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

California has about one year of water left

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#61

Post by victoro »

blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

Perhaps you should crack open that Econ 101 textbook first, because that same Econ 101 textbook would likely have water as the canonical example used to explain elasticity of demand. Demand for water is inelastic, both for agriculture and home use, so letting the "supply and demand curve" take care of it would likely cause a sharp increase in price in a very short period of time, which, from a policy perspective, seems like a terrible idea that would cause panic and economic instability.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#62

Post by aasarava »

ebbv wrote: post #23
blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

Are you serious? You want WATER to have its price raised to reflect the realities in California? All that would do is screw all the poor and middle class people and it would do nothing to solve the shortage. Put down Atlas Shrugged for a minute and look at reality. The whole state of California has always been on water welfare, and if it weren't life there would be untenable for anyone who wasn't extremely wealthy. I…

Guess who uses 80% of the water in CA? It's not the poor and middle class, it's agriculture, typically run by large corporations. Guess how much agriculture contributes to CA's GDP? 2%.

It's possible to alter the way water is used in the state in ways that benefit the residents and don't screw the poor and middle class.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#63

Post by harryh »

sp332 wrote: post #49
rayiner wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first argument is specious, because the government could just pay for drinking water for people who can't afford it, like they do for food. Drinking water is a small percentage of the overall usage anyway. As for your other points, yes. Allowing farmers to use a common resource for free effectively subsidizes them. It'd make a lot more sense for everyone to grow those crops in places like Florida instead of in th…

Having the government pay is regulation. It effectively sets the price of water.

No it doesn't. The government pays market prices for lots of things.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#64

Post by andreasklinger »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #42
sp332 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

> If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. I suppose you're trying to be sarcastic but this is the plain truth. Government should make some effort to help people prosper. It shouldn't be propping up unsustainable business because of short term economic benefits.

agree, but also people prosper better if they dont have to worry about how to feed themselves.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#65

Post by timtadh »

ebbv wrote: post #23
blake8086 wrote: post #11

I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.

Are you serious? You want WATER to have its price raised to reflect the realities in California? All that would do is screw all the poor and middle class people and it would do nothing to solve the shortage. Put down Atlas Shrugged for a minute and look at reality. The whole state of California has always been on water welfare, and if it weren't life there would be untenable for anyone who wasn't extremely wealthy. I…

From my perspective the problem with water in the US is that no one is charged for the actual water. You are only charged for the processing costs. This means that the market never acts to regulate how much water you use. People will use less water if it costs them more.

However, changing to a market system for water would never happen overnight. People are not used to paying for water and cannot move on a dime. However, long term I think it is our only solution. The midwest, who many on HN seem to have a bad impression of, has the world's largest fresh water reserve in the world (the great lakes). Meanwhile, the plain states and California will have continuing water difficulties moving forward. Long term, people are going to need to move to where there is abundant water. It is not sustainable for so many people to live in marginal areas.

One way to encourage people to move is by having market forces act. If the price of water is cheaper in the great lakes region there will be a slow but steady migration there over time. This will in turn ease the brewing crisis in the west. This isn't the only action which should be taken but we should consider (from a policy perspective) the idea of allowing market forces to act in the water market.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#66

Post by mikeash »

sp332 wrote: post #39
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes more sense to farm in places that have reliable sources of water. I don't see why we need to subsidize California's crops, especially when we have so much great soil wasted on corn. Farming, in general, in the US is fairly messed up. Perhaps this crisis will lead to a fix. Maintaining the status quo and pretending everything is okay via regulation and political corruption is what got us here. Lets not contin…

That's a great argument for moving farms, but that would take years. It won't prevent a shortage in the next year.

Why not? Prices would rise, producers in wetter areas would produce more to take advantage, and everyone eats. We'd pay more for food, but we're already paying it, just indirectly and in a more damaging fashion with subsidized water.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#67

Post by Shivetya »

What has happened before will happen again. California had similar issues with mild winters and the reduced water associated with them back in the 1930s. [1][2] The difference now of course is that there are a great many more people there and a great many more farms.

The Bureau of Reclamation is pretty much at fault for the lack of water available for human consumption because of mismanagement and prices below the cost which encouraged over development of farming.

The current drought can likely be traced to changes in the Pacific Ocean dating to 1976 [3]. As in, we have more than time enough to see something was changing.

What can be done? Rationing won't solve it all. The states need to have more control over the water that the Bureau of Reclamation currently controls. They are in a far better position to understand their needs and cooperate amongst each other instead of using the weight of Washington politics to force a way.

First and foremost priorities have to be set and reasonable prices for the cost of water need to be assigned. Yes this will likely mean a reduction in farming but it is artificially propped up now by unrealistically low water prices. People also need to understand conservation and large lawns should either be restricted or the water use for such maintenance needs to be surcharged.

The key is better use of resources and not redirecting the problem which is more mismanagement than natural causes.

note, I haven't read much on site #2, but they consolidated nicely some NOAA charts which make it easier to view.

[1] http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/061/mwr-061-09-0251.pdf [2] http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2015/01/california-dro... [3] http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Cl...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#68

Post by waterlesscloud »

aasarava wrote: post #62
ebbv wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? You want WATER to have its price raised to reflect the realities in California? All that would do is screw all the poor and middle class people and it would do nothing to solve the shortage. Put down Atlas Shrugged for a minute and look at reality. The whole state of California has always been on water welfare, and if it weren't life there would be untenable for anyone who wasn't extremely wealthy. I…

Guess who uses 80% of the water in CA? It's not the poor and middle class, it's agriculture, typically run by large corporations. Guess how much agriculture contributes to CA's GDP? 2%. It's possible to alter the way water is used in the state in ways that benefit the residents and don't screw the poor and middle class.

The poor and the middle class, screwed by lower food prices.

Agriculture (food) actually does have benefits for nearly everyone, you know.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#69

Post by emodendroket »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #28
sp332 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

It makes more sense to farm in places that have reliable sources of water. I don't see why we need to subsidize California's crops, especially when we have so much great soil wasted on corn. Farming, in general, in the US is fairly messed up. Perhaps this crisis will lead to a fix. Maintaining the status quo and pretending everything is okay via regulation and political corruption is what got us here. Lets not contin…

Even if we just grant that agriculture should be moved away from CA, no one wants to just see it stop immediately for the same reason that the government didn't demolish all buildings that were made with asbestos when they determined that it was harmful to human health.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#70

Post by adamc »

dba7dba wrote: post #17
tdees40 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that under most scenarios water for humans is fine, but agriculture will be totally dead in California.

Which in turn means US will have to do with about 50% less vegetable/crop to consume.

No, because the price would go up and some of the crop would get grown in other states. Hard to say what the exact percentage would stabilize at, though, and it certainly takes a long time to plant orchards, etc.

But what is the percentage of income taken by produce? Not very high, I'd guess. Probably affect the poor the most.

Post reply on HN