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

221–230 of 234 posts

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

stonemetal12 wrote: post #140
hellisothers wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait I’m confused now, what is the relationship of this 0% water to the 80% figure that ag. gets?

Fairly simple, water is a State thing, zero Federal involvement. If it gets declared a disaster then Federal disaster relief will try to help. So 0% of the extra water brought in for disaster relief will go to farmers. They have insurance for that. The 80% figure is farm use of water in the state.

> Fairly simple, water is a State thing, zero Federal involvement.

This is completely false. The federal Central Valley Project that the article concerns is a major water delivery system that is key to much of the state.

(There are other federal roles beyond the CVP in California water supply—e.g., there is a federal role in Colorado River water management, but the CVP is the big, big federal involvement.)

> If it gets declared a disaster then Federal disaster relief will try to help. So 0% of the extra water brought in for disaster relief will go to farmers.

This has nothing to do with disaster relief. This is allocation of the water flow through the CVP, which is routine supply, not something that only kicks in in a disaster.

> The 80% figure is farm use of water in the state.

No, it's the ag share of non-environmental water use in the state.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#222

Post by picsao »

maccard wrote: post #123
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone focus’s on 1% of the problem and never touch the 99%, the former is going to get frustrated and give up.

Agriculture is responsible for far more than 1% of the problem - USDA says about 10.5% [0]. And those of us who do advocate for making more sustainable decisions are not ignoring the other 89%, we're actively trying to reduce that too. [0] https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/natural-resources-environmen...

No post body was provided.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#223

Post by paulcole »

guelo wrote: post #73
eixiepia wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

If the most conscientious people stop having kids it will leave the next generation in worse shape to fight climate change. The CO2-lovers are having as many kids as possible and indoctrinating them heavily.

> most conscientious people

The difference between most and least conscientious people is essentially zero. Anybody having kids isn’t conscientious and is also a CO2-lover themselves.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#224

Post by kolanos »

scruple wrote: post #206
kolanos wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was addressing your belittling of California's food production and its importance. > No, we will not starve to death if California stops growing almonds and pistachios. California is effectively the sole source of: almonds, olives, peaches, artichokes, dates, pomegranates, raisins, sweet rice, pistachios, plums and walnuts. [0] [0]: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/california-farms-produ...

> I was addressing your belittling of California's food production and its importance. Again, show me where I did this. I'll continue to wait.

I quoted you for posterity.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#225

Post by jhgb »

mkl wrote: post #91
RayVR wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While your criticism of the US _feels_ on point, I don't think it's really valid. Are you an agriculture expert or some sort of scientist with specialty knowledge? Some super quick research: * Israel has fewer than 10 million people. California has just under 40 million (4x) * Israel Agriculture exports $2B. California $20B (10x) * California has extensive regulations around water, including the use of recycled water…

Another comparison to consider: California is 20 times bigger than Israel.

So that should make it easier, right? Generally having lower population density helps these things (for example because more precipitation falls on larger areas, with the clouds not caring how many people actually live in those areas).

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#226

Post by kolanos »

musicale wrote: post #211
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…

> rather than produce food with it California can probably produce enough food for itself without overseas exports of alfalfa and almonds.

Where are you and these other commenters getting this falsehood that a significant portion of alfalfa is exported? Is it one of those articles about that Saudi owned land exporting their alfalfa?

> Based on USDA data for 2021, only 3.9% of all U.S. hay produced and 6.4% of all alfalfa hay entered the export market. [1]

In case that's unclear, 96.1% of hay and 93.6% of alfalfa is consumed domestically.

[0]: https://hayandforage.com/article-3825-year-end-hay-exports-s...

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#227

Post by xtiansimon »

GloriousKoji wrote: post #190
xtiansimon wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would California agriculture conserve, when last week in Long Island, NY we were enjoying California cherries at 5.99/lb? Though, one wonders if that profit might not be less due to high gas price to get them here.

In the California Bay Area cherries go for 4.99/lb and if drive out to Brentwood and pick your own cherries it's $4/lb.

The economy around fresh produce is crazy.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#228

Post by FollowingTheDao »

dcsommer wrote: post #84
FollowingTheDao wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when has raising the price of anything changed anyone’s behavior? Oh you mean change the behavior of the poor, not the rich. Gotcha.

Sugar taxes are effective in decreasing consumption of sugary beverages. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_tax Progressive pricing of water for larger consumers helps alleviate impact on the poor.

> Sugar taxes are effective in decreasing consumption of sugary beverages.

You missed my point. I agree they reduce consumption, but only on the poor. There will never be any progressive pricing that will affect the wealthy in any substantial way unless we determine the price as a percent of income.

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#229

Post by chriscjcj »

Mandates to reduce water use by 15% have an unintended consequence. The fine citizens who conserve water even when there are no restrictions take it in the shorts. The lesson then becomes, "Use extra water when there are no restrictions so that when restrictions go into effect, cutting your water usage won't be so painful."

Re: California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

#230

Post by jjav »

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…

> Another crazy point - apparently for liability reasons, recycled water that’s not potable quality (meaning just fine for watering, but you shouldn’t drink it or use in a pool) cannot be delivered to consumers.

If you mean delivered by pipe into the home, that's harder since there's only one water main so it'd be a major project.

But at least in my California town, there is a distribution site where I can go pick up gray water for irrigation for free.

Post reply on HN