don't think people will be dying of thirst. It might just make more sense to let the price people pay bare some resemblance to what it actually costs to deliver the good and avert this whole catastrophe.

[0] http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/wot/pdfs/book_waterontap_full.pdf

Re: California has about one year of water left

#90

Post by vinhboy » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 6:10 PM UTC

antidaily wrote: post #24

Just ban almonds. Problem solved.

Maybe you were being tongue in cheek, but I kind of like this solution. Why don't we just find some non-essential crops and ban them. I am sure it will suck for that farmer, but we're not really in a position to be accommodating to every industry at this point.