Live data from Hacker News

California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

nytimes.com

91–100 of 249 posts

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

#91
post #71

I don't wanna sound like an annoying libertarian, but would it be the same if water was privatized in CA? Seems reasonable to assume a private company would solely increase the price of water and gradually try to find other ways to solve the problem.

Ah, the classic naive geek. All it would take to implement your plan is:

1) Become dictator of all California via military coup. 2) Create water monopoly that has rights over all water sources. 3) Regulate said water utility.

Totally reasonable.

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

#92
There's water, and then there's water. You can put just about any water on a farm field or orchard, but not into someone's tap. Water for taps has to be treated.

This means that you can have more than one kind of water shortage. There's shortage of water, and shortage of treatable/treated water.

What's more, water is difficult to (efficiently) transport long distances. Aquaducts are about the only way to do it. This means you can have a shortage of water in one place, and water available somewhere else, and not be able to fix things.

Then, as Joel Garreau pointed out in "The Nine Nations of North America", there's the difference in viewpoint between northern and southern California. Southern California (think LA) believes in development, growth, conquering nature. Northern California believes in harmony with nature, and leaving things unspoiled. This means that in LA, "letting a river flow unchecked into the sea is a waste, a sin. In San Fransisco, it's a blow struck for God's original plan for the land." This makes it very difficult to find political consensus for a plan of action.

And, on a bit more specific topic, I see people talking about orchards. Let's say you've got an orchard that takes lots of water. People are screaming at you to turn off the taps because things are so dry. But your trees are, say, 30 years old. That means if you turn of the water because this is a dry year, it's going to take you 30 years to fully recover from that move. So you're going to do everything you can not to have to turn the water off to your trees.

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

#93
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Summer in New York is unbearable, I am originally from Russia, I used to live in New York for many years, 28c degree in New York is nothing like 28c degree in Moscow or 28c degree in San Diego (where I live now). It's very relative, depends on a dryness of the air I guess.

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

#94
In Sunnyvale as recently as a year ago at least, public parks and schools were seriously over-watering their fields. The drought was already a serious concern and I called the school district to point out that their sprinkler systems were running even on rainy days and ran long enough to make the ground marshy even on a dry day. They didn't care. I'm pretty disgusted by how long it's taken for more action to be taken. Water rights is the first time I've heard of California state giving a crap about property rights.

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

#95
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why desalination isn't the answer... http://blogs.kqed.org/science/audio/why-isnt-desalination-th...

tl;dr: Desal is too energy intensive and expensive to be feasible while other conservation options haven't been tried yet. Also, massive potential environmental impact for water intake and brine output.

I find it odd that it's too expensive. It's cheaper than the price of water in e.g. Finland and many European countries, yet I've never heard anyone complain about the price water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Economics http://www.vercon.fi/fi/tietoa-vedenkulutuksesta/veden-hinta...

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

#96
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone has to protect our poor farmers, everyone loves farmers.

food shortage leads to revolution. The real problem here is we tried to turn a desert in to our national bread basket.

Don't you mean "almond and pistachio shortage leads to revolution"?

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

#97
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.

Lawns and toilets are such a tiny part of water usage in California that even if you got rid of all lawns and toilets altogether, it would not make any material difference to the water shortage. All residential usage of all types in CA amounts to ~9% of water usage. Talking about lawns and toilets is a purely theatrical feelgood measure designed to make people think they're pitching in and helping.

We need food of some kind, yes. We do not need massively water-hungry high margin crops such as pistachios and almonds being grown in the middle of the desert during the worst drought in centuries.

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

#98

I simply do not understand california's water shortage problem. They are by a frickin ocean. It's sunny nearly all year round. Solar powered or wave powered desalination is a fairly straight forward solution to this problem.

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).

According to Wikipedia it's really cheap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Economics

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

#99
post #79
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

Directly from the article: "State officials said the order would impose cutbacks on water use across the board — including homeowners, farmers , cemeteries and golf courses."

Here's the primary source, look for yourself. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf

All the mandatory restrictions are on urban water users, agricultural water suppliers are required to submit paperwork.

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

#100
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…

On residential water bills the wastewater fees are a separate line item. In Santa Cruz there is a fixed fee for water delivery based on the size of the pipe (fee is independent of how much water you consume), a tiered fee based on consumption, and another fee for wastewater that is fixed tied to the household.

The fixed fees are very high. If I halved my water consumption then it would only save a dollar or so a month. The net effect is that the people who consume the least pay the most for the water they consume because of the high fixed fees. Here is my municipal bill for June last year:

    17.41 Water - Ready to Serve 5/8"
     4.71 Water Consumption Charges (3 CCF): 3 CCF @ 1.57
    42.30 Sewer - Single Family
    26.05 Refuse - 32 Gallon Cart
     7.69 Utility Tax @8.5%
     5.06 Franchise Tax - Water 3%,Sewer 3%,Refuse 12%
The water consumption does have tiered pricing, with a penalty above 10 CCF/month. As you can clearly see there isn't any incentive to save. I was also renting at the time, and couldn't do things like install more water efficient plumbing, fixtures and appliances (standard limits in rental agreements).
Post reply on HN