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

Draining California

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 83 posts

Re: Draining California

#21

Post by ghshephard »

jwr wrote: post #20
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

On every visit to the US (I'm from Europe), I find it amazing how much water gets wasted. Monster-flush toilets, vertical-axis washing machines, and the most egregious offender: hotel shower. The first time I saw those, it took a while before I realized you just can't limit the flow of water, by design.

Depends on the part of the United States. California has laws mandating low-flow toilets, showers, and interior faucets. That's been the code for the last 20 or so years.

Last year California became the first state to require re-fitting all existing structures with low-flow systems: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/low-flow-toilets-re...

Re: Draining California

#22

Post by ghshephard »

Someone wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

"Changes to individual use will only have a small impact on our water use" Every single farmer can argue the same way ("I only use a tiny fraction of what the state as a whole uses, so it won't help" or "almond farming only uses 10% (I'm making up this number), so it won't help if we, almond farmers, economize on water use") Everybody can find a group they are in that will have a small impact.

The difference between residential and agricultural use, is that the price each pays for water is different enough that we are starting to see arbitrage, in which agricultural water rights are being sold for residential use. If the drought continues, we could start to see a large-scale decline in lower-value agriculture in California, particularly anything that is water intensive. We're unlikely to see a decline in the residential population of California because of water.

Re: Draining California

#23

Post by seanflyon »

Someone wrote: post #19
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

"Changes to individual use will only have a small impact on our water use" Every single farmer can argue the same way ("I only use a tiny fraction of what the state as a whole uses, so it won't help" or "almond farming only uses 10% (I'm making up this number), so it won't help if we, almond farmers, economize on water use") Everybody can find a group they are in that will have a small impact.

The point is that the vast majority of the water is used by a small minority of the people.

Re: Draining California

#24

Post by seanflyon »

timr wrote: post #13
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

This is true for more rural areas, but the bigger cities (i.e. San Francisco) don't share water with farms. Farming does use a ridiculous amount of water in aggregate , but it doesn't do us any good to discourage city dwellers from their responsibility to conserve. That said, it's pretty obscene to drive through the central valley and see people growing rice for acres and acres. In the desert.

Water is fungible.

Re: Draining California

#25

Post by seanflyon »

ghshephard wrote: post #16
ChuckMcM wrote: post #14

That gives a great picture of the current situation. I've spent many weekends camping up around the reservoirs and it is pretty dry. And further south, the monsoonal rains from the hurricanes are causing floods. I heard an interesting question asking why they can ship oil from North Dakota to Richmond CA to be refined but can't ship water. No doubt when water hits $100/barrel it will become profitable to ship it here…

1 Barrel = 42 Gallons. It costs $0.75/cubic meter (264 Gallons) to desalinate water based on recent desalination plant technology in Singapore. If we switch to desalination, it will cost about $0.12/Barrel to generate water. Distribution will, of course, dwarf that cost, but production of water is cheap. We just use ridiculous amounts of it, and it's energy expensive to distribute it if you can't take advantage of gr…

It's probably what you meant by "We just use ridiculous amounts of it" but I expect that most farms could not continue to operate while paying $0.12 per barrel.

Re: Draining California

#26

Post by vacri »

ghshephard wrote: post #11
sytelus wrote: post #6

Are there any actual water shortage for normal folks in residential places? For example, do you still have 24 hr water available in your apartments? Is water from tap usually drinkable? These drought stuff is pretty scary but I haven't yet heard if normal (non agriculture) folks getting hurt yet.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

In 2011, the average californian used about 326 gallons/day of water.

I am gobsmacked - this is a phenomenal amount of water. This is an order of magnitude more than we use here in Melbourne. 326 gallons = 1230 litres, whereas we use ~ 230 litres per person on average. I'm genuinely puzzled by how you use so much water every day.

Previously at the end of a 10-year drought and very low reserves, the government target was 155 litres/day, which was easily done - our household was using about 65-75 litres/day/person, while still doing laundry, daily showering, and keeping a garden. And while we were water-conscious, we weren't particularly strict about it.

I just can't fathom how so many people are using so much water on average every day. Even your tightest suggestion (100 gallons) is double what we're using now in non-drought mode.

