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

California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

drought.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#211

Post by musicale »

kolanos wrote: post #81
rmah wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Um, but the water in California is cheap and plentiful. Sustainably sourced, I don't know. But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" price, they get steep steep discounts. All the lawn watering, all the toilet flushes, all the swimming pools, etc. all amount to around 10% of water use in California. And those people already pay, on average, many multiples of what farmers pay per gallon.

This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to reall…

> rather than produce food with it

California can probably produce enough food for itself without overseas exports of alfalfa and almonds.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#212

Post by paulcole »

AYBABTME wrote: post #209
paulcole wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you. But nobody wants to hear it. A person deciding not to have biological children is the best decision they can make to combat climate change. This does not mean everyone will stop having kids. It means that if you are willing to make the choice to not have biological children then it's something you should strongly consider if you want to maximize your individual impact on fighting climate ch…

Nobody wants to hear it because it's a knee-jerk, throw-your-hand-in-the-air reaction. Taking this stance boils down to questions like "what's the point of life", whether you're an optimist or a pessimist, and whether you're individualistic or not. You know, trivial things that everyone agree with and no one has strong feelings about. Hence I don't think any real solution can come close to something as fundamental a…

> why do you even bother being alive?

This is going to be a very real question to hundreds of millions of people within a few generations — because of climate change. Hopefully the people alive today think the answer is to create an enjoyably livable world for the people alive a few generations from today.

But I don’t blame them if they don’t. It’s fine to be selfish and not care what happens after you’re dead - it really doesn’t matter anyway. So have kids, don’t have kids. Separate plastics or don’t.

Also adoption exists.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#213

Post by sologoub »

diggernet wrote: post #186
sologoub wrote: post #117

And at the same time we are being prohibited from paying for more water production (desalination) by the coastal commission and various activists: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-12/resident... Paying for desalinated water should absolutely be an option. If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need. Politicians and a…

Can you imagine the cost of retrofitting a city with a second water distribution system?

As others have said - we already have it. I literally have it in my street, but it can only be connected to by commercial or city (think schools) entities. So the incremental cost of connecting me and my neighbors is very small and allows amortizing the original investment over even more customers. Capacity might be a question, but from what I’ve seen it’s the same size as the water main.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#214

Post by sologoub »

diggernet wrote: post #197
ac29 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure: its already done many places. Look up "purple pipe" systems. As far as money, here is a recent addition where 2.5 miles cost $17.5M: https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/05/05/apple-campus-and-area... Its expensive, but maybe less expensive than you'd think. The goal is to connect large commercial users, not individual households.

Interesting, hadn't heard of those. But that $17.5M seems to be mostly pump stations and running the pipe along a road. I was thinking more of getting from that pipe into all the existing buildings and houses, and to the various places it is used (I assume primarily toilets). On the other hand, I agree with the throwaway... Bring me some nice fiber along with that purple pipe!

You don’t want purple pipe in the house, just at the street for your irrigation.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#215

Post by sologoub »

ehnto wrote: post #151
Workaccount2 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine the cost to install a backflow device on every single lone connection.

They're suggesting the homeowner requests and pays for it I believe.

Exactly! Don’t want it? No problem. Want it? Pay please (and we can work in subsidies for those that need them)

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#216

Post by sologoub »

Melatonic wrote: post #195
sologoub wrote: post #117

And at the same time we are being prohibited from paying for more water production (desalination) by the coastal commission and various activists: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-05-12/resident... Paying for desalinated water should absolutely be an option. If a household can’t afford it, then a necessary normal amount should be provided, but let others fund the infrastructure we need. Politicians and a…

Grey water like you talk about could be huge. Really big. Desalination could be interesting but is pricey to scale. What I want to know is how expensive or unfeasible it really is to just make a long ass pipeline from some other part of the US that gets stupid amounts of rainfall. We do it with oil - isn't water easier?

In 1991 there was talk of a Columbia river project. This article basically sums up the attitudes: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-06-21/columbia-ri...

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#217

Post by JKCalhoun »

mistrial9 wrote: post #79
JKCalhoun wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Significantly increasing the price of a natural resource would have severe impacts on impoverished communities while having no effect at all on wealthy people and companies; is this intentional? Not with tiered pricing. The poor don't use any more water than the middle-class.

Please understand that in the suburbs of Contra Costa County, where swimming pools are very common and a few still raise livestock, there was a county initiative (pre-2007) to dramatically rise the price of water use for those properties using more than 1000 gallons of water per day, and there was a mass scene at the Board of Supervisors meeting with irate home owners. The initiative did not pass.

Why would home owners be irate? Do they use over 1000 gallons a day? Because it smells to me like "astroturfing".

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#218

Post by JKCalhoun »

tzs wrote: post #87
JKCalhoun wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously there are progressive ways to do it. You make it tiered such that the the typical household never leaves the lowest pricing tier. Golf courses, cattle ranchers and almond farmers on the other hand....

So you don't raise the price of water for typical households, which is only a small percentage of their budget, and instead raise the price of food, which is generally a much larger percentage of their budget?

I'm not sure there is a better solution though. Perhaps cattle and almonds were not meant to be raised/grown in California.

Tangential example: I understand aluminum recycling plants dot the Columbia river because (hydro-electric) power is cheap. In a similar way, water-dependent agriculture and animal husbandry ought to follow the water.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#219

Post by ezsmi »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #92
kolanos wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to reall…

The point is that if you add up ALL the swimming pools in California, it totals ~0 water. Not even a rounding error. Farmers measure water use in MILLIONS of ACRE FEET. There is even an acronym for it: MAF. There are rice paddies surrounding the capital city of Sacramento. Why do we keep asking residents to sacrifice for even trivial pleasurers like swimming, when it makes no difference at all?

> There are rice paddies surrounding the capital city of Sacramento.

Believe it or not but the area where they grow rice in Sacramento is actually a flood plain. [1] Given your handle maybe you knew that? Surprisingly rice's water needs aren't all that high either. It's not the lowest but it's not the worst by a long shot. [2]

[1] https://www.ppic.org/blog/the-yolo-bypass-its-a-floodplain-i...

[2] https://localwiki.org/davis/Rice_Paddies

"In an arid state with growing pressures on water availability and use, it may surprise many to learn that rice is one of our most water-wise crops, requiring 25 gallons to produce each serving, like oranges, while almonds require 80 gallons per serving"

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#220

Post by dragonwriter »

mdavis6890 wrote: post #92
kolanos wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to reall…

The point is that if you add up ALL the swimming pools in California, it totals ~0 water. Not even a rounding error. Farmers measure water use in MILLIONS of ACRE FEET. There is even an acronym for it: MAF. There are rice paddies surrounding the capital city of Sacramento. Why do we keep asking residents to sacrifice for even trivial pleasurers like swimming, when it makes no difference at all?

> There are rice paddies surrounding the capital city of Sacramento.

Rice paddies don't consume lots of water (flooding rice improves yield, but the rice doesn't consume most of the water, it's still available for downstream uses.)

> Why do we keep asking residents to sacrifice for even trivial pleasurers like swimming, when it makes no difference at all?

Because if you cut agricultural use, and thereby the tax base, residents will have to make sacrifices, too.

Post reply on HN