15 ms·

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...

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...