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

California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

drought.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#111

Post by paulcole »

eixiepia wrote: post #64
paulcole wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we’ll never “stop the climate crisis.” Everybody thinks somebody else is causing the problem and that somebody else needs to change more than they themselves do. The truth is, stopping the climate crisis involves everybody changing how they live in a significant way. Anything short of that and you better hope your great grandkids like eating crickets and forest fires. The sadder truth is that the climate…

Quoted post unavailable.

I actually agree with you. But nobody wants to hear it. A person deciding not to have biological children is the best decision they can make to combat climate change. This does not mean everyone will stop having kids. It means that if you are willing to make the choice to not have biological children then it's something you should strongly consider if you want to maximize your individual impact on fighting climate change.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#112

Post by s1artibartfast »

whiplash451 wrote: post #103
mdavis6890 wrote: post #95

The best plan for CA to get their water under control is: 1. Fix agriculture water rights to numerical limits, somewhat higher than what is already being used. This will cap water usage and move away from an all-you-can-drink model, but not penalize existing farmers. 2. Buy back those water rights from farmers using a reverse-auction, allowing the farmers who generate the least value from their water to sell it back…

Interesting. How is this implementable realistically, though? Asking genuinely.

really simple. If a city wants more water it writes a big check and buys it from someone who has it.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#113

Post by gruez »

rmah wrote: post #57
jillesvangurp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either way, Californians should stop pretending water is cheap, plentiful or sourced in a sustainable way. It simply isn't. Instead of pointing fingers at each other, the best way is to price it accordingly. The root problem is that this is not the case and it's too cheap. And it's only cheap because it comes from non renewable sources that are getting scarcer. Everybody feels entitled to the cheap water and then end…

Um, but the water in California is cheap and plentiful. Sustainably sourced, I don't know. But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" price, they get steep steep discounts. All the lawn watering, all the toilet flushes, all the swimming pools, etc. all amount to around 10% of water use in California. And those people already pay, on average, many multiples of what farmers pay per gallon.

> But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" price, they get steep steep discounts.

What are the reasons for these "steep discounts"? The obvious explanation is "lobbying", but I remember a comment from a while ago mentioning that the farmers "own" water rights and those can't be expropriated from them without a costly legal process.

edit: comment mentioning the water rights aspect in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31593372

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#114

Post by gruez »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #43
timst4 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a big factor. Water is too cheap - similar to carbon. Both need to be priced higher soon or we’re toast.

Since when has raising the price of anything changed anyone’s behavior? Oh you mean change the behavior of the poor, not the rich. Gotcha.

> Since when has raising the price of anything changed anyone’s behavior?

Making water 2x more expensive probably isn't going to cause you to drink less water, but it might make you consider a variety of water conservation measures, like low flow showers, dishwashers, or low water landscaping.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#115

Post by mdavis6890 »

whiplash451 wrote: post #103
mdavis6890 wrote: post #95

The best plan for CA to get their water under control is: 1. Fix agriculture water rights to numerical limits, somewhat higher than what is already being used. This will cap water usage and move away from an all-you-can-drink model, but not penalize existing farmers. 2. Buy back those water rights from farmers using a reverse-auction, allowing the farmers who generate the least value from their water to sell it back…

Interesting. How is this implementable realistically, though? Asking genuinely.

1. Place a moratorium on any new water rights. (So no starting new farms with new claims, etc)

2. Identify all existing water rights holders. Every single farm/lot with some kind of water privileges. I'm sure there are thousands.

3. Determine how much water they used over, say, the last 5 years. This is obviously the hardest part, but it's no harder than many other large government projects. You'd probably have to use some estimation, formulas, etc - and it won't be perfect. It would take a couple of years and there would be a lot of wrangling. Similar maybe to housing assessment values. Probably include an appeal process as well, just like you can appeal a house assessment.

4. Give each user a new numerical water cap (say, 500k acre-feet), that is 125% or so of above usage. This will avoid hurting existing farms by allowing them to continue using water as they have been, with even some room for growth - but still puts a fence around the problem.

