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

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#191

Post by formerkrogemp »

kolanos wrote: post #130
pm90 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason this doesn’t happen is that farmers/farming lobbies have a lot of political power, especially in rural districts and no politician wants to be painted as anti-farming interests.

Unlike cities, farmers go where the water is. I know some HNers think farmers are growing crops in deserts. But that's just laughable. They farm where there is water: rivers, lakes, flood planes, deltas, etc. It is the cities diverting the water from these places.

> They farm where there is water: rivers, lakes, flood planes, deltas, etc. It is the cities diverting the water from these places.

What do you call a place where the lakes, rivers, flood planes, and deltas are dried up? That's right. A desert. If current trends continue that's exactly what you're going to have.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#192

Post by supertrope »

matkoniecz wrote: post #185
supertrope wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither is beef or cotton. Hence I alluded to rural district votes.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#193

Post by prawn »

limaho wrote: post #2

Went kayaking in Lake Powell last year. Locals were saying the lake was down 30 feet (!!) from the past couple of years. I have no idea if that sort of fluctuation is common but that was enough to make me feel very concerned about the water situation in the southwest

Was it worth kayaking? I've wondered if there are interesting parts to explore.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#194

Post by jshen »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #177
adrianN wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. That's once or twice a week. Less meat consumption in general would probably be good not only for the environment but also for public health.

> I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Limiting to twice a week is good.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#195

Post by no_wizard »

no_wizard wrote: post #3

Could we feasibly just run desalination stations from the coasts and pipe the water - like oil - to fill up these reservoirs? Setting cost aside for a second, is there any reason not to do something like this?

I just want to mention, that, upon reading the comments, I now understand why this is a terrible idea

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#196

Post by kolanos »

formerkrogemp wrote: post #191
kolanos wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike cities, farmers go where the water is. I know some HNers think farmers are growing crops in deserts. But that's just laughable. They farm where there is water: rivers, lakes, flood planes, deltas, etc. It is the cities diverting the water from these places.

> They farm where there is water: rivers, lakes, flood planes, deltas, etc. It is the cities diverting the water from these places. What do you call a place where the lakes, rivers, flood planes, and deltas are dried up? That's right. A desert. If current trends continue that's exactly what you're going to have.

> What do you call a place where the lakes, rivers, flood planes, and deltas are dried up?

I think you mean diverted. Cities are actively draining reservoirs, too.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#197

Post by wolverine876 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #142
wolverine876 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, market prices on water and beef (incorporating what are now climate externalities) would seem to solve these problems. Why isn't that being considered? Remember when conservatives, neo-liberals, and libertarians supported the market as a solution for everything? Of course, we would need a reasonable amount of water available to consumers at below-market rates.

To me charging market price for water seemed obvious and easy till the comments here pointed out what should be obvious: the farmers Steve getting their water from the faucet but from their own wells, creeks etc. So that solution is pretty hard to do on practice. Other than disgruntled voters, I don't see an obstacle for proper beef prices. In fact I wish we could price in carbon emissions, as I wish that pretty much…

> To me charging market price for water seemed obvious and easy till the comments here pointed out what should be obvious: the farmers Steve getting their water from the faucet but from their own wells, creeks etc. So that solution is pretty hard to do on practice.

It doesn't seem that hard to measure it. The large scale would justify the cost.

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#198

Post by wolverine876 »

sacrosancty wrote: post #178
ajmurmann wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me charging market price for water seemed obvious and easy till the comments here pointed out what should be obvious: the farmers Steve getting their water from the faucet but from their own wells, creeks etc. So that solution is pretty hard to do on practice. Other than disgruntled voters, I don't see an obstacle for proper beef prices. In fact I wish we could price in carbon emissions, as I wish that pretty much…

I think as manufacturing and agriculture have become less labor intensive, a bigger proportion of the cost of things has been energy. So in a way, carbon emissions sort of are being priced into things naturally, and I'd guess the trend is increasing. In some extreme technological utopia, energy would be the only cost of food and products, meaning it's all carbon.

> I think as manufacturing and agriculture have become less labor intensive, a bigger proportion of the cost of things has been energy. So in a way, carbon emissions sort of are being priced into things naturally

But our carbon emissions are not priced into the cost of energy. That's the primary cause of the climate crisis!

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#199

Post by wolverine876 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #163
wolverine876 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, market prices on water and beef (incorporating what are now climate externalities) would seem to solve these problems. Why isn't that being considered? Remember when conservatives, neo-liberals, and libertarians supported the market as a solution for everything? Of course, we would need a reasonable amount of water available to consumers at below-market rates.

Some US beef is already produced with private water traded on the free market, at least in the western US. This is already priced into the cost of that beef. The price of water fluctuates every year but as a percentage of cost for beef, it isn't that much.

Why do those farmers (or ranchers) use private water? Is it just the obvious - not enough public or on-premises water?

Re: Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage

#200

Post by Dylan16807 »

jshen wrote: post #194
Dylan16807 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.

Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Limiting to twice a week is good.

You assume the alternative is buying more. What if the alternative is buying twice a week but based on a different metric? Or buying less?

In general it's better to be accurate about cause and effect and then choose what to do. That way you can make sure the way you're measuring "good" is real.

Post reply on HN