Re: Draining California

#27

Post by vacri »

jwr wrote: post #20
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

On every visit to the US (I'm from Europe), I find it amazing how much water gets wasted. Monster-flush toilets, vertical-axis washing machines, and the most egregious offender: hotel shower. The first time I saw those, it took a while before I realized you just can't limit the flow of water, by design.

In my travel across the US, I noticed exactly one washing line - put up in a hostel room by a Swede (no doubt they're not quite that rare, but I didn't see them). When summer comes along and the electric grid starts to fail, I hear a lot of Americans talking about the burden of airconditioning, but it's very rare that they talk about tumble-dryers, which gobble a hell of a lot of power.

Re: Draining California

#28

Post by ghshephard »

seanflyon wrote: post #25
ghshephard wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1 Barrel = 42 Gallons. It costs $0.75/cubic meter (264 Gallons) to desalinate water based on recent desalination plant technology in Singapore. If we switch to desalination, it will cost about $0.12/Barrel to generate water. Distribution will, of course, dwarf that cost, but production of water is cheap. We just use ridiculous amounts of it, and it's energy expensive to distribute it if you can't take advantage of gr…

It's probably what you meant by "We just use ridiculous amounts of it" but I expect that most farms could not continue to operate while paying $0.12 per barrel.

Most Farms stop being economical north of $2000 per acre foot. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/california-water-pr...).

There are 326,000 gallons in an acre-foot. So, Most Farms can't pay much more than 2000/326000, = $0.006/Gallon.

$0.75/cubic meter = .75 / 264 = $0.002/Gallon.

It's within range - but, once again, it's not the cost of generation, but the cost of distribution that gets expensive. The Sierra Nevada has the advantage of all that potential energy from its altitude.

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/science/in-talk-of-solar-des... - Saltwater reclamation from the ocean in Carlsbad using Reverse Osmosis will cost about $2000/acre foot.

EDIT: For runoff water from farms, there is a cheaper solution http://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-Sol...

"His solar desalination plant produces water that costs about a quarter of what more conventionally desalinated water costs: $450 an acre-foot versus $2,000 an acre-foot."

Of course, the elephant in the room is always - what do you do with the components you've removed from the runoff water. They are pretty toxic.

Re: Draining California

#29

Post by ghshephard »

seanflyon wrote: post #24
timr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true for more rural areas, but the bigger cities (i.e. San Francisco) don't share water with farms. Farming does use a ridiculous amount of water in aggregate , but it doesn't do us any good to discourage city dwellers from their responsibility to conserve. That said, it's pretty obscene to drive through the central valley and see people growing rice for acres and acres. In the desert.

Water is fungible.

But expensive to transport relative to its value.

Re: Draining California

#30

Post by ghshephard »

vacri wrote: post #26
ghshephard wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Long, Long before there was any shortage of drinking water, the various water authorities would simply increase the prices of water to levels which reduce residential usage. The problem in California isn't lack of water for individual use (for the most part, there are a few small communities that are having to truck in water), it's the impact on Agriculture, which is hugely important to the economy of California, and…

In 2011, the average californian used about 326 gallons/day of water. I am gobsmacked - this is a phenomenal amount of water. This is an order of magnitude more than we use here in Melbourne. 326 gallons = 1230 litres, whereas we use ~ 230 litres per person on average. I'm genuinely puzzled by how you use so much water every day. Previously at the end of a 10-year drought and very low reserves, the government target…

That's an "average" - it varies quite a bit. San Francisco uses around 100 Gallons/Day.

Things like toilets/showers/washing machines are the major indoor elements for high water consumption, California is starting to adopt all of the technologies that Australia has pioneered for decades - things like low flush toilets, low volume showers, low flow faucets, etc... But it will take time (and money) to update the infrastructure.

Also, much of the water use comes from outdoor use - a lot of green lawns in California that are going to have to go away. Also, leaks are a major components.

In order to get to 100 Gallons/day, people are going to have to give up their lawns. And stop filling their swimming pools.

There is zero chance, outside of a major disaster like an earthquake, that Californians would ever use "65-75 liters/day/person" - that's 17 gallons/day/person. You'd see broad deployments of solar powered desalination plants first.

Post reply on HN