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

California declared drought free for first time in seven years

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#161

Post by drdeadringer »

gdubs wrote: post #112
djrogers wrote: post #16

And yet we won't be building any more water storage. As a result, we have about the same water capacity to survice the next drought as we had in the 1970s. There were half as many residents then, and climate change wasn't a concern...

The best water storage solution would be to repair damaged agricultural soil, which propagates further erosion and runoff. On top of that, conventional farming drains fields of water, diverting rainfall off the fields in ditches. Then, in the drier months they tap reservoirs (to irrigate). It’s a totally bonkers way of doing things.

> repair damaged agricultural soil

I'm curious about what this entails or means.

Retaining walls? (re)Injecting soil life like worms and microbes and related nutrients? Tossing around compost for likewise?

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#162

Post by [deleted] »

yellowapple wrote: post #145
maxxxxx wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Along the coast and in some mountain areas it's perfect. Otherwise it's a f...ing desert.

Well, it's not all just desert; that's more in the south. In the middle it's mostly farmland (in fact, rather excellent farmland, thanks to the combination of good soil, plenty of sunshine, temperate weather, and - the recent droughts notwithstanding - decent water availability; there's a reason why California is the primary source of quite a few fruits and vegetables for the world , let alone the US), and in the nor…

[deleted]

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#163

Post by ip26 »

drdeadringer wrote: post #161
gdubs wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best water storage solution would be to repair damaged agricultural soil, which propagates further erosion and runoff. On top of that, conventional farming drains fields of water, diverting rainfall off the fields in ditches. Then, in the drier months they tap reservoirs (to irrigate). It’s a totally bonkers way of doing things.

> repair damaged agricultural soil I'm curious about what this entails or means. Retaining walls? (re)Injecting soil life like worms and microbes and related nutrients? Tossing around compost for likewise?

Yes, compost, no-till, etc. You can't put the worms & microbes there, but if you build it they will come. Soil with a higher organic matter content & microbe population absorbs & retains moisture better than "dead" soil with low organic matter & no microbes, and plants can develop deeper roots which lets you water long, deep, & infrequently which reduces evaporation & runoff.

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#164

Post by UncleEntity »

pfdietz wrote: post #82

To first order, California's water problem is agricultural. And that's because there's no market in that water that would curtail what is a very low value use of it. Fix that, or resort to fractional measures that just paper over the underlying dysfunction.

> And that's because there's no market in that water that would curtail what is a very low value use of it.

IDK, I actually enjoy consuming agricultural products...

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#165

Post by ip26 »

jshen wrote: post #152
pdonis wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand it, the history of water rights in CA, and indeed in the US west generally, is a history of lack of markets; it's all been political maneuvering by various factions to make sure they aren't the ones who go short when the water gets divided up. There has never been an actual market to allocate the limited supply of water to the highest value uses. If there were, agriculture in much of CA wouldn't exist…

How do you determine who owns water in the first place.

A real & important question, but by no means an impossible problem. E.g. suppose "the public" (e.g. gov't, as with public lands) owns all of it in the first place, sells it, and uses the proceeds to fund water projects.

A less radical option would be to keep the system of water rights we have today and simply allow the water to be bought and sold. Currently if you sell it, someone can take you to court & say "well you didn't use it, so you should lose your water rights" (because California follows the doctrine of first use). Would run the risk of creating wealthy water czars overnight, but less radical.

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#166

Post by pfdietz »

UncleEntity wrote: post #164
pfdietz wrote: post #82

To first order, California's water problem is agricultural. And that's because there's no market in that water that would curtail what is a very low value use of it. Fix that, or resort to fractional measures that just paper over the underlying dysfunction.

> And that's because there's no market in that water that would curtail what is a very low value use of it. IDK, I actually enjoy consuming agricultural products...

You'd still be able to, and the overall productivity of the economy would be higher. You might buy more products from outside CA than from within it. If you live in CA, you'd likely come out ahead because your water would be cheaper.

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#167

Post by jshen »

ip26 wrote: post #165
jshen wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you determine who owns water in the first place.

