California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by oasisbob » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:19 PM UTC

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.

Or, to flip that around -- if your residents use less water, the price per gallon will increase. Seattle has nearly the lowest per-capita water usage on that list.

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/u-s-urban-r...

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

#192

Post by nzealand » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:23 PM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #127

Too little too late. Here's things Jerry could have done but didn't. - Ban the export of bottled water from California. If the drought is as bad as they say we shouldn't be shipping any of it out of state. Sorry Arrowhead. - Introduce tax breaks for installing water efficient appliances. - Introduce tax breaks for the removal of sprinkler systems and replacing plants with ones that require less water. - Introduce a m…

From the article:

In addition, the state and local governments will offer temporary rebate programs for homeowners who replace old dishwashers and washing machines with water-efficient models.

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

#193

Post by chaostheory » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:24 PM UTC

kemiller wrote: post #184

chaostheory wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We do need food, but much of what California farms produce is exported, often to places with plenty of water. It doesn't make sense to export water from an arid state in a drought. If the water's real economic value were priced in, that would not be so bad.

You have a point. I just thought water bottlers like Nestle, who continue to use CA water for bottled water, are considered different from agriculture.

Besides I feel that people are missing my main point, which is what's wrong with going after low hanging fruit? Reducing our water intake in the form of lawns and in the bathroom is neither a major inconvenience nor is it a financial burden. In fact, it saves people money.

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

#194

Post by chaostheory » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:32 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #97

chaostheory wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 so…

Reducing residential water usage is not 1. expensive and 2. massively inconvenient. It's low hanging fruit that's just a total waste. Getting mods for your shower and toilet to conserve water will run approximately $40-$100 to do both. While transitioning your lawn into something that either doesn't require any water at all to a more water efficient garden will save you money in the long run.

Cutting down that 9% makes a difference.

However, I do agree with you. Ag and food corporations need to do their share as well under regulation.

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

#195

Post by orware » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:39 PM UTC

Continuing to read these articles about water shortages, particularly in the Central Valley, definitely makes me feel fortunate that the water supply for Imperial County (we're located in the bottom right of California) comes directly from Colorado and the All-American Canal and we're not as subject to the issues a lot of the rest of the state is facing (I'm sure we have our own issues, but for the most part, water isn't really something we have to worry about down here).

Additionally, a recent Opinion piece in the local paper put it quite nicely: "Valley has reason to honor National Ag Day Imperial Valley Press (El Centro, CA) - Friday, March 20, 2015

Despite the obvious presence and abundance of the Valley's agricultural commodities, their true significance can be easy to overlook. Thankfully, National Ag Day aims to correct that.

National Ag Day, which is typically commemorated in March, and this year was celebrated on Wednesday, has the commendable purpose of highlighting the contributions of the nation’s agricultural community. It dates back to 1973, when the nonprofit Agriculture Council of America launched its National Ag Day program.

We too have tried to do our part through the years to highlight the important role ag plays here as well as in the far-flung markets that it has tapped into. Luckily, there hasn't been any shortage of examples, or eye-popping statistics, that we have been able to cite in the past to emphasize the significance of Valley agriculture, or mention now in honor of National Ag Day.

One of our favorites to cite is the fact that about 95 percent of the fresh vegetables consumed in the nation are produced in Imperial County and Yuma between the months of November and March. Another rather astounding statistic is that of the nation's 3,079 counties, Imperial County ranked No. 8 in total annual agricultural production, according to the US Department of Agriculture's 2012 Census of Agriculture.

It should also be noted that in 2010, American agricultural products worth an estimated $115 billion were exported throughout the world, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Yet, no commemoration of National Ag Day is complete without noting the some of the concerns that threaten to take productive farmland offline. Whether it's unforgiving forces of nature, cumbersome regulations or development trends that increase the pressure to transfer water from rural areas to more populous metro areas. Here in the Valley, we have already heard some concern about the amount of farmland that has been converted to house renewable energy projects. Concerns such as these aren't likely to disappear, unless they are addressed in a meaningful way, which hopefully does take place.

THE ISSUE: National Ag Day

WE SAY: Be proud of local ag roots."

Growing up down here you don't usually here too much about how crazy big ag is locally, but it certainly is an interesting thing to read about and learn that your community produces so much of the nation's fresh veggies.

