4 ms·
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
by 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 agoBrought 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 agoTrue, 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 agoIt'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.
- nickff 10y agoPlease avoid the broken windows fallacy.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
- jedberg 10y agoI'm well aware of the broken window fallacy and I didn't fall prey to it. Unless you think every law forces a broken window fallacy. In which case, sure.
- nickff 10y agoYes, you did. >>>"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."
- jedberg 10y agoActually no I didn't. There is in fact an increase in economic activity, there just isn't an increase in wealth. And I never said there would be.
- nickff 10y agoThis argument is addressed in the 'opportunity cost' section of the "Parable of the Broken Window" Wikipedia page.[1] Briefly, the economic activity is most apparent when spent replacing the broken window, while the opportunity costs are more diffuse, as that money may have been spend in small amounts on other things, but there is no overall increase in economic activity, only a transfer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#The_opportunity_cost_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#T...
- yarou 10y agoDoes demanding efficiency of a business that is heavily subsidized and enjoys trade protectionism lead to economic decline? No, because the state is eating the cost of that inefficiency. It's time for agriculture to be subject to market forces - they've enjoyed easy money like the banks for decades.
- ethanwillis 10y agoYour math is incorrect. 25% of 90% is 22.5% not 27.5%