A real & important question, but by no means an impossible problem. E.g. suppose "the public" (e.g. gov't, as with public lands) owns all of it in the first place, sells it, and uses the proceeds to fund water projects. A less radical option would be to keep the system of water rights we have today and simply allow the water to be bought and sold. Currently if you sell it, someone can take you to court & say "well yo…

Who sets the price and what stops the very wealthy from buying it all and selling it for a giant profit. The further we go down this train of thought the less market-like it becomes very quickly.

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#168

Post by losteric »

seehafer wrote: post #72
losteric wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Words are cheap. How are you taking action? Are you taking action?

I’d settle for a lot more people saying what OP is saying. California has one of the most incompetent governments in the world but this is masked because it is home to tech and we’re in boom times. Jerry Brown’s one big accomplishment was restraining the more idiotic impulses of his own caucus yet the political and media classes hail him as some sort of superlative political leader. His budget surplus is due to reneg…

The problem is America as a whole. Democracy is governing through collective intelligence, reliant on strong public discourse. Our public discourse is utterly ineffective, and as a result we execute as well as a brain with a severed corpus callosum.

We don't need more people spouting the same shit. Central valley farmers know the situation is bad too - it's just that their dialogue and that of suburban/urban voters are completely decoupled. There is no conversation. Any proposals from one group are wholly ignorant of and rejected by the other.

Jerry Brown's accomplishment is holding us steady, because even that is a challenge in the face of California's collective incompetence at being a society.

It's a big problem, but we can't blame our representatives for it. Like a marriage, everyone has to put in a little work. I try to do my part by supporting smaller grass-roots organizations, and canvassing for what I see as pragmatic bridge-builders...

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#169

Post by yellowapple »

jedberg wrote: post #157
yellowapple wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mandatory aquifer recharging would be a good first step. One of the big problems is that California can't adequately take advantage of these wet winters because the reservoirs can only hold so much and the ground can only absorb water so fast, so a lot of water ends up getting into the rivers and escaping back into the Pacific (or sits in ephemeral lakes/ponds/wetlands until it evaporates). If we helped along the pro…

I think the main reason we don't have desalination plants is because they have to be on or near the ocean, which is the most expensive property in the state. No one wants to ruin their view or have a big industrial machine near their home. Basically, I think NIMBYism keeps us from having Desal.

"Basically, I think NIMBYism keeps us from having Desal."

That's exactly the problem.

There might be ways around it, though:

* Build 'em adjacent to (or as part of) existing "ugly" structures, like coastal power plants (which already use seawater for cooling/steam; I'd assume it should be possible to clean/desalinate the used water instead of letting it flow back into the ocean)

* Pipe the water further inland; the pipes should be easier to conceal and should require a smaller land purchase (at least in terms of meters of coastline), and could run to a desalination plant in cheaper, more-inland real estate

* Extend a well-deserved middle finger to those NIMBYs in the form of eminent domain. Of course, given that those same NIMBYs are the ones who have the means to bribe California's government every which way, that'll probably never happen... unless we the people make it a Proposition, of course, and force their hands by literally rewriting California's constitution to prioritize water for millions of people over ocean views for dozens.

Re: California declared drought free for first time in seven years

#170

Post by ip26 »

jshen wrote: post #167
ip26 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A real & important question, but by no means an impossible problem. E.g. suppose "the public" (e.g. gov't, as with public lands) owns all of it in the first place, sells it, and uses the proceeds to fund water projects. A less radical option would be to keep the system of water rights we have today and simply allow the water to be bought and sold. Currently if you sell it, someone can take you to court & say "well yo…

Who sets the price and what stops the very wealthy from buying it all and selling it for a giant profit. The further we go down this train of thought the less market-like it becomes very quickly.

It's a market. The first owner sets the price at whatever point they like, balancing their interests of revenue, protecting the resource, and so forth. If people are arbitraging & selling the water for increased prices, the first owner increases their price and eliminates the arbitrage opportunity.
Post reply on HN