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

141–150 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#141

Post by s1artibartfast »

cataphract wrote: post #136
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stripping rights isn't due process. Buying rights is.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#142

Post by s1artibartfast »

KSteffensen wrote: post #86
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is. Try and think a couple steps ahead. The system we live under only works because people believe in it and more or less voluntarily play by the rules. Feel free to undermine state legitimacy but know that this will result in more entities (and it will be the more powerful ones first, BigCo, city governments, etc) thumbing their nose at the state and engaging in short sighted behavior. If CA isn't gonna honor…

The solid legal foundation needs to take physical reality into account. Sure, if previous legal agreements did not account for reality, somebody needs to own up to that, cancel the previous agreements openly while sucking up the relevant penalties. However, if this doesn't happen, physical reality will eventually assert itself over legal agreements.

Nothing is at odds with physics. The conflict is between people that own something and people that want that thing. Nothing in physics is stopping them from purchasing that thing from the people that have it.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#143

Post by mrguyorama »

dcsommer wrote: post #84
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.

Sugar taxes are effective in decreasing consumption of sugary beverages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax Progressive pricing of water for larger consumers helps alleviate impact on the poor.

Progressive pricing is good yes, but the parent is right that a non-progressive price increase is born mostly by the poor. In fact I'd wager that's why sin taxes are effective, because the largest consumers of cigarettes, soda, etc are poor people

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#144

Post by la64710 »

kolanos wrote: post #81
rmah wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to reall…

Why is this comment greyed out?

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#145

Post by s1artibartfast »

Barrera wrote: post #67

> Statewide precipitation for the water year to date is 73 percent of average. Sierra-Cascades snowpack for the water year to date is 10 percent of average, down from 18 percent last week. Statewide reservoir storage is 71 percent of average for this time of year. And more stats like that. Where are the stats about California's reservoir levels? Isn't that the relevant metric? The state's very existence depends on wa…

Snow pack is the ultimate reservoir for California. It is what feeds the rivers and man-made Lakes

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#146

Post by the_only_law »

la64710 wrote: post #144
kolanos wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to reall…

Why is this comment greyed out?

Comments will appear lighter the more downvoted they are.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#147

Post by mistrial9 »

Barrera wrote: post #67

> Statewide precipitation for the water year to date is 73 percent of average. Sierra-Cascades snowpack for the water year to date is 10 percent of average, down from 18 percent last week. Statewide reservoir storage is 71 percent of average for this time of year. And more stats like that. Where are the stats about California's reservoir levels? Isn't that the relevant metric? The state's very existence depends on wa…

some additional context in "California Extreme Heat Action Plan 2022" and related documents from Sacramento

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#148

Post by mrguyorama »

tzs wrote: post #133
labcomputer wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Beef is an immensely inefficient food. I love steak and hamburgers and roasts and all those delicious things but if we ever want to reach sustainability they will cost quite a bit more.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#149

Post by Workaccount2 »

sologoub wrote: post #138
Layke1123 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can't imagine the cost to install a backflow device on every single lone connection.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#150

Post by mistrial9 »

thisNeeds2BeSad wrote: post #13

The irony being that israel has "solved" water problems in agriculture largely, by reusing waste water and drip irrigation and simply have the users pay for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in... This sounds like a typical US thing. Suffering from a solveable problem, while creating the maximum public drama and having the society incapable of reform as a sort of greek-tragedy-background…

paying for drip water aggregation might be easier with billions of USD in annual subsidies.. meanwhile, at the other end of the economic grinder, existing legacy business in California and USA gets new requirements with commodity pricing on the market to pay for those
Post reply on HN