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

181–190 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#181

Post by yongjik »

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.

Counterpoint: I'm making a comfortable living as a developer in California, and my wife also works. We don't exactly have a mansion or a personal airplane, but it's not like we're short of money, ever.

My wife will still be very angry if water bill goes up from $100 to $200.

Price anchoring is a really powerful tool: you can cut down plastic bag usage drastically by simply mandating that they should be sold at 10 cents.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#182

Post by arrosenberg »

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.

It’s only too cheap for these huge farms due to how corrupt and poorly thought out the water rights process was in the 1800s. The rural poor in CA already have water problems (e.g. Tulare county) and the urban poor already pay full freight.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#184

Post by PeterStuer »

"If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need."

This sounds ass backwards. If a company can supply water into the communal system at the current supplier prices, they should be free to do so, taking into account corrections for negative externaities etc. .

However, if they insist on creating a price differentiation on vital commodities, I think the state has an obligation to prevent them because otherwise the system of basic survival solidarity goes down the drain (maybe even literally in this case).

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#185

Post by pkaye »

gruez wrote: post #113
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.

> 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…

The water that farmers use in not treated so there is no treatment cost.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#186

Post by diggernet »

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…

Can you imagine the cost of retrofitting a city with a second water distribution system?

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#187

Post by chasd00 »

mrguyorama wrote: post #143
dcsommer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> In fact I'd wager that's why sin taxes are effective, because the largest consumers of cigarettes, soda, etc are poor people

I'm not a fan of sin taxes. To me, taxes are for funding the government and should not be a form of punishment. If you punish people with taxes or try to change their behavior then you're just breeding resentment against taxes. Then the population votes to decrease taxes every chance they get because they're associated with punishment. Also, isn't a sin tax basically a fine with no chance to plead your case?

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#188

Post by ac29 »

diggernet wrote: post #186
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…

Can you imagine the cost of retrofitting a city with a second water distribution system?

Sure: its already done many places. Look up "purple pipe" systems.

As far as money, here is a recent addition where 2.5 miles cost $17.5M: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/05/apple-campus-and-area...

Its expensive, but maybe less expensive than you'd think. The goal is to connect large commercial users, not individual households.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#189

Post by ac29 »

pkaye wrote: post #185
gruez wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The water that farmers use in not treated so there is no treatment cost.

Agricultural water varies in price greatly but it is often like 1000x cheaper than residential water in CA.

Its not the treatment process - I think a substantial portion of actual costs of water is in delivery. This source estimates 2GW needed to move water around in California on peak days: https://energy.lbl.gov/publications/water-supply-related-ele... That's about 5-10% of total electric use in the entire state.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#190

Post by GloriousKoji »

xtiansimon wrote: post #30
orlp wrote: post #2

"Californians are being asked to reduce their water use by 15 percent over 2020 levels to protect water reserves and help maintain critical flows for fish and wildlife wherever possible." And by that they surely mean agriculture, right? Right? The industry responsible for 80% of the water usage in California? They surely couldn't just be asking urban consumers to reduce? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/2…

Why would California agriculture conserve, when last week in Long Island, NY we were enjoying California cherries at 5.99/lb? Though, one wonders if that profit might not be less due to high gas price to get them here.

In the California Bay Area cherries go for 4.99/lb and if drive out to Brentwood and pick your own cherries it's $4/lb.
Post reply on HN