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

California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#21

Post by raldi »

bdcravens wrote: post #9
raldi wrote: post #4

But rather than reducing, even a little, the giant water subsidy that agriculture gets (senior members of the agribusiness establishment pay pennies on the dollar), it sounds like we're just telling some unlucky farmers they now have a cap on their usage. This is not an economically-optimal approach.

Wouldn't that simply cause increased costs to be passed to the consumer (or just accept lowered profit), as opposed to doing what is necessary, which is reducing water consumption?

It would indeed increase the cost of California-grown food, which would encourage the other 49 states to eat a bit more locally. This would reduce California's agricultural export volume, and thus, save a huge amount of water.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#22

Post by Domenic_S »

yincrash wrote: post #15
ajmurmann wrote: post #11

Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

that would require new infrastructure in _all buildings_ to have two sets of pipes. edit: apparently i misunderstood the parent and it cost me 5 downvotes

Uh, why? We already meter usage, so apply the tiered rates the same way we tier electricity.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#23

Post by k-mcgrady »

yincrash wrote: post #15
ajmurmann wrote: post #11

Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

that would require new infrastructure in _all buildings_ to have two sets of pipes. edit: apparently i misunderstood the parent and it cost me 5 downvotes

Huh? Why don't you just say tier 1 is n litres per day (enough for a large family to drink, cook, and wash. After that the price rises by x%.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#24

Post by sleazebreeze »

yincrash wrote: post #15
ajmurmann wrote: post #11

Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

that would require new infrastructure in _all buildings_ to have two sets of pipes. edit: apparently i misunderstood the parent and it cost me 5 downvotes

Are you making a joke? The tiered water system would be implemented on the billing and invoicing side of things, not two separate water delivery mechanisms.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#25

Post by monochromatic »

jkyle wrote: post #8

About time. Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1]. There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Why is that a comparison that makes sense? If we doubled the water available to tech companies, that wouldn't make them any more productive.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#26

Post by jkyle »

mc32 wrote: post #16
jkyle wrote: post #8

About time. Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1]. There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

Well, so long migrant workers. Thanks for your labor, but, having low skills, and no jobs in the fields because water is cut, time to face reality! There are lots of farm hands who'd be negatively affected. They are at the margins of society as it is.

Ideally, farmer's should be charged for water usage instead of water access. Many of the water rights mentioned in the article are access rights. Meaning they can pump and use as much as they want. Make inefficiency come with a cost and watch an entire new industry spring up around water efficiency.

Water is a limited and precious resource. Prices should reflect that. Anything less is a subsidy padding the profits of industrial agriculture.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#27

Post by genericuser »

ajmurmann wrote: post #11

Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

I was under the impression that California had tiers in place for urban use of all utilities. But I only observed the tier in place for electricity while I lived in San Francisco, so I realize this must not be the case for other utilities if you are suggesting it.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#28

Post by njovin »

ajmurmann wrote: post #11

Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

My district already does this, but there's more than 2 tiers:

http://www.sandiego.gov/water/rates/rates/

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#30

Post by WillPostForFood »

jkyle wrote: post #8

About time. Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1]. There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. What does watering one's lawn contribute to?
Post reply on HN