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

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

#201

Post by aetherson » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:14 AM UTC

lerouxb wrote: post #177

aetherson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Maybe for base load, but desalination can run intermittently during sunlit hours only. You only have to stay ahead on average..

The solution to "desalination is too expensive" is ALSO not to only use your desalination facility some of the time, and also when the price of energy is highest.

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

#202

Post by WalterSear » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:19 AM UTC

mynameisvlad wrote: post #196

WalterSear wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.pd…

Except that the bulk of water used by cattle production is that >same"By far, the largest component of beef’s water footprint is the huge volume of virtual water consumed by cattle through their feed, in this case both forage and grain."

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-80...

Water required to grow the feed for a Holstein Cow: Corn 30,208 L, Alfalfa 201,004 L

http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/g2060/build/g2060.pdf

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

#203

Post by astrocyte » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

A state with questionably the highest concentration of some of the most intelligent people in the U.S and some of the dumbest politicians in the U.S. Question : What were all of the Californian's doing when the state was running out of water for years? Why do you elect bozos? Too busy making apps to be concerned with where you're going to get water from?

Ever wonder where all that tax revenue goes? Apparently not to important issues.. Planning ahead.. wtf is that?

Yes, Agriculture burns up 80% of the water supply... California is a desert yet attempts to be the source of the nation's agriculture .. $$$

Every step of the way, money is a motivator over survival. As a result, even with the current order, it wont go far in way of solving the water issues. In all honesty, it seems no one in that state is going to wake up until all of its gone. Maybe then people will wake up. 194 comments and counting about doing everything under the sun and nothing of value is done about it. Where's Zuckerberg? Where's Google? What are the problem solvers of the world in that state doing? Exactly....

Good luck California. You elected these bozos and sit by worrying about everything but what's important. The very nature that attracts people to the state and the lifeblood of habitability is under threat and no one has bat an eye for years... You can't get Zuckerberg to shut up about flooding an already flooded workforce with outsiders. Yet, the whole state's water supply is under threat and no one has said a word. Not one person from the 'leadership'... Gotta love the times we live in.

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

#204

Post by vgabios » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:22 AM UTC

pkaye wrote: post #49

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…

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.

The water restriction measures are mostly bikeshedding (yes, removing public lawns is probably a good thing) on low consumption behaviors on those consitutents viewed to be most accepting and least threatening to the political establishment. It's akin to allowing Diesel trucks older than 1998 in CA to continue spewing particulates into the air because regulation would be "too expensive," and instead highly regulate passenger vehicles. Both are needed, as holistic solutions to diffuse problems tend to be the best, but asking one group to shoulder a collective burden is horse baloney. Yet, the action of the governor is a signal of an ongoing issue but it's token as it doesn't start to address the quagmire of where legacy water rights meets gamification and usage with sensible limitations. If CA doesn't work on the larger structural water allocation issues, water will become more scarce and expensive because a few large, influential farmers will continue to make themselves rich at everyone else's expense. (Carbon emissions need to go down too.)

Maybe CA needs well-informed grassroots picketing against farmer water rights gluttony in Sacramento?

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

#205

Post by pjlegato » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:34 AM UTC

blazingfrog2 wrote: post #154

pjlegato wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Americans care far less about what others will think of them As a European expat in the US, I find this statement to be very accurate. It can be maddening at times but I've grown to find this characteristic one of the main attractions of life in the U.S. It can be summed up as "I don't feel guilty about anything I don't have direct control over because it makes life much more enjoyable and it always works out in th…

I believe this derives from the many immigrant groups that have come to the US over the centuries, each with a very different cultural view of what constitutes "correct" behavior. The only way to avoid constant fighting in that situation is for most people to say, "OK, as long as you are not directly harming me, you do what you want and I will ignore it."

Europe, by contrast, is far more ethnically homogenous than the US within individual countries. Most people in most places share a very similar cultural background and very similar views of what is "correct," so the pressure to conform is greater.

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

#206

Post by mark_l_watson » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:38 AM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #144

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

Sad part is, a huge portion of agriculture is to feed animals which then become our meat. It is just not sustainable. The best way to conserve water is to eat less meat. This book has lots of interesting numbers - http://www.amazon.com/Meatonomics-Rigged-Economics-Consume-S...

+1 you are exactly right on this. It takes about 10 times the water and 10 times the energy to eat mostly meat.

I would argue that a mostly vegetarian diet is healthier also. One problem is that it takes some degree of skill to cook a delicious vegetarian meal, but is fairly easy to make a tasty meal out of meat.

