Why don't we run a water pipeline down from Oregon? In Portland they have so much water that their drinking fountains literally do not have an off switch. We run pipelines for oil all over the country, would it be that hard to run one for water?
California has about one year of water left
331–340 of 405 posts
Re: California has about one year of water left
#332We 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…
Yeah, California already gets a portion of the Colorado River. http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/colorado...
So it's been done. The crux of the problem here is that the history of the state is all about thinking like you do -- "let's just import more water" -- instead of finding ways to live within our means in terms of available water out here. So Californians like to have their own pools and like to plant grass in their yards and like to grow Rice in the freaking desert and then whine when long term drought threatens some "crisis" which is basically artificially created. There are lots of ways improve what we are doing without trying to import yet more water. For long term sustainability, that's what we really need to focus on. My understanding is that the Colorado River is already so chopped up and whored out to the water needs of the west that it is a pathetic trickle, instead of a roaring river, by the time it reaches the ocean (somewhere in Mexico, IIRC).
There are real world limits here on "just import more." And that is a big part of the problem here. It's a desert. We need to learn to live like residents of a desert. That's the only long-term, sustainable solution.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#33380 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, wh…
It looks like it won't help much, but landscaping should stop. Double stop. Triple stop.
No need to waste water in there, and comply with neighbor whatever regulations.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
Food security is the reason governments stick their noses in an otherwise free market.
I think it has more to do with straightforward nationalism. Yes, we could all be sweetening our products with cane sugar and equatorial sugar farmers could be making a great deal of money. But instead we have high tarriffs on sugar cane and subsidies for corn farmers. Why? Because the corn farmers are Americans, and the equatorial farmers are not.
Could it possibly have anything to do with 85% of corn being produced coming from Monsanto seeds?
http://ourworld.unu.edu/en/can-we-feed-our-world-without-mon...
They do spend millions of dollars lobbying the government every year.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D00000005...
Soy seems to be in a similar situation to corn.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#335Disclaimer: 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…
The government is not an independent entity. Farmers (by which I include agribusiness corporations) vote and donate heavily to political causes. Further, the government is not a monolithic entity; you have the governor, various other elected officials, and then all the legislators in the assembly and state senate, plus all the people that California sends to Congress Washington DC. There are a lot of people who live in inland California whose economic well-being depends directly or indirectly on agriculture. As long as they participate in the political process, government is going to serve some of their interests because they keep electing people to vote for that.
This is the big trouble with libertarians right here. You keep being politically marginalized because you don't seem to appreciate that government is not some alien thing imposed from without, but the distillation of multiple (and often competing) collective interests. Just as 'war is a continuation of politics by other means,' politics is is a continuation of business by other means. Your 'free market' solution is only going to function if you exclude a bunch of people from the political process because their continued participation has become a major inconvenience for everyone else. As someone with technocratic inclinations I sometimes wish we could do that, because I think the farming lobby frequently epitomizes greed and stupidity. But shutting farmers out of politics would be a huge violation of our constitutional design, not to mention political suicide.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get real. Where is there that has the same amount of arable land and infrastructure and semi-skilled labor to just ramp up to where California is now?
The Eastern US is awash in water and has a ton of underutilized, fallow land that is already cleared. The workers can migrate as they already do. We can rebuild our greenhouse industry to get winter vegetables.
Migrant workers will move a lot more easily than a whole agricultual and peripheral industries. They aren't going to willingly abandon productive land in California so long as no one forces them to stop sucking water out of the ground. If water rights laws are abrogated toward the approximate reality that everyone owns that water, and only a fraction can properly be removed such that this maintaining the productivity of California agricultural land is non-competitive compared to other areas of the country, that'd be the free-market solution. But that implodes both the tax and voter based in California, so the incentive now is that the politics will dictate the continued legislated alternative to a market solution. Both the politicians favor this as does the agricultural business interests. Imagine some 35% of California farmland being made fallow, how does California replace that tax base? One of the reasons why it's such a rich state is because of its massive agriculture. Just in wine alone it'd be like saying, OK France can't grow grapes anymore. No matter whether you go with a market solution, a legislated solution, or a hybrid solution, it's all just plain icky. The technical solution is how to cheapen desalination such that it keeps California sufficiently competitive, i.e. things get more expensive but not untenably so.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#337Earlier 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…
1. "Software or music" doesn't require water... most of them anyways.
2. Software / data and more modern approaches to agriculture can potentially optimize water usage.
3. startup / company opportunity here, if the policy makers can incentivize the agriculture industry to innovate instead of keeping the old inefficient ways.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#338California 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
Almonds use 10% of the water[1], and we're risking a empty aquifers for them when they're 0.3% of state GDP?
[1] My only source on this: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=whyenot
[2] 2013 GDP: ~$2 trillion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
Re: California has about one year of water left
#339We 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
I'm talking about actual pipelines from the midwest/southeast to the southwest U.S. ... much larger scale projects... I know we transport water across states, but I'm talking across the country.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#340Disclaimer: 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.
Too goddamn bad, maybe it's time some more farmers went bankrupt. Reducing household water usage is not going to be enough to offset the hugely wasteful consumption by agriculture. My water bill is not too high, but I have to say that I am not too enthused about watching it go up this years after we cut my household usage by around 30% over the last year. I didn't see a corresponding drop in the bill because most of the sum is fixed charges for delivery and sewage treatment, and my actual metered usage is the smallest part of the bill. So despite putting a lot of effort into conservation I'm being asked to further subsidize the most wasteful users of water in the state.