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

111–120 of 211 posts

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#111

Post by ErikVandeWater »

twelfthnight wrote: post #103
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 t…

Serious question: Have climate scientists previously been able to accurately predict climate changes decades away on a regional basis?

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#112

Post by kolanos »

bruce511 wrote: post #66
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would have provided water to several Southern California cities It blows my mind that it's simpler to build, in one of the most water-blessed parts of our planet, a desalination plant, than it is to get farmers to quit growing literal fodder. Eighty percent of California's water goes to agriculture. Eighty percent.

80% sounds like a lot, but is it really? Is it a lot based on land area? Ie is 80% of california land dedicated to agriculture? (honest question, I've no idea.) What about per-species? Sounds like humans are getting a full 20% of the water, all other species (plant and animal) get the rest. And I feel like you're arguing that humans should get a bigger slice? What should the right % be? Presumably not 0. Agriculture…

> In an average year, about 39% of California's water consumption, or 34.1 million acre-feet (42.1 km3), is used for agricultural purposes. Of that total, 11%, or 8.9 million acre-feet (11.0 km3) is not consumed by the farms for crop production but is instead recycled and reused by other water users, including environmental use, urban use, and agricultural use, yielding net water consumption for food and fiber production equal to 28% of California's water consumption, or 25.2 million acre-feet (31.1 km3). [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Agricultur...

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#113

Post by foolfoolz »

kortilla wrote: post #47
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.

That’s another form of the “both sides” type of fallacy. Desalination is an extreme unnecessary compromise to deal with obscene waste in agriculture.

the largest desalination plant in the u. s. can serve 110,000 homes. we would need 30 of them to make a significant dent in just the LA area. we will all be long dead before 30 new desalination plants are operational in california

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#114

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jfoutz wrote: post #90
LanceH wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can start by rolling back the modern entrenchments that have only made it worse. I would be absolutely shocked if this were only a 200 year old problem and there wasn't modern legislation basically gifting free water to special interests.

I'm by no means an expert or a lawyer or someone you should listen to. But this may hint at the complexity. A lot of water rights come from Spanish land grants ~330 years ago. And those were guaranteed by treaty after the Mexican American war. So, the U.S. can do whatever it wants, but treaties are in this weird space below the constitution but above a simple bill through congress to become law. Water rights are gene…

> treaties are in this weird space below the constitution but above a simple bill through congress to become law

Treaties have the force of federal law [1]. Not more. Not less. California is bound by them. The Congress is not.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#115

Post by prawn »

willcipriano wrote: post #61
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.

Idea I've had, solar power a desalination plant, pumping the water into a pumped storage reservoir, then water crops from it at night to reduce evaporation and produce energy when the sun isn't shining.

Is there an issue with trying to locate solar (often in flat areas) alongside pumped storage (would that be in a mountainous or at least hilly area)?

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#116

Post by coryrc »

Yoofie wrote: post #104
macintux wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Dams literally generate energy and provide water consistently.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#117

Post by cplusplusfellow »

vwoolf wrote: post #36
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…

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.

If only people understood this concept. In my home town city council are bickering about whether to allow additional density to be build on already commercially zoned lots based on whether they force 10 or 12% if the units to be “affordable.”

They are bickering over whether 40 units of a building might have a net decreased rent of $200 a month and instead may get 0 units built instead of 400. The 400 units would likely reduce the rent in the area by more than $200.

Create abundance and then let the market set the price and be happy.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#118

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

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

The situation will rapidly sort itself out once faucets are turned off. Ordinarily, that would happen after irreparable environmental destruction. Fortunately, we have the Bureau of Reclamation to pull the plug on the Colorado River Compact states before that happens.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#119

Post by coryrc »

kolanos wrote: post #108
thepasswordis wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Because we grow a lot in the Midwest where water comes from the sky.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#120

Post by brandmeyer »

cwalv wrote: post #75
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 isn't something cities could or should solve by switching to (expensive) desalination In 2015, the Southern Nevada Water Authority completed a "3rd straw" into Lake Mead to safeguard water availability, at a cost of $817M [1], which is enough to cover the power costs to desalinate Nevada's CO river allotment for ~23 years. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I once ran the numbers and the cost of tha…

> Southern Nevada wholesale rate of $.37 / MWh [4].

Typo. That should be $37/MW-hr, not $0.37/MW-hr (article quotes $36.67 / MW-hr)

Post reply on HN