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

#207

Post by mark_l_watson » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:38 AM UTC

vijayr wrote: post #144

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

Sad part is, a huge portion of agriculture is to feed animals which then become our meat. It is just not sustainable. The best way to conserve water is to eat less meat. This book has lots of interesting numbers - http://www.amazon.com/Meatonomics-Rigged-Economics-Consume-S...

+1 you are exactly right on this. It takes about 10 times the water and 10 times the energy to eat mostly meat.

I would argue that a mostly vegetarian diet is healthier also. One problem is that it takes some degree of skill to cook a delicious vegetarian meal, but is fairly easy to make a tasty meal out of meat.

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

#208

Post by pjlegato » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:44 AM UTC

teamhappy wrote: post #155

pjlegato wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

First of all, kudos for not taking it personally. I don't know how any of this is scored but I think you may have won. > [...] Americans are much more oriented to the rights of the individual [...] It definitely feels like it. When it comes to things like abortions you can't live up to your own expectations though. Not quite sure why that is. I love the water tap story. Sounds about right :D Let me get the recycling…

I enjoy discussing sociological themes and I never take it personally. If you're ever in San Francisco, I'll buy you a beer and we can continue!

Abortion is legal in the US, though some conservative areas attempt to make it impractical, with varying degrees of success. This derives from controversy over whether and when a pregnancy should be considered a human baby deserving of legal protection. Many religious groups believe that this happens at conception, and thus view the situation in terms of the necessity of preventing one person (the mother) from directly harming another (the baby).

As for recycling.. when I lived in Berlin, we definitely had 9 bins, with seperate bins for green glass, clear glass, brown glass, paper, compost, this or that type of plastic, and so on. I've got pictures -- it was very weird for me. This was a while ago. Maybe they've changed things since then.

As for direct and indirect harm, direct harm is (usually) pretty easy and non-controversial to discern. If you punch someone in the face, you've harmed them directly, so our mythical average American would think it's fine that there is a law against this whereby society tries to prevent such things from happening. Indirect harm is much harder to discern and much more debatable, so the mythical average American will err on the side of leaving it as a private matter when in doubt.

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

#209

Post by DigitalSea » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:45 AM UTC

I think California and other drought affected areas could take a leaf out of Australia's book. Here in Australia drought isn't a new thing. We aren't exactly the worlds greatest and most drought resilient country (it still has an effect), but I grew up with water restrictions being the norm. Only being allowed to wash your car with a bucket or regulated car wash, recommended shower priod of 3 minutes (the Government handed out free sand hourglass timers a few years ago) and only being allowed to water your gardens on specific days of the week (or not at all) were some of the things I recall as a kid.

Depending on the state (I am from Queensland) there are various stages of drought action. We have seven levels, some states/territories have 3 or 4. In Queensland from stage 2 onwards sprinklers are banned. Stage 3 onwards hosing is banned (no hosing gardens, cleaning using a hose). Stage 7 is the worse and it means no external water usage without a permit permitting so (or the fines are astronomical). Sounds to me like California is probably at a stage 6 or 7 on our drought scale.

I am surprised that it took this long and for things to get this bad before they considered water restrictions. Heck, the Australian government has even bought back water allocations from land owners to save river systems. I think California should have been doing more sooner than they are.

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

#210

Post by vacri » Thu, Apr 02, 2015, 12:48 AM 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…

Residential water use in California is ridiculously high, even ignoring agriculture. Compare Sacramento's water usage per capita of 210 gallons per day[1]. In comparison, Melbourne's usage is 160 litres per day[2]. Even if you increase the number in that second link by 60% to add all the industrial use in Melbourne, it's still Sacramento at 800ish litres (~210 gallons) to Melbourne at 250ish litres. Humans are the same size in the two places, wear similar amounts of clothes, eat the same number of meals, and produce similar amounts of exceta.

It's just plain puzzling as to how Californians can use so much more residential water per person per day (a lot of it is probably the passion for really green lawns). If the complaint is that residential use is "only 20%" of total water usage, then reducing to Melbourne levels would mean you would save ~15% of that 20% - and a ~15% total reduction in water use by all sources is definitely worth doing.

[1]http://greencitiescalifornia.org/best-practices/water/sacram... [2]http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/wateruse/Pages/de...

Edit: This article has some more data points for residential use in different cities in California, ranging from a low of 46 gallons per day, up to 580 gallons per day(!!). 46 gpd is around the 160 litres for Melbourne above. 210gpd for Sacramento seems to be mid-range.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-1105-californi...