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

Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#101

Post by sacrosancty »

kortilla wrote: post #50
swatcoder wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The simple solution > The obvious answer This community seems like its at its best when it expresses humble curiosity and its worst when it shuts the door on learning by oversimplifying deeply complex matters as though nobody else had the sense to look straight at them. Water rights carry a legacy of centuries of personal and political history and thousands of competing interests. The levers with which to control p…

Water rights are at odds with what society needs now. There is nothing complex here. Make everyone pay equally for water and the problem goes away. The people that complain that it’s way more complex than that are the ones that don’t want to pay for water.

Lots of problems look like they'd be solved with heavy-handed authoritarianism, but there are costs to that both for individuals getting screwed over and the long term trust in the government to honor its agreements, reducing its strength in making future agreements. Plenty of 3rd world governments have happily seized property rights all over the place and it's not really a recipe for success.

Why not go a step further and just "solve" water shortages around the world by "forcing" some neighboring country that has too much water to sell it to you at the same price as to themselves? They weren't using it anyway, so that's fair, right?

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#102

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jakear wrote: post #77
joshuaheard wrote: post #28

Too bad the California Coastal Commission just denied the permit for a desalinization plant in Huntington Beach at the site of a decommissioned steam plant and reusing some of its infrastructure. It would have provided water to several Southern California cities. https://californiaglobe.com/articles/california-coastal-comm...

> salt discharge being pumped back out into the ocean and raising salinity levels around there to significantly damage ocean life, would prevent them from approving the plan Offshore oil platforms with annual spills coating the beaches? Go for it! Massive ports with dozens of container ships anchored off shore dumping who knows what for months? Perfect, ship it! Putting salt back into the ocean after taking it out an…

The same with nuclear plants dumping warm water in the ocean after using it to make steam and for cooling. Perhaps in both cases the waste water could be stored and evaporated in a salt flat or something.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#103

Post by twelfthnight »

jmyeet wrote: post #6

At least this article notes that the vast majority of water usage is agriculture. This isn't something cities could or should solve by switching to (expensive) desalination to effectively subsidize agriculture. Most notably, alfalfa is mentioned here as farmers are going to have to switch to less water-intensive crops. Decreasing alfalfa production may well impact the ability to feed cattle. In the short term, that's…

This reference agrees with you in the short/mid term (to your credit, which you explicitly mention), but states in the long term climate change is the most important factor, regardless of demand. Taking action against alfalfa is a sensible thing to do right away, but won't address the looming crisis:

> In the near-term (2012 through 2026), water demands are similar across scenarios, and the largest factor affecting the system reliability is water supply. In the mid-term (2027 through 2040), the demand for water is an increasingly important element in the reliability of the system, as are assumptions regarding the operations of Lakes Powell and Mead. In the long-term (2041 through 2060), the futures that consider the Downscaled GCM Projected water supply scenario, which incorporates projections of future climate, show a high inability to meet resource needs, regardless of the demand scenario and the operation of Lakes Powell and Mead. "

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#104

Post by Yoofie »

macintux wrote: post #96
vwoolf wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desalination plant solutions a "let's do both." https://californiaglobe.com/articles/california-coastal-comm... Charge market prices for water and build desalination. Create abundance.

Desalination requires energy and creates waste. Perhaps we should live within our means instead.

> Desalination requires energy and creates waste.

This is true for basically every human endeavor.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#105

Post by shagie »

throwaway892238 wrote: post #93

> The Colorado River supplies water to nearly 40 million people in cities from Denver to Los Angeles > “We are 150 feet from 25 million Americans losing access to the Colorado River" > roughly 80% of the river’s flow is used for agriculture, and most of that for thirsty crops like alfalfa, which is mainly grown for cattle Somebody needs to wake the people in those cities up. If they don't start screaming at their rep…

> they won't be able to use their faucets, because some cattle farmers don't want to import feed

It's the cattle farmers in other countries that want to import California feed (because it's on the west coast and easier to ship?).

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#106

Post by kolanos »

ar813 wrote: post #10

The answer to this problem lies here: “Entsminger pointed out that roughly 80% of the river’s flow is used for agriculture, and most of that for thirsty crops like alfalfa, which is mainly grown for cattle, both in the U.S. and overseas.” The simple solution would be to raise prices on water such that it disincentivizes growing water hungry crops than alfalfa for example. The west’s water crisis is less about cities…

Alfalfa is one of the most water efficient and nutritionally rich crops there is. It is also one of the most drought resistant crops. It is hearty and reliable, unlike corn which is far more wasteful when it comes to water.

