6 ms·

On the flip side, does this state have enough water for the other 10-odd million people who'd be living in those 3.6 million homes?

honkhonkpants 10y ago
The state has plenty of water for people to drink. It doesn't have enough water for all those people, and to irrigate a gigantic desert, at the same time.
ThrustVectoring 10y ago
Uhh, yes. California might have to export a bit less alfalfa. The vast majority of water use is agricultural.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Yes, and it's also frequently very wastefully used in agriculture. More water-efficient agricultural practices need to be mandated.
  - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
    I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.
    - thaumasiotes 10y ago
      > I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level You don't see any problems with this statement?
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        Not at all. Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. "Correct" is just short-hand for getting what we as a society want out of our water distribution system. Like, we don't want to use so much water that a river runs dry and kills all the fish in it, even if it means selling a few million dollars more worth of water.
        r00fus 10y ago
        > Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. Some context [1] on what "profit maximization" we're offering to say Nestle... "the permit that Nestle uses to operate its water pipeline in the San Bernardino national forest costs just $524 (£357) a year.". Sounds like a racket to me... [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        A market-based solution means the quantity of water sold is determined by the market. There's no other way to know what the "correct" quantity is; that is the entire purpose of the market. What you're describing is a centrally-planned solution, not a market one. I lost all my respect for carbon tax advocates after realizing that their definition of the appropriate tax was "high enough that people stop doing things I don't like". That's not a market system. It will be a market system if you set a price on the thing you don't like, and people respond to that price. Tweaking your price until you get the outcome you originally wanted is a way to claim the rhetoric of "market policies" without any of the substance.
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        Uhm, not really? Like, I'd describe the system that auctions off frequency spectrum as "market-based", even though the quantity of spectrum sold is fixed. The frequency spectrum auction is a market designed and created by a central planner, sure, but it's still a market. If you wanted to be really clever, you could separate out the environmental concerns as a separate entity and give them a budget to buy and leave unused the water rights that best support their mission. That seems a bit weird to me, though - I'd rather just figure out how much water we can distribute safely, and then auction off the right to receive that distribution at fair market prices.
      - st3v3r 10y ago
        Most people who advocate "market solutions" always assume perfectly rational actors, and forget that they're basically making it so only the rich can do whatever it is they're advocating for.
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        The counter-party then has the money, though, which they can then exchange for doing what they want. Like, I'm fine if a rich person decides to use their money to decide how water gets allocated, as long as they spend enough money on it that it ends up paying for better alternatives for those affected by the changes. Even to the point where I'm unable to get drinking water in my home - they'd have to pay for me to take time off work indefinitely and stay somewhere really nice, sure, but I'd be okay with that.
    - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
      Jimmy Carter tried to simply force the Central Valley farmers to pay water rates they were already legally obligated to pay. hey decided they'd rather fund Ronald Reagan's candidacy.
    - snrplfth 10y ago
      Right - people don't realize that if people had to actually pay non-subsidized rates for water, and had to pay the same rate no matter whether they were using it for irrigation or household use, then most of these wasteful agricultural applications would end pretty sharpish.
