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

The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

lite.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 385 posts

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#191

Post by juve1996 »

userbinator wrote: post #141

I've always wondered why they don't build more pipelines to balance the water supply --- many other states have plenty of water available.

The entire west is under severe drought, from central Texas to California. California is an easy target, but the problems are everywhere and getting worse.

> In most of the state, the drought has not yet affected the water supply, but South Texas and areas served by reservoirs along the Rio Grande have already seen water shortage concerns, Neilsen-Gammon said, pointing to the Falcon Reservoir, which reached “historically low levels” this summer.

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#192

Post by edflsafoiewq »

coryrc wrote: post #143
rektide wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like a workaround for a ridiculous & pathetic inquity that never should have been, that has metastasized into a societal scale suicide pact. The state forever paying people to give up an infinite right to natural resources the state didnt have may be a legal answer but it's immoral & this buying-out "solution" keeps the injustice going uncorrected. Change the constitution.

British paid out slave owners and abolished slavery decades before the USA did and without killing 1.5 million people. Sometimes it is better to pay out an injustice.

Who should get the payout, the slave owners or the slaves?

Incidentally, Brazil abolished slavery without a war and without paying out anyone.

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#193

Post by barry-cotter »

mistersquid wrote: post #186
wudangmonk wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they have ever added one of these useless restrictions on California yet it's been mostly posturing. They blame the lawn, and you have people peacocking about their dry lawns in an effort to gain social brownie points. I'm surprised they still blame the lawn and havent moved on to pools or something more easily associated with wealth to really try and stir the poor vs rich debate. Meanwhile even if no g…

> I'm surprised they still blame the lawn and havent moved on to pools or something more easily associated with wealth to really try and stir the poor vs rich debate. I understand these figures may not mean anything because private individuals consume relatively imperceptible amounts of water compared to (the agriculture) industry. But reflect for a moment that Kim Kardashian blew through over one quarter million gal…

No. There’s an extremely simple way to solve this problem that would work; Everyone pays the same price for water. If the government is not going to do that then blame the government.

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#195

Post by VectorLock »

The restrictor sounds like a great idea but it seems like very quickly the worst offenders will install tanks to buffer the water they need to keep their lawns green. Maybe 1 gal/minute across all their greenery might not be enough though but at least they can shower and do dishes at the same time then.

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#196

Post by tuatoru »

jpollock wrote: post #43
oceanplexian wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arizona is a fast growing state but it's hardly a fair comparison. A better comparison would be Texas or Florida, which people on the coasts seem to turn their noses up at. Both are growing at roughly 3 times the pace of California, with Texas predicted to surpass California's GDP in under 20 years (Perhaps faster, if things accelerate). If you look at the East Coast situation, e.g. Florida and New York, it's much mo…

"Both are growing at roughly 3 times the pace of California" I'm sorry, where is that number coming from? 3x growth anywhere in the USA vs California would be majestically impressive! I found: Growth : (1yr, 3yr, 5yr) Texas : 7.35%, 2.24%, 12.32% California : 7.17%, 8.06%, 16.69% Florida : 6.45%, 8.04%, 14.91% Is the 3x growth in a different statistic? https://www.deptofnumbers.com/gdp/california/ https://www.deptofn…

GP was talking about population, not GDP. Do you have those numbers?

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#197

Post by thfuran »

UncleEntity wrote: post #176
throwaway09223 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analogy doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun. The discussion is about water being consumed. Production consumes water, and when we then export the product it is reasonable to say that the function is, in essence, exporting the water, because the water is consumed during production. Saudi Arabia grows their alfalfa in California instead of locally. The only reason they've done this is to use our water ins…

> The only reason they've done this is to use our water instead of theirs. I’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water there for them to use. I also take issue with the term “our water” like you have some “manifest destiny” to seize someone else’s property rights because you feel you are more entitled to it than the current legal owner. They thought ahead, bought property/water r…

I always regret that I didn't plan ahead enough to be king of the world so that no one would have any moral right to disagree with my legal right to do whatever I want.

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#198

Post by LadyCailin »

b112 wrote: post #86
nradov wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes a ballot initiative could do the trick. However it's hard to get urban voters to really appreciate the scale of the problem or what needs to be done. As long as their home water supply works and the bill isn't exorbitant then everything seems fine. Plus even with a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution, it would probably still be necessary to compensate current water rights holders at fair market val…

You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. That said, instead you make it illegal in... say, 5 years, to irrigate certain crops without drip feeding. You also provide grants to convert people over to it, for free. Of course, it's still very expensive to maintain all that infra, it clogs, needs to be monitored, etc, but if the whole state has to do it, at lea…

> I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water.

“There’s no water left, you used it all.”

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#199

Post by jwie »

NegativeK wrote: post #159
jwie wrote: post #153

Consumer water restrictions are 8th order concerns. If we had a serious government in the United States they’d be talking about our annual export of 4.887e11 gallons of water to Mexico from the Colorado River. That’s 1.5 million acre-feet for those more familiar with agricultural water units. There’s your weapon against drought. Just, don’t export hundreds of trillions of gallons of water. Also alfalfa exports to Chi…

I'm pretty sure Mexico's water rights from the Colorado are protected by treaty. Sure, we could break the treaty - just like the state of Colorado could decide to keep all of their snow melt to themselves. But it's probably better to acknowledge that our actions (like building a dam and diverting a river for local use) can severely affect other people. Or to reduce frivolous water use in a desert.

They are part of a 1940s treaty. But it’s more about what’s not being considered in the drought solution.

The US can back out if it chooses. That’s not the best first option, but if it comes down to it that should be considered. The water rights of the Colorado have been friendly up until now, as there’s always been enough water to go around.

Giving water to Mexico is only one driver, but it is a big one. The primary driver of water use is agricultural.

That treaty needs a refresh, but also maybe so does farming in the southwest. Chastising over-watering suburbanites just isn’t going to solve anything.

Re: The fight against drought in California has a new tool: The restrictor

#200

Post by metadat »

j-bos wrote: post #133
vippy wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where you live, but I see many fewer plastic bags drifting like so many tumbleweeds since the imposition of plastic bag fees and taxes where I live.

Me too, but I'm not aware of any fees for bags at the stores.

You must not live in California..
Post reply on HN