12 ms·

> allowing crops to be irrigated and drinking glasses to be filled. Ugh. Drinking glasses are going to be filled regardless of how much rain we get. I don't

by birken 10y ago

> allowing crops to be irrigated and drinking glasses to be filled. Ugh. Drinking glasses are going to be filled regardless of how much rain we get. I don't want to diminish the importance of agriculture, it's important and I'm excited that we had a very wet winter to keep things going, but residential water supplies have never been at risk throughout this whole drought.

beatpanda 10y ago
Not true. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterville-california-drought-bottled-water-showers-toilets https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterv...
- jacobolus 10y ago
  You’re talking about a place that gets its drinking water from wells, rather than from state reservoirs. Notably, there wasn’t (and still isn’t, but it’s been improved a tiny bit) sufficient regulation about water pulled from the ground, so residential wells in small rural towns are in direct competition with neighboring farms which can pretty much pull as much water as they want, even if it makes nearby residents go thirsty. This is not a problem for the general CA water supply.
- birken 10y ago
  Touche. I should have stated that in areas where agriculture have raided groundwater supplies, which take much longer to refresh than reservoirs, residential water supplies may be at risk. Even still, people can generally afford whatever it costs for water to supply their towns. I doubt any towns will collapse because they don't have access to cheap water, whereas there are a lot of crops that do depend on that.
spydum 10y ago
You sure? I seem to recall hearing a number of shallower wells going dry nearby the heavy agricultural areas?
sulam 10y ago
Hell, whole towns that have water rights which are secondary to agriculture were without water last year.
- gech 10y ago
  Almonds for export has to go. Anyone have a list of names of almond farmers? Or if its not "families" what are the names of the big almond agribusiness operations going on? As they are responsible for the majority of water consumption and causes of drought problems.
  - jedberg 10y ago
    Did you know that 100% of the almonds consumed in the US are grown in California, and 70% of all almonds consumed worldwide are grown here? It's a multi-billion dollar industry in California. Sadly, it's not so black and white to just say "cut 'em off!"
    - fatal510 10y ago
      Agriculture is absolutely nothing compared to other sectors in California. They are at 2% of gross state product. So yeah. "cut 'em off". 2% of our GSP and using all the water because they have family/historical water "rights".
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    Almonds are an efficient use of water compared to cattle, and you would save California water by switching to almond milk from cow milk. California almonds use only 10% of California's water (not "the majority of water consumption") and supply the vast majority of the world's almonds. Alfalfa for cattle uses 50% more Californian water than that and ultimately produces a relatively (to almonds) miniscule amount of calories for human consumption.
    - scruple 10y ago
      And, the real kicker to me, that Alfalfa is overwhelming exported over seas to countries that can't grow it themselves because of, drumroll please, prolonged drought conditions.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
alsetmusic 10y ago
> Ugh. Drinking glasses are going to be filled regardless of how much rain we get. I live in the Bay Area and many restaurants here have notes on their menus explaining that they only serve water on request due to drought. This is much different from a cavalier auto-fill that is customary in some places.
- ars 10y ago
  And this is why the whole country laughs at California's water problems. Printing the paper saying we won't fill glasses used 48 times[1] more water than the water in the glass! The amount of water used is so minuscule that you become a laughing stock just for suggesting it! And CA made it a law.... > "cavalier auto-fill" Please tell me that was your way of making fun of the law, and not that you actually support it. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/it-takes-more-than-3-gallons-of-water-to-make-a-single-sheet-of-paper/258838/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/it-ta...
  - killin_dan 10y ago
    Something you might not know about California. (I lived there for a few years) They will support LITERALLY ANYTHING as long as a lawmaker tells them it's going to help them. They'll regulate ANYTHING for any reason. It's been that way since at least the 40s, probably before then too though.
    - Cd00d 10y ago
      Not sure I follow the criticism. California is a pro-regulation state, you posit, and I'll posit that Texas is an anti-regulation state. Yet, population adjusted, California ranks higher in economy by Gross State Product than Texas. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GSP_per_capita_in_2015.png#/media/File:GSP_per_capita_in_2015.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GSP_per_capita_in_20...
      - killin_dan 10y ago
        Amazing how I didn't make any economic claims whatsoever about either state. People like you ruin conversations about politics. I don't give half a shit how much money California pulls in, I'd never go back, I'll never hire a californian, so it has zero bearing to me. I'd thank you for the info, but you only posted to try and prove me wrong about something I didn't even say in the first place.
russdill 10y ago
I think the key thing that most people aren't aware of on this is that there are two rates people can and will pay for water. One is for agriculture water supplies and one is for municipal. And they differ by orders of magnitude. That's why desalination can help solve any municipal supply problems but won't make an iota of difference for agriculture.
- scythe 10y ago
  The severe concern that has existed about the cost of desalination and other alternative water supply techniques and their impact on the cost of agriculture is somewhat misleading. It's true that agriculture as it currently exists is structurally dependent on low water prices which may not be attainable with alternative resources whose utilization may nonetheless become necessary. However, this situation exists in agriculture partially because it has heretofore been a more reliable cost-savings to invest in efficiency in other resource utilization rather than water. An increase in the price of water will spur investment in higher water efficiency. So the cost increase to the consumer will not necessarily be the cost increase of the water times the water usage, and will probably be less.
- BurningFrog 10y ago
  Now imagine if those two groups were allowed to trade!
  - mirimir 10y ago
    So why aren't they? So farmers can grow some crop, which embodies a great deal of water, and then sell it. Even something like grapes, which are mostly water. Why can't they just sell the water? Maybe process and bottle it.
    - aidenn0 10y ago
      There are too many stakeholders in water-rights that would all have to agree to any renegotiation, which makes adopting such rules essentially impossible.
hodgesrm 10y ago
On the contrary the town of Cloverdale faced serious water shortages in 2014 that were alleviated only with help of the local Bear Republic Brewery. [1] Microbrew fans have yet another reason to be cheerful buying their beer, which was pretty outstanding even without this story. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/bear-republic-brewing-company_n_4705500.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/bear-republic-brewi...
azinman2 10y ago
Not true. Many towns in rural areas had to have bottled water trucked in for residents.

