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

181–190 of 211 posts

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#181

Post by Dylan16807 »

swatcoder wrote: post #73
kortilla wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water rights are at odds with what society needs now. There is nothing complex here. Make everyone pay equally for water and the problem goes away. The people that complain that it’s way more complex than that are the ones that don’t want to pay for water.

Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land? Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it? Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes? The water we’re talking about doesn’t come through a pipe with a meter, and the people who have access to water have practical influence over the use, routing, safety, and quality of that water even if you try to a…

> Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land?

If that connects to a shared aquifer which can easily be depleted, then not without regulation.

> Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it?

I wouldn't expect to be allowed to reduce the flow of one of those, comparing how much enters and how much exits my land.

> Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes?

That seems fine, probably.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#182

Post by lovich »

sacrosancty wrote: post #176
lovich wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights... It's a lot simpler when you don't believe that water is something private individuals have a right to hoard. Imo, water is a natural resource we all have some minimum access to as humans, regardless of if someone wants to buy it up and sell at a higher price later

It's not really natural though, is it? Regulated by the Hoover dam and supplying people living in deserts. Obviosuly people who choose to live in remote arid places don't automatically have the right to be provided with water by everybody else.

> It's not really natural though, is it?

What? I’m not sure how water could not be considered a natural resource. It just exists, it didn’t take a human hand to create.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#183

Post by pjc50 »

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 you charge both the agricultural and residential users the same price, the agricultural ones go out of business. That may well be necessary, but they're politically well connected.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#185

Post by matkoniecz »

supertrope wrote: post #167
rcpt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water should be priced the same for everyone, there's no reason that alfalfa farmers should pay a hundredth of a percent that I do for the same resource.

Nations will never stop agricultural subsidies due to national food security and rural district votes. It’s not just price supports and crop insurance but dams to deliver water and electricity. Tap water is drinkable and plumbed into your home. That’s why it costs more than canal water that’s neither.

Almonds are not needed for national food security.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#186

Post by candiodari »

lovich wrote: post #182
sacrosancty wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really natural though, is it? Regulated by the Hoover dam and supplying people living in deserts. Obviosuly people who choose to live in remote arid places don't automatically have the right to be provided with water by everybody else.

> It's not really natural though, is it? What? I’m not sure how water could not be considered a natural resource. It just exists, it didn’t take a human hand to create.

Unfortunately the government sold it. Now of course they could buy it back ... That's unacceptable, apparently. Just taking it away, no compensation is what everyone seems to want.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#187

Post by dredmorbius »

obmelvin wrote: post #129
coryrc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dams literally generate energy and provide water consistently.

Do dams provide water? Don't they use the water provided by a body of water?

By controlling and regulating water flow, dams make available more water than would be available from an unregulated water flow.

As noted by others, this isn't entirely cost-free, and there are ecological impacts. Still, on net, many dams do provide real benefits.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#189

Post by formerkrogemp »

COGlory wrote: post #74
stickfigure wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Water rights carry a legacy of centuries of personal and political history and thousands of competing interests. So did slavery, and we managed to get rid of that. Doing the right thing is really not that complicated, it just requires political will.

600,000 immediate American casualties (not to mention the slaves) is not a great example here, of something being "simple"

COVID killed over a million. The culpability for that isn't simple either.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#190

Post by formerkrogemp »

swatcoder wrote: post #73
kortilla wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Water rights are at odds with what society needs now. There is nothing complex here. Make everyone pay equally for water and the problem goes away. The people that complain that it’s way more complex than that are the ones that don’t want to pay for water.

Should someone be able to dig a well in their own land? Draw surface water from a river, stream, or creek that passes through it? Grow crops in their own flood plains, estuaries, marshes, ponds, and lakes? The water we’re talking about doesn’t come through a pipe with a meter, and the people who have access to water have practical influence over the use, routing, safety, and quality of that water even if you try to a…

You and what 1,200 ft deep well? The aquifers are so depleted the land is sinking. It's just gone, and the rain isn't replenishing it fast enough. The water we're talking about is already more deep and less frequent.
Post reply on HN