5. Require metering of all ag water, with random audits for enforcement and stiff penalties for violations.

6. Use the state's very large budget surplus to buy up those numerical water rights from the lowest bidders until the water crisis goes away.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#116

Post by [deleted] »

mkl wrote: post #91
RayVR wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your criticism of the US _feels_ on point, I don't think it's really valid. Are you an agriculture expert or some sort of scientist with specialty knowledge? Some super quick research: * Israel has fewer than 10 million people. California has just under 40 million (4x) * Israel Agriculture exports $2B. California $20B (10x) * California has extensive regulations around water, including the use of recycled water…

Another comparison to consider: California is 20 times bigger than Israel.

[deleted]

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#117

Post by sologoub »

And at the same time we are being prohibited from paying for more water production (desalination) by the coastal commission and various activists: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-12/resident...

Paying for desalinated water should absolutely be an option. If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need.

Politicians and activists keep saying there are other solutions, but all seem to target the most efficient users and not the 80% (agriculture) that actually can make the difference. Even our own water officials admit that there is not much to be gained by being even more efficient with toilets and such.

Another crazy point - apparently for liability reasons, recycled water that’s not potable quality (meaning just fine for watering, but you shouldn’t drink it or use in a pool) cannot be delivered to consumers. They fear consumers will screw up and connect it to potable pipes. There is a pretty simple solutions there too - they are called back flow prevention devices.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#118

Post by mdavis6890 »

boringg wrote: post #109
mdavis6890 wrote: post #95

The best plan for CA to get their water under control is: 1. Fix agriculture water rights to numerical limits, somewhat higher than what is already being used. This will cap water usage and move away from an all-you-can-drink model, but not penalize existing farmers. 2. Buy back those water rights from farmers using a reverse-auction, allowing the farmers who generate the least value from their water to sell it back…

3. Allow Purple pipe for a majority of uses 4. Minimize amount of people with wells which is depleting the aquifer (the really big problem) 5. Minimize growth in SoCal & Desert communities

3. What is purple pipe? 4. They have to get their water from somewhere, and clearly there is not anywhere else to get it. Wells are not the problem - farming is the problem. 5. SoCal and Desert communities don't use a meaningful amount of water. This is the whole point. ALL communities, businesses, industry, etc - put together - use very little of the water. Nothing is helped by limiting those uses of water. Only farming matters.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#119

Post by eweise »

paulcole wrote: post #42
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone focus’s on 1% of the problem and never touch the 99%, the former is going to get frustrated and give up.

If everybody doesn’t treat climate change as a problem that they’re both the cause of and solution to, we’re never going to touch the 99%. You think these corporations are growing almonds in the desert and raising cows because nobody buys them?

You're asking a lot if you think consumers should know what the effect of buying almonds has on the water supply. Simply charge the almond farmers more for their water, almond prices go up, consumers buy less of them.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#120

Post by gruez »

tzs wrote: post #87
JKCalhoun wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously there are progressive ways to do it. You make it tiered such that the the typical household never leaves the lowest pricing tier. Golf courses, cattle ranchers and almond farmers on the other hand....

So you don't raise the price of water for typical households, which is only a small percentage of their budget, and instead raise the price of food, which is generally a much larger percentage of their budget?

1. you're trying to imply that because food budget is greater than water budget, that raising water prices on farmers will affect households more. This does not make any sense. Only a fraction of the price of food paid by a household is attributable to the price of water, so you can't really conclude that just because households spend more money on food than on water, that increasing water prices on farmers will cost them more.

2. even if that were the case, it's a necessary evil to incentivize lower water use crops. Suppose there were only two types of food, apples and oranges. They both cost around the same right now, but oranges require 10x more water. Raising water prices will raise orange prices, but that's arguably a good thing because it forces consumers to choose more water efficient foods. I don't see how the alternative (ie. continue subsidizing oranges even though they're more costly to society) is any better. Not to mention, you can redistribute the excess earnings back to citizens to make this revenue neutral.

Post reply on HN