by birken 10y ago

beatpanda 10y ago

Not true. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterville-california-drought-bottled-water-showers-toilets https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/20/east-porterv...

jacobolus 10y ago
You’re talking about a place that gets its drinking water from wells, rather than from state reservoirs. Notably, there wasn’t (and still isn’t, but it’s been improved a tiny bit) sufficient regulation about water pulled from the ground, so residential wells in small rural towns are in direct competition with neighboring farms which can pretty much pull as much water as they want, even if it makes nearby residents go thirsty. This is not a problem for the general CA water supply.
birken 10y ago
Touche. I should have stated that in areas where agriculture have raided groundwater supplies, which take much longer to refresh than reservoirs, residential water supplies may be at risk. Even still, people can generally afford whatever it costs for water to supply their towns. I doubt any towns will collapse because they don't have access to cheap water, whereas there are a lot of crops that do depend on that.

spydum 10y ago

You sure? I seem to recall hearing a number of shallower wells going dry nearby the heavy agricultural areas?

sulam 10y ago

Hell, whole towns that have water rights which are secondary to agriculture were without water last year.

gech 10y ago
Almonds for export has to go. Anyone have a list of names of almond farmers? Or if its not "families" what are the names of the big almond agribusiness operations going on? As they are responsible for the majority of water consumption and causes of drought problems.
- jedberg 10y ago
  Did you know that 100% of the almonds consumed in the US are grown in California, and 70% of all almonds consumed worldwide are grown here? It's a multi-billion dollar industry in California. Sadly, it's not so black and white to just say "cut 'em off!"
  - fatal510 10y ago
    Agriculture is absolutely nothing compared to other sectors in California. They are at 2% of gross state product. So yeah. "cut 'em off". 2% of our GSP and using all the water because they have family/historical water "rights".
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Almonds are an efficient use of water compared to cattle, and you would save California water by switching to almond milk from cow milk. California almonds use only 10% of California's water (not "the majority of water consumption") and supply the vast majority of the world's almonds. Alfalfa for cattle uses 50% more Californian water than that and ultimately produces a relatively (to almonds) miniscule amount of calories for human consumption.
  - scruple 10y ago
    And, the real kicker to me, that Alfalfa is overwhelming exported over seas to countries that can't grow it themselves because of, drumroll please, prolonged drought conditions.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

