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

321–330 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#321

Post by declan »

80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers, washing machines, etc.). Source: http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-...

Even if residential landscaping or non-landscaping water usage dropped by a quarter immediately, which seems rather unlikely, that's close to a rounding error compared to the amount of water to turn our near-desert into an agricultural breadbasket. Put another way, more water is used for almond farming alone in California than all residential landscaping or residential non-landscaping: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...

The drought is real, but I would take op-eds like these more seriously if they acknowledged the above figures. And the fact that some cities like Sacramento still don't have everyone on metered water -- flat rate! -- and meters won't be fully installed until after 2025. Source: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/%20Utilities/Conservation...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#322

Post by woud420 »

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)

As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#323

Post by jerf »

tanderson92 wrote: post #94
jerf wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"But by forcing out people who cannot afford the water you are driving out essentially only lower-class people which is unrealistic."

Remember, we're already talking about an "unrealistic" situation. In real life, the price of water is orders of magnitude away from pricing people out of being able to drink. You should expect a world where that is not true to be substantially different from this one, and uncritically examined shortcuts used to think about morality, such as simplified "class warfare" narratives with dubious applicability even to the world as it stands today, may need to be reconsidered. (In either direction, after all; what is today a minor problem could in this world be a "start the revolution!" crisis. Hard to tell; we're a long ways away from this and there's many paths from here to there.)

What's the alternative? Force these people to stay in this place where the water is too expensive to drink? How is that any better than moving to somewhere where it isn't? (How did we get to that point in the first place? After all the meta-point here is that the whole conversation is completely disconnected from reality and was showboating to start with.)

Re: California has about one year of water left

#324

Post by Mz »

There are things that could be done both for residential use and commercial use that could reduce how much water is needed without causing a catastrophe.

Many years ago, as a kid, I read an article about experiments in the Middle East to create a small basin for individual plants (like trees) that would be the right size for holding rainwater and keeping it hydrated without risking root-rot.

Think about how a shower is slightly slanted such that all the water goes to a drain in the corner. Instead of a drain in the corner, you have a plant in that corner. The basin is just a depression in the soil, with mounded up slow walls made from soil.

In the residential sector, you can google "earth ships" for ideas about things currently available that would put less stress on California's water supplies.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#325

Post by sp332 »

harryh wrote: post #317
sp332 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rare things?

Fresh water isn't particularly rare. I don't understand what the point of your question is.

California's demand for water at current prices greatly exceeds supply. Continuing to farm at current rates will deplete water reserves within a year. That's why I mean by rare.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#326

Post by rhino369 »

ffn wrote: post #274
bradleyjg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I like to remind you that we, as mere lowly humans, require food grown on a farm to survive a lot more so than we need software or music. If we collapse our agricultural backbone and just willy-nilly decide to depend upon a foreign nation for food, then be prepared to fight a lot more "oil wars" (except for human fuel and not just car fuel). Furthermore, we'd be putting our trust into the governments and politicians…

The Midwest grows enough crops to feed the whole country if some major disaster or famine happened.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#327

Post by cdnsteve »

California agricultural statistics: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

California's top-ten valued commodities for 2013 are:

Milk — $7.6 billion

Almonds — $5.8 billion

Grapes — $5.6 billion

Cattle, Calves — $3.05 billion

Strawberries — $2.2 billion

Walnuts — $1.8 billion

Lettuce — $1.7 billion

Hay — $1.6 billion

Tomatoes — $1.2 billion

Nursery plants— $1.2 billion

Re: California has about one year of water left

#328

Post by Domenic_S »

tracker1 wrote: post #282

We have oil pipelines stretching thousands of miles... why don't we create a water pipeline, sending fresh water to the southwest? I've never really understood why this wasn't an obvious thing started 80+ years ago. We created roadways, and a fairly complex electricity grid... water transfer has been a critical thing forever, and something we haven't really addressed on a national level. Not only that, but hydrogen a…

They're called aqueducts, and California has quite a few, typically sending water from northern california/the Sierras to Los Angeles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Aqueduct

Re: California has about one year of water left

#329

Post by surfmike »

jonnathanson wrote: post #119
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…

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,…

We can still grow crops in California without water subsidies. In places where water is more expensive, like Israel, farmers invest more in water-saving technology in their farms. And probably grow less water-intensive crops like rice.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#330

Post by seanflyon »

abruzzi wrote: post #254
refurb wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 farmers aren't the only consumers of water, so is everyone that lives in CA. The issue as I see it is the drought combined with agriculture combine to drive the price of water up and it's unlikely the corrective (forcing farmers to migrate out of state to water rich locations) will happen before critical levels are hit for servicing residential populations and their needs.

Farmers are not the only consumers of water, but they consume approximately 80% of it. We are nowhere near running out of drinking water.
Post reply on HN