      - seanp2k2 10y ago
        But then you'd be taking away their jobs since they've built empires which rely on such subsidies.
        snrplfth 10y ago
        Well, that's a pretty common reason why people oppose market prices, isn't it: "I have done this thing in the past, therefore I have a right to do it indefinitely."
    - Tempest1981 10y ago
      But instead, we have rulings like this: "Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution" http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/20/california-drought-court-rules-tiered-water-rates-violate-state-constitution/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/20/california-drought-cou...
- tzs 10y ago
  (This is not directly in reply to you. It's just something that bugs me about water use discussion, and your comment is a good place to attach it) What I almost never see considered whenever I read an article on California's agricultural water use is what happens to the water. For instance, I see it commonly cited that it takes one gallon (3.79 l) of water to grow one almond. OK, but note that an almond weighs about 1.2 g. A gallon of water weighs 3.79 kg, so clearly that gallon of water used to produce an almond does not actually all end up in the almond. At most, 0.03% of that water actually ends up in the almond, and so will leave the area when that almond is sent off to some distant market. Where does the remaining 99.97% of that gallon go? Some presumably gets absorbed in the ground, and eventually ends up in the local aquifer, where it can come back via local wells to be used again for more crops. Some will be taken up by the plant and released into the atmosphere via the plant's respiration. Some will go onto the ground and evaporate into the atmosphere. Some that ends up in the atmosphere will condense out locally. Some might end up in local rain. Some might end up in distant rain. I'm sure there are plenty of other paths and cycles I'm overlooking. My point is that we can't just say water was taken from X and dumped on crops at Y, and treat it as if that water is now lost forever. It's the system as a whole that has to be considered.
twothamendment 10y ago
I keep waiting for California to go the way of Israel and have more fresh water than they need. It would really help out the West if the coast could make use of the water that is right next to them. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...
- thefalcon 10y ago
  How do we go from waiting to doing?
  - bpicolo 10y ago
    There's not a great answer that isn't "Convince the government to spend tons of money on it" I feel like. Desalination is FAR more expensive than doing what we're currently doing (that is, getting it fresh to start). Until that balance tips it's unlikely we'd invest into desalination heavily.
    - thefalcon 10y ago
      Can YC be convinced to spend tons of money on it? Add it to the project list?
  - chiph 10y ago
    Convince the people living along the coast to allow the construction of a desalination plant nearby. Which won't happen because it'd devalue their million-dollar property (multi-million in places like Laguna Beach).
    - rhizome 10y ago
      Diablo Canyon?
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  Right, you just have to import more fossil fuel. Problem solved. A desalination plant is a direct trade of energy for fresh water, and isn't our bottomless appetite for energy already making a mess of things?
whamlastxmas 10y ago
Yes, many times over. It doesn't have enough for twice the population while continuing the existing agriculture.
- tzs 10y ago
  I think a good case can be made for prioritizing agriculture over population growth for California. California has some of the best soil in the world and some of the best climate for agriculture. It's just a bit short on water. It's a lot easier to bring water to that soil and climate then to bring that soil and climate to someplace that has enough water. People, on the other hand, are more flexible. We can thrive pretty much anywhere. So it makes some sense from a resource efficiency perspective to put the big population centers somewhere that doesn't have terrific agricultural potential, and utilize the great agricultural areas for agriculture.

