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

131–140 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#131

Post by bombcar »

gruez wrote: post #114
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If your water bill is $100 is $200 really going to change what you do much? Unlikely, unless you're already poor.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#132

Post by jeffbee »

wudangmonk wrote: post #5

What is the tactic here? we know the cause is agriculture and blaming grass lawns and car washing can easily be disproven by a quick superficial google search. Pitting people against each other by being water snitches may work unless any actual restrictions are placed. As soon as any restrictions are placed, the whole show gets exposed. So...what is the whole point of the show in the first place?.

You can't easily divert ag water to cities in most cases, so efficiency of end use in urban water systems is important, not irrelevant. You could cut the urban water use of Los Angeles by 20% just by replacing the remaining old toilets. That is worth doing.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#133

Post by tzs »

labcomputer wrote: post #129
tzs wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh noes! All the people for whom almond consumption represents a significant amount of their daily calories will have to switch to some pedestrian food! Quelle horror!

The discussion is not about raising the price of water just for almond growers. It is about raising it for all usage other than typical households. The comment I replied to specifically mentioned cattle ranchers, for example.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#134

Post by Layke1123 »

sologoub wrote: post #117

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 a…

All it takes is for one bad apple to not install them correctly or use badly defected ones, and boom, people drinking water they should not. Sometimes, regulation IS the answer.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#135

Post by boringg »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #118
boringg wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 far…

No, wells are part of the problem.

Purple pipe is recycled water.

Annual rainfall is like your surplus/deficit - Aquifer levels are how much money you have in the bank. Unregulated wells tap the aquifer and don't allow it to replenish which then dries the ground causing it sink amongst other problems.

Have you ever driven through all of California - Ag valley, desert, norcal, east of the sierra?

5. Desert communities don't use meaningful amount of water - what are you talking about?

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#136

Post by cataphract »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #23
michaelt wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reduction in water consumption is needed. Agriculture uses 80% of the water - and pays far less for it than other users. Doesn't seem very complex to me?

That is an ignorant and short sighted viewpoint. There's all sorts of legal precedent tangling this up. While the math of where the water goes is straightforward you can't just invalidate prior agreements and rules and whatnot without going through the process otherwise you just cause more problems because you send a message and set a precedent that the state will not honor its own rules. In the long term that is ver…

If the circumstances significantly changed in an unforeseen way since farmers were given water rights, many in 1800s, the State should be able to curtail those rights in the public interest. I do agree that there must be proportionality and due process, of course.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#137

Post by gruez »

bombcar wrote: post #131
gruez wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If your water bill is $100 is $200 really going to change what you do much? Unlikely, unless you're already poor.

A penny saved is a penny earned, so I'd definitely consider water conservation measures if water prices went up 100%.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#138

Post by sologoub »

Layke1123 wrote: post #134
sologoub wrote: post #117

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 a…

All it takes is for one bad apple to not install them correctly or use badly defected ones, and boom, people drinking water they should not. Sometimes, regulation IS the answer.

It’s a solved problem - backflow prevention devices will not let water from one user to flow to others, with inspections, etc there is no issue. Want recycled water? Pay for inspections and protective devices. Business users have been doing this for years.

A given property has one potable water entry point - the water meter. So no, it’s not one bad apple and all get bad water. Also, there is no regulation here, just fear of liability by water boards.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#139

Post by JKCalhoun »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #97
JKCalhoun wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the last big drought year in California (was it 2015 or so?) we turned our lawn into a drought-tolerant one — no more grass, no more watering the lawn. It was a little annoying to see the lush golf courses carry on with business (literally) as usual.

Great. This saved zero water though. You instead allowed the production of an additional handful of avocados (about 50 gallons each). I hope that was a fair trade.

I don't eat avocados, so I don't understand your comment.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#140

Post by stonemetal12 »

hellisothers wrote: post #125
kolanos wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is sacrificing exactly? > The federal government said Wednesday that it won’t deliver water to farmers in California’s agricultural belt, which produces roughly a quarter of the nation’s food, due to the extreme water shortages that are expected to deepen if the direly dry conditions continue through March. [0] HN is throttling me, so I'll put this here. the CVP is the largest in the country. > In a normal year t…

Wait I’m confused now, what is the relationship of this 0% water to the 80% figure that ag. gets?

Fairly simple, water is a State thing, zero Federal involvement.

If it gets declared a disaster then Federal disaster relief will try to help. So 0% of the extra water brought in for disaster relief will go to farmers. They have insurance for that.

The 80% figure is farm use of water in the state.

Post reply on HN