> Deep-Rootedness—alfalfa roots are commonly 3-5 feet deep and can extend to 8-15 feet in some soils. Therefore this crop can utilize moisture residing deep in the profile when surface waters become scarce. It shares this property with crops such as orchards, vineyards, and sugarbeets and safflower, unlike crops such as onion, lettuce and corn, where it's easy to lose water past the root zone.

> Alfalfa's deep roots are capable of extracting water from deep in the soil, thus much of the water applied is not wasted. Additionally, deep roots enable the crop to survive periodic droughts.

> Perenniality—The fact that the crop grows for 4-8 years, grows quickly with warm conditions in the spring is a major advantage of alfalfa—it can utilize residual winter rainfall before irrigation is necessary. This is unlike summer-grown annual crops that need to be replanted each year (water use efficacy is low during this time). In many areas, the first cutting of alfalfa of the year requires zero irrigation– supported only by rain and residual soil moisture.

> Very High Yields—Alfalfa is a very high yielding crop, and can grow 365 days a year in warm regions (such as the Imperial Valley of California and southern Arizona). Its biomass yields are very high—we can get up to 12 cuttings per year in those regions, and growers with top management can obtain more than 14 tons/acre dry matter yields. High-yields create higher water use efficiencies.

> High Harvest Index, High Water Use Efficiency—Alfalfa's Water Use Efficiency is not only due to high yields, but because nearly 100% of the above-ground plant material is harvested (known as the harvest index). In most seed-producing and fruiting crops, only a portion of the plant is harvested (typically 30-50% of the total plant biomass).

[0]: https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=1772...

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#107

Post by rcpt »

GauntletWizard wrote: post #95
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Eighty percent of California's water goes to agriculture" is very literally saying "Eighty percent of California's water feeds people" Alfalfa doesn't feed people [1]. It feeds cows that feed people. And nobody is going to starve because almonds and pistachios are pricier. Moreover, California's agriculture is notoriously water inefficient [2]. Why wouldn't it be? What other behavior would you expect from agricult…

Absolutely. Great arguments. In no way reflected or referenced in the parent I was responding to.

He very clearly addressed your question. I don't see the problem.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#108

Post by kolanos »

thepasswordis wrote: post #63
ar813 wrote: post #10

The answer to this problem lies here: “Entsminger pointed out that roughly 80% of the river’s flow is used for agriculture, and most of that for thirsty crops like alfalfa, which is mainly grown for cattle, both in the U.S. and overseas.” The simple solution would be to raise prices on water such that it disincentivizes growing water hungry crops than alfalfa for example. The west’s water crisis is less about cities…

Here's the worst part: we aren't even growing this for ourselves. These are farms owned by the saudis, and we're growing it and exporting it.

> Based on USDA data for 2021, only 3.9% of all U.S. hay produced and 6.4% of all alfalfa hay entered the export market. [0]

[0]: https://hayandforage.com/article-3825-year-end-hay-exports-s...

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#109

Post by rcpt »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #87
GauntletWizard wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what percentage of those agriculturally grown calories are you going to cut out from your diet to reduce those usages? How much more do you want us all to pay for food? "Eighty percent of California's water goes to agriculture" is very literally saying "Eighty percent of California's water feeds people". There are cash crops that use a somewhat disproportionate amount of the water, but that is in no way reflected…

Sure. But you can't ask California to solve "its" water problem while solving everyone's food problem. One of them has to give.

Water should be priced the same for everyone, there's no reason that alfalfa farmers should pay a hundredth of a percent that I do for the same resource.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#110

Post by lovich »

sacrosancty wrote: post #97
pfdietz wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, just allow farmers to sell their water to the highest bidder. The Coase theorem to the rescue.

This is what I would expect to happen. Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights and seize it but is there not a way for the market to sort itself out fairly? Are they forbidden from selling their water rights? Or is the water actually worth more to the farmers than the city residents so that the current situation is actually fine?

> Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights...

It's a lot simpler when you don't believe that water is something private individuals have a right to hoard. Imo, water is a natural resource we all have some minimum access to as humans, regardless of if someone wants to buy it up and sell at a higher price later

Post reply on HN