honkhonkpants 10y ago

The state has plenty of water for people to drink. It doesn't have enough water for all those people, and to irrigate a gigantic desert, at the same time.

ThrustVectoring 10y ago

Uhh, yes. California might have to export a bit less alfalfa. The vast majority of water use is agricultural.

Grishnakh 10y ago
Yes, and it's also frequently very wastefully used in agriculture. More water-efficient agricultural practices need to be mandated.
- ThrustVectoring 10y ago
  I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level You don't see any problems with this statement?
    - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
      Not at all. Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. "Correct" is just short-hand for getting what we as a society want out of our water distribution system. Like, we don't want to use so much water that a river runs dry and kills all the fish in it, even if it means selling a few million dollars more worth of water.
      - r00fus 10y ago
        > Market based doesn't mean profit-maximizing from the supply side. Some context [1] on what "profit maximization" we're offering to say Nestle... "the permit that Nestle uses to operate its water pipeline in the San Bernardino national forest costs just $524 (£357) a year.". Sounds like a racket to me... [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36161580
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        A market-based solution means the quantity of water sold is determined by the market. There's no other way to know what the "correct" quantity is; that is the entire purpose of the market. What you're describing is a centrally-planned solution, not a market one. I lost all my respect for carbon tax advocates after realizing that their definition of the appropriate tax was "high enough that people stop doing things I don't like". That's not a market system. It will be a market system if you set a price on the thing you don't like, and people respond to that price. Tweaking your price until you get the outcome you originally wanted is a way to claim the rhetoric of "market policies" without any of the substance.
        ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        Uhm, not really? Like, I'd describe the system that auctions off frequency spectrum as "market-based", even though the quantity of spectrum sold is fixed. The frequency spectrum auction is a market designed and created by a central planner, sure, but it's still a market. If you wanted to be really clever, you could separate out the environmental concerns as a separate entity and give them a budget to buy and leave unused the water rights that best support their mission. That seems a bit weird to me, though - I'd rather just figure out how much water we can distribute safely, and then auction off the right to receive that distribution at fair market prices.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      Most people who advocate "market solutions" always assume perfectly rational actors, and forget that they're basically making it so only the rich can do whatever it is they're advocating for.
      - ThrustVectoring 10y ago
        The counter-party then has the money, though, which they can then exchange for doing what they want. Like, I'm fine if a rich person decides to use their money to decide how water gets allocated, as long as they spend enough money on it that it ends up paying for better alternatives for those affected by the changes. Even to the point where I'm unable to get drinking water in my home - they'd have to pay for me to take time off work indefinitely and stay somewhere really nice, sure, but I'd be okay with that.
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    Jimmy Carter tried to simply force the Central Valley farmers to pay water rates they were already legally obligated to pay. hey decided they'd rather fund Ronald Reagan's candidacy.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    Right - people don't realize that if people had to actually pay non-subsidized rates for water, and had to pay the same rate no matter whether they were using it for irrigation or household use, then most of these wasteful agricultural applications would end pretty sharpish.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      But then you'd be taking away their jobs since they've built empires which rely on such subsidies.
      - snrplfth 10y ago
        Well, that's a pretty common reason why people oppose market prices, isn't it: "I have done this thing in the past, therefore I have a right to do it indefinitely."
  - Tempest1981 10y ago
    But instead, we have rulings like this: "Court rules tiered water rates violate state constitution" http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/20/california-drought-court-rules-tiered-water-rates-violate-state-constitution/ http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/04/20/california-drought-cou...
tzs 10y ago
(This is not directly in reply to you. It's just something that bugs me about water use discussion, and your comment is a good place to attach it) What I almost never see considered whenever I read an article on California's agricultural water use is what happens to the water. For instance, I see it commonly cited that it takes one gallon (3.79 l) of water to grow one almond. OK, but note that an almond weighs about 1.2 g. A gallon of water weighs 3.79 kg, so clearly that gallon of water used to produce an almond does not actually all end up in the almond. At most, 0.03% of that water actually ends up in the almond, and so will leave the area when that almond is sent off to some distant market. Where does the remaining 99.97% of that gallon go? Some presumably gets absorbed in the ground, and eventually ends up in the local aquifer, where it can come back via local wells to be used again for more crops. Some will be taken up by the plant and released into the atmosphere via the plant's respiration. Some will go onto the ground and evaporate into the atmosphere. Some that ends up in the atmosphere will condense out locally. Some might end up in local rain. Some might end up in distant rain. I'm sure there are plenty of other paths and cycles I'm overlooking. My point is that we can't just say water was taken from X and dumped on crops at Y, and treat it as if that water is now lost forever. It's the system as a whole that has to be considered.

twothamendment 10y ago

I keep waiting for California to go the way of Israel and have more fresh water than they need. It would really help out the West if the coast could make use of the water that is right next to them. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...

thefalcon 10y ago
How do we go from waiting to doing?
- bpicolo 10y ago
  There's not a great answer that isn't "Convince the government to spend tons of money on it" I feel like. Desalination is FAR more expensive than doing what we're currently doing (that is, getting it fresh to start). Until that balance tips it's unlikely we'd invest into desalination heavily.
  - thefalcon 10y ago
    Can YC be convinced to spend tons of money on it? Add it to the project list?
- chiph 10y ago
  Convince the people living along the coast to allow the construction of a desalination plant nearby. Which won't happen because it'd devalue their million-dollar property (multi-million in places like Laguna Beach).
  - rhizome 10y ago
    Diablo Canyon?
sliverstorm 10y ago
Right, you just have to import more fossil fuel. Problem solved. A desalination plant is a direct trade of energy for fresh water, and isn't our bottomless appetite for energy already making a mess of things?

whamlastxmas 10y ago

Yes, many times over. It doesn't have enough for twice the population while continuing the existing agriculture.

tzs 10y ago
I think a good case can be made for prioritizing agriculture over population growth for California. California has some of the best soil in the world and some of the best climate for agriculture. It's just a bit short on water. It's a lot easier to bring water to that soil and climate then to bring that soil and climate to someplace that has enough water. People, on the other hand, are more flexible. We can thrive pretty much anywhere. So it makes some sense from a resource efficiency perspective to put the big population centers somewhere that doesn't have terrific agricultural potential, and utilize the great agricultural areas for agriculture.