As another person commented in this thread though, California water rights are complicated (I just feel fortunate that for the most part I don't have to worry about how much water I'm using...especially out in the country outside city limits where I live where we only have to pay a flat fee every 6 months and get our water pumped directly out of the nearby canal).

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

#196

Post by mynameisvlad » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:42 PM UTC

WalterSear wrote: post #160

pjlegato wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, we don't need cheap almonds and pistachios and flooded rice paddies in the middle of the desert.

All three are drops in the bucket compared to meat. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-j-rose/how-to-take-long-s... http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/californias-drought-whos-... "The meat industry consumes over half of all water used for all purposes in the United States. Most of this water is used to irrigate cattle feedlots." http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry...

I don't really see a comparison of the meat industry in California compared to other agriculture in the state. I see a lot of facts and numbers comparing eating a steak vs showering, for example, but if the steak came from the other side of the country, then it would make little difference in terms of the Californian drought.

Looking at a source from the HuffPo article (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1405/pdf/circ1405.pdf), I can see 188 million gal/day used in livestock in California, while a staggering 23,100 million gal/day is used for irrigation.

So no, giving up meat would not really help with the Californian drought. It is true that meat consumes a bunch of water, but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the agricultural use.

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

#197

Post by anigbrowl » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 11:45 PM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #36

anigbrowl wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the real problem is inland, so as well as desalinating the water (which is somewhat easier said than done, though I agree in principle), it would have to be pumped inland and mostly uphill for millions of miles.Our state water infrastructure is ancient, we just last year secured passage of a $9m bond to overhaul it, despite the vociferous objections of the farm lobby.

mostly uphill for millions of miles. Not quite that far. San Francisco to New York is less than 3K miles. Maybe tens to hundreds of miles.

Hehe, well spotted. Hundreds of miles and of course I should have said a '$9 billion water bond' too.

Of course, one day headlines may read 'California to import water from Moon,' and I will be hailed as a great visionary. You read it here first!

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

#198

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:06 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

The capital cost of that is the cost of the generators + the cost of the desalination plants, and the desalination still probably isn't, even with the drought, the most valuable use of the power once you've built the generators.

> We could offset the electrical cost of desalination if the plants could help generate their own power.

We couldn't offset the opportunity cost of using the power for desalination rather than other uses that way, obviously.

> Over time, the plant will pay for itself

If its a permanent drought, maybe. Otherwise, that's doubtful. If the water isn't worth the electricity now, its an operating loss on top of the capital costs.

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

#199

Post by vgabios » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:07 AM UTC

tveita wrote: post #67

jconley wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is all straw man, but interesting stuff... Many crops use much more water than Almonds [0], I guess they're just fun to pick on. It'd be interesting to see a calorie/water comparison of many foods. Also, my family's farm spends more money on well water than the government supplied water due to the high cost of electricity for pumping. I do agree that a real market for water might help. The root of the pro…

Of course, even if they're taking from their own well they're draining the groundwater just as effectively. It's hard to see how a market based solution wouldn't turn into a tragedy of the commons without enforcing limits on the extraction.

A reality-denying, industry shill politician espouses: "Sinkholes arising from rapidly plummeting aquifers will boost the economy as tourist attractions. Water will be affordably trucked in and desalination is getting cheaper all the time. Problem solved."

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

#200

Post by djur » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:08 AM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #125

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…

> I can't help but notice that americans (seem to) completely lack this sense of responsibility/playing your part/restraining yourself for the greater good/whatever Of course there are exceptions, but in general Americans are much more oriented to the rights of the individual and much less to collectivism and the 'greater good' than Germans. We tend to view collectivism as an inherently oppressive and dictatorial mod…

> We tend to view collectivism as an inherently oppressive and dictatorial mode of social organization, a cruel enslavement and subjugation of the individual, who is prohibited from doing anything but following the mandates of the collective handed down by some vast inhuman and opaque bureaucracy.

The number of people I have met who actually 'tend to' believe anything of the sort is very small, and they are all big-L Libertarians. Americans as a whole are certainly more oriented towards individualism than Europeans, but there are plenty of collectivist endeavors that Americans love (see: football, megachurches, the military).

> Another seperate factor is that natural resources in general are far more abundant in the US than Germany. Relative to the US, Germany is a tiny country with a huge population packed into a very small space.

I think that is historically a much, much larger contributing factor to American attitudes on conservation than anything related to collectivism. The many early American communes were just as fervently devoted to expansion and industrious exploitation of the land as the cash-driven individualists.