I just moved to Austin, TX 1.5 years ago. We've got our own severe drought here, and I wonder what's going to happen in the long term. Was it a mistake to move here? At least in TX, there are a couple of ways in which it's clear we're doing it to ourselves. First, we can't keep the reservoirs full because a significant amount of water flow is earmarked for rice farmers down at the mouth of the river. That's right: ri…
California has about one year of water left
91–100 of 405 posts
Re: California has about one year of water left
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of water in California goes to farming. They'll have to close farms, which will drive up prices of produce.
Until new farms capitalize on the opportunity to capture the market in places where there's an abundance of water.
Spoken like a true city dweller. Like other have alluded to, farmers think in terms of years. Ever hear the expression "the best time to plant a fruit tree was 5 years ago". I wonder where that came from.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Would it cause more panic and economic instability than California having zero water next year, but at a great price?
I'm assuming the alternative that the grandparent is against is forced sharing, ie., regulation which would keep the situation from reaching that state where there is zero water next year. I don't think anyone supports CA doing nothing and to keep using water at the current rate.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
In all seriousness, if California's water problems really did get to Arrakis levels of expensive where some set of people could not even afford to drink, then "they move to somewhere where water is cheaper" would actually be a good outcome . It would relieve an incredibly overloaded infrastructure. (If there was going to be nowhere to move those people, that would be a different problem, but that's not the current pr…
But by forcing out people who cannot afford the water you are driving out essentially only lower-class people which is unrealistic. More problematically, these are specifically people for whom moving is more difficult since they lack the financial resources which makes moving possible.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#95I 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…
Wheat and other grains, because of how water intensive they are to grow, are considered an international water trading market.
Agricultural subsidies are common and significant, especially in rich developed nations. This is for various reasons, but it does have some significant knockdown effects such as exasperating third world poverty. There are numerous complaints brought to the UN, the WTO, by various poor nations but they are generally ignored or swept under the rug.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
It makes more sense to farm in places that have reliable sources of water. I don't see why we need to subsidize California's crops, especially when we have so much great soil wasted on corn. Farming, in general, in the US is fairly messed up. Perhaps this crisis will lead to a fix. Maintaining the status quo and pretending everything is okay via regulation and political corruption is what got us here. Lets not contin…
Even if we just grant that agriculture should be moved away from CA, no one wants to just see it stop immediately for the same reason that the government didn't demolish all buildings that were made with asbestos when they determined that it was harmful to human health.
I would rather see agriculture move immediately than water to literally run out.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#97I just moved to Austin, TX 1.5 years ago. We've got our own severe drought here, and I wonder what's going to happen in the long term. Was it a mistake to move here? At least in TX, there are a couple of ways in which it's clear we're doing it to ourselves. First, we can't keep the reservoirs full because a significant amount of water flow is earmarked for rice farmers down at the mouth of the river. That's right: ri…
Almonds are a very water-intensive crop. We grow a huge amount of almonds here in California. (Most of them are exported.) See http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30052290 for one writeup.
Now, they're also a very lucrative crop, so not growing almonds would certainly affect the state's economy. But...
Re: California has about one year of water left
#98This is an opinion article, but the situation is without a doubt fact. However, next year I feel the only impact on me will be produce cost. Everything in this article tells me this is mostly an agricultural issue. What is rationing going to do when farms are pumping 2/3 of our ground water? It just buys more time for the inevitable unless someone finds a solution.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#99Maybe stop growing rice in a desert? Let gasp other parts of the country or double gasp world sell food to Americans?
Re: California has about one year of water left
#100I 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.
Are you serious? You want WATER to have its price raised to reflect the realities in California? All that would do is screw all the poor and middle class people and it would do nothing to solve the shortage. Put down Atlas Shrugged for a minute and look at reality. The whole state of California has always been on water welfare, and if it weren't life there would be untenable for anyone who wasn't extremely wealthy. I…
Sure, put down Atlas Shrugged, but pick up any economics textbook, or Google some statistics about water usage in California. I absolutely do want water's price to reflect the realities in California. It would not screw the poor and middle class, and it would solve the shortage.