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

161–170 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#161

Post by tomjen3 »

hauget wrote: post #134
wskinner wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.

Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We're not talking about something like gold here, we're talking about a resource that is essential for human life. Would you really want someone who's wealthier than you to buy all the water around you just because they can?

That is the beauty of the market: you do stupid things like that and you aren't rich enough to do so much longer.

If it was regulated and you used your buddy connections to appropriate all the water usage rights then you still have your buddy connections once you have taken my water.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#162

Post by DannyBee »

mindslight wrote: post #88
jkyle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping..... 10% In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win. Targeting residents to curb the water…

While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards! Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comp…

"While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn."

Why? Why should we not focus on what actually matters?

Note that california's per-person water consumption (including lawn watering) has declined over the past 20 years.

So people are doing a good job.

Note also that parts of LA and other places you are complaining about, have the lowest per-capita water use in california (though nearby have some of the largest) Here are some figures:

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

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#163

Post by simoncion »

graham1776 wrote: post #159
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/…

Not one comment about water infrastructure? The great water technologies of the past fifty years have been completely ignored by the tech elite. Where does San Francisco get its water? It is crazy to me that we are proposing cutting back on water use when the real problem is a huge portion of the water we have is not being used effectively. We would not be having this discussion about power, sewer, gas or any other u…

I assume you're talking about water leakage? If you are, we're not talking about that because it's such a tiny number as to be irrelevant.

"California receives a total of 80 million acre-feet of water per year. Of those, 23 million are stuck in wild rivers ...

All urban water consumption totals 9 million acre-feet. Of those, 2.4 million are for commercial and industrial institutions, 3.8 million are for lawns, and 2.8 million are personal water use by average citizens in their houses. In case you’re wondering about this latter group, by my calculations all water faucets use 0.5 million, all toilets use 0.9 million, all showers use 0.5 million, leaks lose 0.3 million, and the remaining 0.6 million covers everything else – washing machines, dishwashers, et cetera."

Via: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do... which is a really good read.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#164

Post by azinman2 »

azinman2 wrote: post #144
dirtae wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which entire counties get nothing when they turn on their faucets?

Quite a bit of the central valley. I attended a recent talk by the director of the CA water board, and she said this was her #1 priority... getting them water. The state is currently trucking in bottled water to these communities.

Why would I be down voted for this?!

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#165

Post by hauget »

tomjen3 wrote: post #161
hauget wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We're not talking about something like gold here, we're talking about a resource that is essential for human life. Would you really want someone who's wealthier than you to buy all the water around you just because they can?

That is the beauty of the market: you do stupid things like that and you aren't rich enough to do so much longer. If it was regulated and you used your buddy connections to appropriate all the water usage rights then you still have your buddy connections once you have taken my water.

There has to be a balance between government regulation/oversight and market forces. Just look at what happened with Wallstreet. You think no intervention at all would have been a good idea there?

It's not about disallowing the other guy from doing stupid things and not being rich anymore, it's about not allowing someone to waste precious resources essential for human life, so as to not make it harder for others in need to have access (at accessible and fair prices) to said resources in the future.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#166

Post by hauget »

geebee wrote: post #158
hauget wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We're not talking about something like gold here, we're talking about a resource that is essential for human life. Would you really want someone who's wealthier than you to buy all the water around you just because they can?

No, I certainly wouldn't! Still, the drought is on my mind, and while I recognize the need to conserve, I am frustrated by my government's response to the problem so far. So far, we've been responding to the crisis in a way that doesn't really allow people to make good trade-offs. For instance, I went to my parents house in a nice warm place, after a week in the fog, and my kids kind of wanted to play in the inflatab…

Tier option sounds smart. I think we have a similar system in place in Germany.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#167

Post by simoncion »

graham1776 wrote: post #159
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/…

Not one comment about water infrastructure? The great water technologies of the past fifty years have been completely ignored by the tech elite. Where does San Francisco get its water? It is crazy to me that we are proposing cutting back on water use when the real problem is a huge portion of the water we have is not being used effectively. We would not be having this discussion about power, sewer, gas or any other u…

To reply to your edit:

Have you looked around to see what professional water management people have been saying about that very thing? I bet you a dollar that they've talked about that very thing several times. If you read that Slate Star Codex post (if you haven't, you should), you'll see that already we capture and use most of the water that we receive.

But, for the heck of it, what water sources do you want to see captured, why, how much water do you expect to get out of that source, and what will be its impact on the rest of the ecosystem?

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#168

Post by simoncion »

intopieces wrote: post #147
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 problem, though, is that the water taken up by agriculture and the water taken up by people in cities does not come from the same big bucket. A drop of water save by Ag doesn't equate to a drop of water that can be used in my shower. Infrastructure changes will have to happen and the 20% users will also have to make cuts.

[citation needed]

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#169

Post by raldi »

wavefunction wrote: post #148
zo1 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case, the market will very quickly adapt. Because not adapting (increasing prices, reducing usage/costs, etc), will cause businesses to fail. And no one likes losing money or closing businesses, but they don't mind reduced profit. The problem is that all this "short-term regulation" has caused increasing and cumulative lopsidedness in all sorts of relatively harmless areas of the market. That if we were to no…

How quickly do you think "replacement" farms can be set up. I dunno about the wisdom some times of people expressing "markets solve problems best."

The almond speculators will lose their shirts, but those are the risks of growing water-intensive crops in the desert. Many other crops, though, are planted annually, and skipping a field-year, or switching to a less water-intensive plant, is absolutely an option. Google "crop rotation".

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#170

Post by simoncion »

azinman2 wrote: post #164
azinman2 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a bit of the central valley. I attended a recent talk by the director of the CA water board, and she said this was her #1 priority... getting them water. The state is currently trucking in bottled water to these communities.

Why would I be down voted for this?!

Some folks are pretty grumpy. Don't worry, it'll likely be fixed in a little while.
Post reply on HN