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

California has about one year of water left

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#191

Post by Someone1234 »

ziyadb wrote: post #129

Just to add my 2 cents. I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers). Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi Arabia's water needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_... So yes, it's feasibl…

Great point.

When people talk about California's water problems they make it sound as if there isn't an easy solution, but there is. The real core of this entire issue is not the methods but more the cost, it is ultimately a conversation about saving money NOT about some finite limitation on water in real terms.

California could solve this issue with a pen stroke, it just might hurt their farmers, which is really what all the concern is about. If water doubled or more in price (which is realistic), that is expensive for farmers who need a ton of the stuff for their crops. So will supermarkets pay 30% more or will they look abroad?

I actually think even with a higher water bill, it will still be cheaper for US retailers to buy US produce. Shipping that stuff by ocean isn't exactly cheap with the price of oil. I think where it would hurt US farms is their exports to Europe in particular, Europe is in a geographical position to buy from either the east or west, both by ocean. So if US/California crops go up in cost they might just buy them from someone else.

But let us not pretend that either shipping water in from other states OR just distilling water isn't an option for California, because it is. It just might hurt farmers and make them less internationally competitive.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#192

Post by malandrew »

Shivetya wrote: post #67

What has happened before will happen again. California had similar issues with mild winters and the reduced water associated with them back in the 1930s. [1][2] The difference now of course is that there are a great many more people there and a great many more farms. The Bureau of Reclamation is pretty much at fault for the lack of water available for human consumption because of mismanagement and prices below the co…

The way I see it water consumption for household and business uses that are not farms should be on a per person basis, going up exponentially at each strata of consumption.

This would not be unlike how the desirable island of Fernando de Naronha controls limits tourism, while still keeping it accessible. IIRC, every day you are on the island you pay a fee, but each day you stay the fee increases until it gets so expensive that even the rich feel it. The island is limited to 420 tourists at a time.

http://www.ilhadenoronha.com.br/ailha/taxadepreservacao_em_n...

Likewise, for water a person might pay a nominal rate per gallon for the first 40 gallons in a day, then the price doubles for the next 40, then doubles for the next 40, etc, etc. until it's literally unaffordable by even the rich.

This would also have the nice side effect of limiting yard size, which would curb urban sprawl.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#193

Post by dgemm »

bradleyjg wrote: post #141
jonnathanson wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that California is so ideal for agriculture because of its climate (with the water scarcity being the big liability, the can we've been kicking down the road for decades). Other states, either individually or collectively, do not have the year-round, Mediterranean, relatively predictable climate to take on the load that California would drop. This includes not only total square acreage of arable,…

There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music. It's a win-win.

Food security is the reason governments stick their noses in an otherwise free market.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#194

Post by sp332 »

mikeash wrote: post #66
sp332 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great argument for moving farms, but that would take years. It won't prevent a shortage in the next year.

Why not? Prices would rise, producers in wetter areas would produce more to take advantage, and everyone eats. We'd pay more for food, but we're already paying it , just indirectly and in a more damaging fashion with subsidized water.

Producers in wetter areas can't create a farm, plant crops (especially trees like almonds), and harvest in one year.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#195

Post by ryguytilidie »

In the Bay Area, things don't seem that bad. However, I drove from LA to SF and holy wow. Everything along I5 is just a dustbowl. Farms are empty with big signs saying that there are no jobs because there is no water.

However, its hard not to blame the farmers themselves. We consistently hear that it takes a gallon of water for a single Almond, yet here we are and farmers aren't looking for new crops that use less water, it's simply "give us more water" as if this is realistic...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#196

Post by valgaze »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #56

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…

That's interesting you mention rice farmers in TX because in Sacramento rice farmers are getting paid to sell not rice but water to Los Angeles.

Evidently many of these folks will probably end up making more $$ selling water than rice

See: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drough...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#197

Post by brianwawok »

ziyadb wrote: post #129

Just to add my 2 cents. I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers). Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi Arabia's water needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_... So yes, it's feasibl…

Feasible for human drinking but I assume not farming (citation required). Which goes along with the story of "People in cali are not going to die of thirst, but a lot of farmers might go bankrupt"

Re: California has about one year of water left

#199

Post by mitchty »

ars wrote: post #144
Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: strong language and opinion I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu. You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways.…

The drought in California has nothing to do with climate change. > If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out If anything climate change will make more water not less. (Higher temperatures mean more evaporation.) The water would just be in a different location, not that there would be less of it.

Yep, the drought should be thought of more as a return to normalcy for California. We have been living under an incredibly wet period of California the past 100 or so years. We were wrong to think that was the norm.

Climate change will impact things but climate change is not the cause of Californias problems. All this has happened before and all that jazz.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#200

Post by ghshephard »

acomjean wrote: post #77
nfriedly wrote: post #45

How feasible is desalination? If they can make that work on a large scale, then there's quite literally an ocean of water available to California.

Desalination is expensive and not great for the environment, but its starting to happen. http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/533446/desalin...

Desalination used to be expensive. In the last 4-5 years ultrafiltration (UF) membrane technology for the pre-treatment process plus double pass reverse osmosis process to produce potable water has resulted in costs dropping to around $500/acre foot, ($0.50/m^3 or 1000 liters).

Completely reasonable for coastal cities, if we could be certain they were needed.

Post reply on HN