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

311–320 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#311

Post by Shivetya »

refurb wrote: post #238
rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…

What would happen if the gov't did nothing? 1. Water would become more scarce in California. Not everyone would get what they need. 2. Price of produce would go up, since there is a smaller supply. 3. We'd start to import more produce (either from outside the country or other states) because the price is the same or lower than the new, higher CA price. 4. Other farmers, who don't grow what CA grows, would start to be…

but government is doing something, they are pricing water too low currently artificially incentivizing farming and over use of water

Re: California has about one year of water left

#313

Post by wes-k »

tomswartz07 wrote: post #258
pkulak wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

It seems that we have the choice of either: 1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry. The current situation is proof that the current level of agriculture is unsubstainable. As a reference, a few quick searches[1] show that it takes: 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli 4.9 gallons of water to grow a single walnut 1.1 gallons of wat…

I'm a biased vegan but...

802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef

187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables

Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals.

Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)

Re: California has about one year of water left

#314

Post by mc32 »

rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…

Farms work on thin margins, so jacking the price on them might not be the first step to take.

A few things we can do:

Increase rates to households.

Fix the delivery system to residences so that we don't lose approx 30% to leakage

Invest in desalination and make it a viable alternative

Incentivize drip irrigation where applicable (ie. almonds, but not rice)

Of course increased water conservation.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#315

Post by Jtsummers »

crpatino wrote: post #310
Jtsummers wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I cut out Spotify (what, $9.99/month) and saved some $120/year. Woopty do. I cut out Starbucks ($2/day since I get regular coffee) and make coffee at home I save at least twice that. I cut out fast food lunches ($6/meal) and bring cheap cold cut sandwiches (no more than $2/meal with some veggies as a side) and I save close to $1k/year. It's like profiling code. Sure there are some easy cheap gains, but when you f…

The point remains. Water consumption will be cut down either voluntarily or by lack of availability. You cannot chose not to cut down your consumption, but you can choose what type of consumption to cut first. Drink 10% less water and you will give yourself, in a couple of years, kidney failure. Skip shower each other day and you will give yourself a rancid bodily odor. Stop playing golf and you will give yourself...…

Not much. My point wasn't that it oughtn't be considered, but that it's insignificant in the overall scheme due to how little water (as a percentage) it uses.

What part about profiling this like code or a budget is so difficult? If you have one area that's costing 80% of your resources, then reducing usage there by even 1% is more effective than a 100% cut to something that only uses 0.5% of your total resources.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#316

Post by jonnathanson »

acdha wrote: post #289
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a related issue of perennial, tree, and more orchard-like agriculture rather than seasonal crops. These farmers cannot reduce their water consumption without suffering massive losses - they're price insensitive on water to a large extent, and their choices are irrigate or go bankrupt. IIRC, avocado trees are a big culprit for California's future commitment to consuming water for agricultural purposes.

The underlying problem here is that there isn't enough water to go around. There three outcomes: 1. Farmers stop growing more wasteful crops which are very water intensive and peak consumption drops below the crisis level 2. Avocado farmers raise prices based on increased costs 3. Some avocado farmers can no longer compete with avocado farmers in wetter areas of the US or Mexico I'm certain we'd see some combination…

" Some avocado farmers can no longer compete with avocado farmers in wetter areas of the US or Mexico"

And therein lies a thorny political issue. Generally speaking, when this sort of shift starts happening, farmers and agribusiness lobby the government (state and/or federal) for tariffs and subsidies, in order to protect their price competitiveness against foreign or out-of-state producers. This is a vicious cycle, and we need to find the political will to stop it when it comes. Which leads to further issues: can a governor of California get elected who is seen as hostile to Californian agriculture? Possibly, but oh man, would he or she be in for a fierce battle. Central CA is a very powerful voting bloc, and farm lobbies are very powerful at the state level and in D.C.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#318

Post by beefman »

Israel has built its first four desalination plants in the last 10 years. They now provide 40% of the country's potable water. The newest plant (Sorek) is the world's largest, producing over half a million cubic meters a day at a cost of $0.68 per cubic meter.

Edits:

I'm unable to find data on Israel's net import of calories. I suspect it's substantial, but 85% of their agricultural water supply is treated urban wastewater.

I'm part of a family of four living near Berkeley, CA. We'd need 50" of rain a year to be self-sufficient on our 4000 ft^2 property, which is about twice what we get. I have no problem commandeering runoff from some place in the Sierras. But it'll have to be 8,000 ft^2, because what hits this lot (and every other lot in the neighborhood) goes straight into the bay.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#319

Post by ars »

emodendroket wrote: post #299
beowulfey wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for most places, but New Hampshire is almost all new-growth forest. If you roam the woods you'll find miles of ancient stone walls demarking the edges of long-gone farms. Of course, there's not much LAND in New Hampshire so it definitely can't take on California's role (even disregarding all the other problems), but I wanted to give an example of abandoned farmland.

I have to say I'm a little tickled by the suggestion that we should deforest big tracts of land to address an environmental crisis.

All perfect solutions have already been implemented.

Everything else is a tradeoff.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#320

Post by azinman2 »

wes-k wrote: post #313
tomswartz07 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that we have the choice of either: 1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry. The current situation is proof that the current level of agriculture is unsubstainable. As a reference, a few quick searches[1] show that it takes: 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli 4.9 gallons of water to grow a single walnut 1.1 gallons of wat…

I'm a biased vegan but... 802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef 187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)

Not sure I believe the animals are getting most of it in California but either way that's something that can be easily moved out of state. Almonds can't.
Post reply on HN