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

101–110 of 249 posts

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

#101

Post by ocb »

teamhappy wrote: post #81
SSLy wrote: 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.

New York's average high in July is higher than LA's.

edit: and that's without even accounting for humidity

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

#102

Post by nitrogen »

3pt14159 wrote: post #37
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…

You can't give away what you down own. When the state gave rights to water to land holders it was well before we had the technology to meaningfully impact water levels and thereby impact other peoples access to water. Since Roman times land ownership went from the highest heavens to the the deepest deeps, but the law was changed after blimps and other aircraft needed it and they certainly didn't need to pay off milli…

When the state gave rights to water to land holders it was well before we had the technology to meaningfully impact water levels and thereby impact other peoples access to water.

Droughts, floods, dams, and aqueducts are older than any currently standing government. If water rights laws can already consider those events and structures, they can be adjusted to incorporate manmade climate change as well.

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

#103

Post by scythe »

teamhappy wrote: post #81
SSLy wrote: 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.

July average high in NYC is higher than LA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#Climate

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

#104

Post by pjlegato »

ryen wrote: post #89
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.

In the US, states have vast, almost unlimited powers to seize private property for the public good, provided they pay fair compensation.

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

#105

Post by dataker »

bdamm wrote: post #91
dataker wrote: 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.

That's not the implementation of something like that. Actually, apart from military coup, your plan looks exactly like the current system.

I can't tell if that was an irony...

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

#106

Post by mikeash »

pkaye wrote: post #73
nostromo wrote: post #45

California needs to raise the price of water. Isn't it ironic that water in Seattle (which has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to fresh water) is more expensive than it is in SF and LA? http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/wp-content/uploads/201... If you want people to use less water, simply raise the price.

The other way is if other states would grow more agriculture so there is more diversity.

Other states might grow more if their California competition wasn't subsidized so heavily with water.

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

#107

Post by jconley »

pkaye wrote: post #88
jconley wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

% 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 crop…

Irrigation methods can significantly reduce water usage for some crops. Others require gobs of water. I don't know the numbers for each crop, though.

The Almond Board of California has some info on this for Almonds. Obviously, take this as you will, given the source: http://www.almonds.com/pdfs/waterfactsheet315.pdf

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

#108

Post by jacquesm »

teamhappy wrote: post #81
SSLy wrote: 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.

The humidity gets you. Germany isn't nearly as humid as New York in the summer.

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

#109

Post by cynicalkane »

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…

I would hesitate to call Central Valley "local" to most Californians.

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

#110

Post by dragonwriter »

ryen wrote: post #89
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.

"Eminent domain" is simply the power to condemn, which is limited by the requirement for just compensation under the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment.
Post reply on HN