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

201–210 of 385 posts

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

#201

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#202

Post by recursive »

karaterobot wrote: post #148
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.

Sure, but the stated purpose of these bans was not to reduce the number of plastic bags we see, it was to reduce plastic pollution. That would make you think that plastic bags were the most important source of post-consumer plastic pollution, which they aren't — plastic packaging is. For marine microplastics ("the pacific garbage patch") the main sources are things like textiles, car tires, and of course fishing nets…

It seems to have absolutely reduced urban plastic pollution. I'd call it a win.

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

#203

Post by throwaway09223 »

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’ve spent some amount of time in Saudi Arabia and they don’t have a lot of water there for them to use."

Interestingly, I have as well. They're having to desalinate water for growth just like we are planning to do.

"Fair enough, pay them more than the utility they currently derive from their usage and everyone walks away happy campers. "

Purchasing the farms with water rights is a very reasonable path forward, actually. It would be cheaper to buy farms and shut them down than to build the water conservation initiatives California's currently engaged in.

The problem is political. CA leaders don't actually want to solve the water crisis - they want to grandstand.

"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. "

The state does have this power, as a matter of fact. So there you go, the perspective is reality based.

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

#204

Post by lillecarl »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #129
SoftTalker wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's likely true, but what change has been made in the total volume of plastic waste produced in the area? Possibly/probably very little. It's an example of doing something easy and visibly noticable, but ultimately inconsequential, to create the illusion of solving a problem.

In Australia, when they did a plastic bag ban, the total volume of plastic waste actually went up. Instead of using flimsy grocery bags for their household trash, people were now using thicker dedicated trash bags. Those thin bags are some of the most re-used plastic out there.

Our dedicated trash bags are thinner than what used to be in the store for your groceries.

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

#205

Post by bigiain »

barry-cotter wrote: post #193
mistersquid wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are you suggesting the same dollars per gallon? Because I callus also see a reasonable argument to charge for water in percentage or person that per gallon. As the article mentions, some people are perfectly happy to pay more money. Which’d be fine if there was a guaranteed supply with enough for everyone. But that’s not how the water supply in CA is today. Poor people should not die of dehydration just because rich people want lawns and pools.

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

#206

Post by twblalock »

shlurpy wrote: post #115
twblalock wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the sacrifice should be shared by all water users, and homeowners are far from the primary consumers of water. When agriculture uses most of the water, and the most water in agriculture goes to luxury foods like almonds and pistachios, it’s ridiculous to be investigating homeowners while not asking farmers to reduce consumption.

They literally constitutionally cannot ask the farmers, and you need a very mobilized populace to change the constitution. That's only going to happen when people see the consequences of inaction, and its probably better that happen gradually for useless laws then suddenly for all drinking water.

That's not the only way ballot measures and propositions have been passed. Previous governors have advocated for measures, got them on the ballot, and encouraged people to vote for them. The current governor could do the same.

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

#207

Post by ericmay »

barry-cotter wrote: post #193
mistersquid wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Probably pay the same price such that water doesn’t deteriorate past a point though right? It does need to be affordable for families. If you don’t also put some usage level maintenance then it’ll get depleted to the point that it remains too expensive for all but the wealthiest users (personal or corporate or government.

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

#209

Post by 1_1xdev »

karaterobot wrote: post #148
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.

Sure, but the stated purpose of these bans was not to reduce the number of plastic bags we see, it was to reduce plastic pollution. That would make you think that plastic bags were the most important source of post-consumer plastic pollution, which they aren't — plastic packaging is. For marine microplastics ("the pacific garbage patch") the main sources are things like textiles, car tires, and of course fishing nets…

Half measures still do _something_

They did reduce plastic pollution, as you admit.

Was it the most effective regulation to pass to reduce plastic pollution by the greatest possible amount? Not at all

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

#210

Post by dontlaugh »

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.

The US civil war was primarily over different modes of production, not slavery directly.

The British working class was forced to pay the former slavers until a few years ago, while the former slaves got nothing. That was in no way just or good or useful.

Post reply on HN