5 ms·

I still don't understand this argument. Yes, it matters that residents use less water than prior to the drought -- at least a lot more than you give it credit.

I still don't understand this argument. Yes, it matters that residents use less water than prior to the drought -- at least a lot more than you give it credit. The residential water reservoir system in California isn't being plundered by Big Agri, Big Ranch, Big Bottled Water, or Big Frack. Yes, those things use most of the water in the state. No, the vast majority of that water would not otherwise make it into an existing reservoir that supplies residents. It would make it into a non-reservoir body of water or it would help replenish the water table (which is what they were using until this winter). There is a finite volume of reservoir space and it currently takes several years to build new ones. There is a fixed and finite amount of surface area upstream of those reservoirs that collect and consolidate rainwater into the reservoirs. Average long-term usage by a slightly growing population (at least until recently) is still outpacing long-term replenishment rates of those reservoirs. Yes, when California urban residents get fined for running their sprinklers mid-day, it helps align incentives. Yes, incentivizing residents to buy low-flow toilets helps (at least when they don't clog due to insufficient force to flush solids). I'd rather we kick golf courses and sprawling estates off of the residential water system or at least charge incrementally more for more water used per property. But it still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of water rights in the state is (1) used by industry that doesn't get their water from the same reservoirs that residences do and (2) the current water rights regime is enshrined in the California constitution so it would take a well organized campaign and a tremendous amount of political willpower to get it changed. I don't see that happening right now, especially since it threatens several major industries in the state.

Retric 10y ago
There is not a total separation between water underground and water in rivers. Streams can replenish the water table around them, or be replenished by the water table. Simply extracting as much water from the ground as you can will generally cost people 'downstream' water. In the long term there is only one source of natural fresh water, precipitation and it's finite abet renewable. A great example of this is from Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin People extracting water from hundreds of miles away end up drying up streams. One viable option is simply to ban alfalfa or other high water use crops. No state constitutional issues with that. PS: Globally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer are becoming very rare.
- scurvy 10y ago
  "I drink your milkshake" but water instead of oil.
joshuaheard 10y ago
It's quite simple. Residential water use is 10% of total state water usage, while Agriculture uses 90%. So, if you save 25% of Residential water, you save 2.5% overall, but if you save 25% of Agricultural water usage, you save 27.5% overall. So, common sense dictates you seek savings in the Agricultural space. This is especially true where the Agricultural space does not use efficient free market principals to allocate resources, but uses an antiquated, arbitrary, and subsidized bureaucratic system that should be reformed but for powerful lobbying interests. Your description of water distribution is not accurate. Water in Southern California, whether for Residential use or Agriculture, is mostly brought down from Northern California via the Colorado River and several man-made aqueducts. Since the water is distributed not based on any rational manner, we have Agriculture using water to grow rice in the desert. I won't even discuss the wacky environmental laws that prevent water from going to grow food because of some tiny fish somewhere.
- rconti 10y ago
  Brought down from Northern California via the Colorado River, huh? Might want to check a map. Or, like, the name of the river. http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/60/89860-004-F57B199C.gif http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/60/89860-004-F57B19...
  - joshuaheard 10y ago
    True, I should have said brought down from Northern California and the Colorado River. https://cnx.org/resources/226094ef8ecea226912aec367cf3fbe445617bbd/graphics23.png https://cnx.org/resources/226094ef8ecea226912aec367cf3fbe445...
- jedberg 10y ago
  It's not that simple though. If you reduce residential use by 25%, there is no impact to the economy -- actually there is a boost because of the increased revenues for landscapers and home improvement stores. On the other hand, if you reduce agriculture by even 10%, it would destroy our state's economy.
bradleyjg 10y ago
>> I don't see that happening right now, especially since it threatens several major industries in the state. Can you quantify how major these industries are as a percentage of employment and/or state GDP?
- dmoy 10y ago
  Idk about the others, but ag is like 1.5-2% of CA GDP.

Retric 10y ago

There is not a total separation between water underground and water in rivers. Streams can replenish the water table around them, or be replenished by the water table. Simply extracting as much water from the ground as you can will generally cost people 'downstream' water. In the long term there is only one source of natural fresh water, precipitation and it's finite abet renewable. A great example of this is from Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Artesian_Basin People extracting water from hundreds of miles away end up drying up streams. One viable option is simply to ban alfalfa or other high water use crops. No state constitutional issues with that. PS: Globally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_aquifer are becoming very rare.

scurvy 10y ago
"I drink your milkshake" but water instead of oil.

joshuaheard 10y ago

It's quite simple. Residential water use is 10% of total state water usage, while Agriculture uses 90%. So, if you save 25% of Residential water, you save 2.5% overall, but if you save 25% of Agricultural water usage, you save 27.5% overall. So, common sense dictates you seek savings in the Agricultural space. This is especially true where the Agricultural space does not use efficient free market principals to allocate resources, but uses an antiquated, arbitrary, and subsidized bureaucratic system that should be reformed but for powerful lobbying interests. Your description of water distribution is not accurate. Water in Southern California, whether for Residential use or Agriculture, is mostly brought down from Northern California via the Colorado River and several man-made aqueducts. Since the water is distributed not based on any rational manner, we have Agriculture using water to grow rice in the desert. I won't even discuss the wacky environmental laws that prevent water from going to grow food because of some tiny fish somewhere.

rconti 10y ago
Brought down from Northern California via the Colorado River, huh? Might want to check a map. Or, like, the name of the river. http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/60/89860-004-F57B199C.gif http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/60/89860-004-F57B19...
- joshuaheard 10y ago
  True, I should have said brought down from Northern California and the Colorado River. https://cnx.org/resources/226094ef8ecea226912aec367cf3fbe445617bbd/graphics23.png https://cnx.org/resources/226094ef8ecea226912aec367cf3fbe445...
jedberg 10y ago
It's not that simple though. If you reduce residential use by 25%, there is no impact to the economy -- actually there is a boost because of the increased revenues for landscapers and home improvement stores. On the other hand, if you reduce agriculture by even 10%, it would destroy our state's economy.

bradleyjg 10y ago

>> I don't see that happening right now, especially since it threatens several major industries in the state. Can you quantify how major these industries are as a percentage of employment and/or state GDP?

dmoy 10y ago
Idk about the others, but ag is like 1.5-2% of CA GDP.