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

California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 249 posts

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#81

Post by teamhappy »

SSLy wrote: post #75
teamhappy wrote: post #65

The first picture that pops into my head when I think of California is sprinklers on people's lawns. We don't really have them in Germany. I mean, of course we do, but people are hesitant to put them up because the first thing that will happen is your neighbours standing at the fence judging you for being so goddamn wasteful (seriously). Now, I'm not a huge fan of judging people (that's a lie), but I can't help but n…

> Another thing we don't really have is air conditioning (might be a climate thing). This one is a climate thing.

Certainly for California. But what about New York for example?

Have a look: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/air-...

// Can't find numbers for Germany, but I can tell you that I don't know anybody who has AC at home. (I'm not a hippie.)

// You know how examples work, right? The data is pretty clear: More than 60% of households in the USA have AC.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#82

Post by aetherson »

mtrpcic wrote: post #25
MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Desalination is incredibly expensive. At this point, they aren't completely out of water, as the crisis continues desalination will become more viable (expensive or not, people need water to survive).

Desalination is expensive because of the cost of power, but what is being proposed is not just "we should desalinate", but is "Why don't we make better use of the power opportunities," such as a desalination plant with solar panels and/or generators for waves/tides. We could offset the electrical cost of desalination if the plants could help generate their own power. Why not pass water through turbines before desalin…

Solar power is more expensive than fossil fuel power. The solution to "desalinization is too expensive" is not to say, "But what if we used a more expensive form of power to do the desalinization?"

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#83

Post by pacificmint »

grok2 wrote: post #23
jconley wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many farmers are getting no [0] water this year and are relying on ground water to keep trees alive or not planting seasonal crops. Others get a very small fraction of their typical allotment [1]. California water rights are complicated... [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200... [1] http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/...

The farmers are getting no "Federal" water. I don't know what exactly this means -- presumably the state too supplies water to it's farmers via various water-works projects (your 2nd link indicates that farmers relying on state supplied water will get 20% of their usual quota this year) and farmer's also possibly have other sources of water like wells, bore-wells, etc.

There are two different water systems in California. The Central Valley Project [1] is run by the the federal government, the California State Water Project [2] by the state.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#84

Post by bradleyjg »

jconley wrote: post #68
pkaye wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think if the state gave incentives to use more efficient water usage methods would help. The reality is agriculture is 80% of water consumption while 2% of the state GDP. It would be more efficient for farmers to conserve water and everyone else pitching in to subsidize it.

% of GDP is one lens to look through when thinking about water rights. Having access to affordable/local/healthy food is another. I think incentives would help, yes. There is also a "use it or lose it" system builtin to many of the water rights contracts that are toxic. Much like big corporate budgets, farmers find a way to use the water just in case they need it the next year. The reality is it is very expensive to…

Of course you fail to mention how much water in the form of crops (especially alfalfa) are being exported. That wouldn't fit in with the friendly local farmer providing nutritious food narrative, now would it?

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#85

Post by pacificmint »

tibbon wrote: post #35

Wait, they just imposed water restrictions? Wouldn't have that made sense to start like... near the beginning of all of this?

So far the relied on voluntary reductions, which has worked well in some areas and less well in others. It's not like they just woke up to the drought now, but they considered restrictions to be a measure of last (or later) resort.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#86

Post by chaostheory »

jstalin wrote: post #2

We learned yesterday that 80% of water consumption in California is by agriculture[1]. Yet this executive order does nothing to reduce agriculture's use of water[2]. It only refers to use of urban water, lawns, landscaping, and cemeteries. Agricultural users just need to submit vague "plans." 1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers... 2. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf

We need food. We don't need wasteful, water hungry lawns and we can make inefficient toilets and showers a little more water efficient with some cheap mods.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#87

Post by nitrogen »

jff wrote: post #55
trhway wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The real problem here is we tried to turn a desert in to our national bread basket. or may be that our national bread basket is turning into a desert? One needs 3 components - soil, sun and water. We're loosing the 3rd component : http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27070897/california-dr... "The last three years of drought were the most severe that California has experienced in at least 1,200 years" Everybody can…

> Everybody can just only guess why... NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying.

NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying.

Should the word "anthropogenic" be in that sentence somewhere? Getting less water is indeed a change in the climate by the very definitions of climate and change.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#88

Post by pkaye »

jconley wrote: post #68
pkaye wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think if the state gave incentives to use more efficient water usage methods would help. The reality is agriculture is 80% of water consumption while 2% of the state GDP. It would be more efficient for farmers to conserve water and everyone else pitching in to subsidize it.

% of GDP is one lens to look through when thinking about water rights. Having access to affordable/local/healthy food is another. I think incentives would help, yes. There is also a "use it or lose it" system builtin to many of the water rights contracts that are toxic. Much like big corporate budgets, farmers find a way to use the water just in case they need it the next year. The reality is it is very expensive to…

My point about the GDP is that it is such a small part of the overall economy that it is feasible to share the burden to improving the irrigation systems across the full population. And perhaps the "use it or lose it" penalties could be put on hold during a prolonged drought situation till hopefully things improve.

Also in your opinion, are the high water usage due to primarily the irrigation methods or that the crops need lot of water? Like almonds for example?

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#89

Post by ryen »

sandworm wrote: post #34

There are limits to the governor's powers here. Much of the agricultural water comes from "rights" or easements attached to specific land. Ownership of farm X comes with the right to water from river Y. This is the "free" water often mentioned in news reports. Any reduction in these rights is viewed as a legal "taking" or condemnation of a property right by the state. Lawsuits for compensation will result. And they w…

>Any reduction in these rights is viewed as a legal "taking" or condemnation of a property right by the state

I wonder what role "eminent domain" may play in an issue like that.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#90

Post by nawitus »

ptaipale wrote: post #51
mjhoy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good post on marginal revolution that puts California in some perspective. http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2015/03/the... > As David Zetland points out in an excellent interview with Russ Roberts, people in San Diego county use around 150 gallons of water a day. Meanwhile in Sydney Australia, with a roughly comparable climate and standard of living, people use about half that amount. Trust…

That is indeed quite cheap if water is supposed to be scarce. (I don't quite see why you're downvoted.) 78 cents per 150 gallons is $1.37 per cubic meter. Here in North Europe, where we have no shortage of water whatsoever, we pay €1.34 per cubic meter. In addition to that we pay €1.66 per cubic meter as "wastewater management fee" (and yes, you have to pay wastewater management fee even for water that you use for wa…

The price in Finland for cold water is about $4.50 (4.18€) per cubic meter, even though water is supposed to be abundant here. And the average water consumption is 165 liters, which is about 44 gallons.

Source: http://www.vercon.fi/fi/tietoa-vedenkulutuksesta/veden-hinta...

Post reply on HN