alsetmusic 10y ago

> Ugh. Drinking glasses are going to be filled regardless of how much rain we get. I live in the Bay Area and many restaurants here have notes on their menus explaining that they only serve water on request due to drought. This is much different from a cavalier auto-fill that is customary in some places.

ars 10y ago
And this is why the whole country laughs at California's water problems. Printing the paper saying we won't fill glasses used 48 times[1] more water than the water in the glass! The amount of water used is so minuscule that you become a laughing stock just for suggesting it! And CA made it a law.... > "cavalier auto-fill" Please tell me that was your way of making fun of the law, and not that you actually support it. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/it-takes-more-than-3-gallons-of-water-to-make-a-single-sheet-of-paper/258838/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/06/it-ta...
- killin_dan 10y ago
  Something you might not know about California. (I lived there for a few years) They will support LITERALLY ANYTHING as long as a lawmaker tells them it's going to help them. They'll regulate ANYTHING for any reason. It's been that way since at least the 40s, probably before then too though.
  - Cd00d 10y ago
    Not sure I follow the criticism. California is a pro-regulation state, you posit, and I'll posit that Texas is an anti-regulation state. Yet, population adjusted, California ranks higher in economy by Gross State Product than Texas. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GSP_per_capita_in_2015.png#/media/File:GSP_per_capita_in_2015.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GSP_per_capita_in_20...
    - killin_dan 10y ago
      Amazing how I didn't make any economic claims whatsoever about either state. People like you ruin conversations about politics. I don't give half a shit how much money California pulls in, I'd never go back, I'll never hire a californian, so it has zero bearing to me. I'd thank you for the info, but you only posted to try and prove me wrong about something I didn't even say in the first place.

russdill 10y ago

I think the key thing that most people aren't aware of on this is that there are two rates people can and will pay for water. One is for agriculture water supplies and one is for municipal. And they differ by orders of magnitude. That's why desalination can help solve any municipal supply problems but won't make an iota of difference for agriculture.

scythe 10y ago
The severe concern that has existed about the cost of desalination and other alternative water supply techniques and their impact on the cost of agriculture is somewhat misleading. It's true that agriculture as it currently exists is structurally dependent on low water prices which may not be attainable with alternative resources whose utilization may nonetheless become necessary. However, this situation exists in agriculture partially because it has heretofore been a more reliable cost-savings to invest in efficiency in other resource utilization rather than water. An increase in the price of water will spur investment in higher water efficiency. So the cost increase to the consumer will not necessarily be the cost increase of the water times the water usage, and will probably be less.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Now imagine if those two groups were allowed to trade!
- mirimir 10y ago
  So why aren't they? So farmers can grow some crop, which embodies a great deal of water, and then sell it. Even something like grapes, which are mostly water. Why can't they just sell the water? Maybe process and bottle it.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    There are too many stakeholders in water-rights that would all have to agree to any renegotiation, which makes adopting such rules essentially impossible.

hodgesrm 10y ago

On the contrary the town of Cloverdale faced serious water shortages in 2014 that were alleviated only with help of the local Bear Republic Brewery. [1] Microbrew fans have yet another reason to be cheerful buying their beer, which was pretty outstanding even without this story. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/bear-republic-brewing-company_n_4705500.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/31/bear-republic-brewi...

azinman2 10y ago

Not true. Many towns in rural areas had to have bottled water trucked in for residents.