6 ms·

Instrumenting water usage I think is the more important task that would fall under a national water grid. California uses an incredible amount of water that can

by kodah 5y ago

Instrumenting water usage I think is the more important task that would fall under a national water grid. California uses an incredible amount of water that can be blamed on maintaining habitats, scenic views, and landscapes as well as agriculture respectively [1]. When states can't get enough water from the ground, they focus on redirecting rivers [2] which destroys other habitats and extracts value out of other states. [1]: https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ [2]: https://disappearingwest.org/rivers.html https://disappearingwest.org/rivers.html

01100011 5y ago
Is it a problem if CA uses an incredible amount of water if that water can be provided cheaply and in an environmentally sound manner? Sure, the current situation is unsustainable, but we don't have to focus on conservation and usage restrictions if we have a way to supply CA's water wants while reducing flood damage outside of CA. What do you think is more likely: - People voluntarily accepting a reduced quality of life by cutting back on water usage and forgoing water intensive produce. - Using excess water from flooding in other parts of the country to replenish CA aquifers and support historical usage patterns while helping to reduce flood damage outside CA.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  Moving a lot of water is very expensive. Perhaps not impractically so, but it’s getting there.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  > People voluntarily accepting a reduced quality of life by cutting back on water usage and forgoing water intensive produce. IMO this is what people need to understand. If we need conservation, it won't be the people of California cutting back on their showers. That has very little to do with consumption. It will be everyone in the country who benefits from all the farming in California who will have to learn to do without some of their favorite water-intensive produce.
  - kodah 5y ago
    Farming is indeed a big user of water, but I was surprised to see maintaining scenic views and habitat conservation being nearly equal to farming. That's effectively drawing water from other states and destroying other habitats in the name of conservation in California.
    - demadog 5y ago
      What are some specific examples? The main I could think of would be green belts and parks in the suburbs, not watering state park forests.
      - ciceryadam 5y ago
        What comes to my mind are the 11 golf courses in Indian Wells, or 89 golf courses the Coachella valley / Palm Springs area. It's an arid region, it always baffles me to see it around there.
- jshen 5y ago
  There are very basic things CA can do to improve things before your hypothetical. For example, we can filter and re-use water rather than letting it drain into the ocean. However, everyone a politician proposes this, their opponents brand it “toilet-to-tap” and it never passes because who wants to drink toilet water.
  - 01100011 5y ago
    San Diego is doing it now, and the presentation I saw mentioned the TDS of the water is actually lower with toilet to tap. That's nice because normally the water is liquid rock.
zamfi 5y ago
> California uses an incredible amount of water that can be blamed on maintaining habitats Wait, am I reading this right? Are you saying California is to be "blamed" for letting water run through rivers it normally (i.e., without human intervention) would have run through, so that the natural habitats of the state continue to serve as habitats? Your second point is even about how bad destroying habitats is. I'm confused about what you're trying to say. As I understand it, about 50% of CA's water use goes to maintaining rivers, things like making sure fresh water always flows out the golden gate, rather than letting seawater flow into the Sacramento delta (which would be an ecological catastrophe). You can "instrument" (measure?) all the water you want, but in California you will always need a ton of water flowing out through the Bay unless you want to destroy huge areas of wetlands. The amount that goes towards environmental needs won't decrease just because you measure it. But overall I completely agree with you: we should measure and users should be charge appropriately for water in agriculture, as they are for any other use -- the water rights system means that water use is not allocated efficiently in the economic sense, but rather by seniority and incumbency (as is typical with other scarce resources in the state: zoning, Prop 13, rent control, etc).
- luckylion 5y ago
  > Are you saying California is to be "blamed" for letting water run through rivers it normally Don't you think there's a valid argument to not just interfere in one particular area ("pumping up water") and then throw your hands up when it comes to others that could help offset the first interference? If you have e.g. flood events and you don't capture that water, you're essentially wasting it. Instead, draining wetlands and channeling rivers makes sure that you get rid of the water as soon as possible and dump it into the ocean instead of giving it a chance to permeate into the ground.
  - zamfi 5y ago
    I do think there’s an argument to be made for this, and it’s in fact what’s happening in California — where water reservoirs (Hetch Hetchy, etc) flooded valleys that were once habitat for spawning fish, the state has built fish tunnels, etc., and the state is careful to release water that keeps the downstream flow going to preserve wetlands, etc. All this is important, and it’s the “environmental” use that I read the OP complaining about — but maybe I misread.

by kodah 5y ago

01100011 5y ago

Is it a problem if CA uses an incredible amount of water if that water can be provided cheaply and in an environmentally sound manner? Sure, the current situation is unsustainable, but we don't have to focus on conservation and usage restrictions if we have a way to supply CA's water wants while reducing flood damage outside of CA. What do you think is more likely: - People voluntarily accepting a reduced quality of life by cutting back on water usage and forgoing water intensive produce. - Using excess water from flooding in other parts of the country to replenish CA aquifers and support historical usage patterns while helping to reduce flood damage outside CA.

saagarjha 5y ago
Moving a lot of water is very expensive. Perhaps not impractically so, but it’s getting there.
rootusrootus 5y ago
> People voluntarily accepting a reduced quality of life by cutting back on water usage and forgoing water intensive produce. IMO this is what people need to understand. If we need conservation, it won't be the people of California cutting back on their showers. That has very little to do with consumption. It will be everyone in the country who benefits from all the farming in California who will have to learn to do without some of their favorite water-intensive produce.
- kodah 5y ago
  Farming is indeed a big user of water, but I was surprised to see maintaining scenic views and habitat conservation being nearly equal to farming. That's effectively drawing water from other states and destroying other habitats in the name of conservation in California.
  - demadog 5y ago
    What are some specific examples? The main I could think of would be green belts and parks in the suburbs, not watering state park forests.
    - ciceryadam 5y ago
      What comes to my mind are the 11 golf courses in Indian Wells, or 89 golf courses the Coachella valley / Palm Springs area. It's an arid region, it always baffles me to see it around there.
jshen 5y ago
There are very basic things CA can do to improve things before your hypothetical. For example, we can filter and re-use water rather than letting it drain into the ocean. However, everyone a politician proposes this, their opponents brand it “toilet-to-tap” and it never passes because who wants to drink toilet water.
- 01100011 5y ago
  San Diego is doing it now, and the presentation I saw mentioned the TDS of the water is actually lower with toilet to tap. That's nice because normally the water is liquid rock.

zamfi 5y ago

> California uses an incredible amount of water that can be blamed on maintaining habitats Wait, am I reading this right? Are you saying California is to be "blamed" for letting water run through rivers it normally (i.e., without human intervention) would have run through, so that the natural habitats of the state continue to serve as habitats? Your second point is even about how bad destroying habitats is. I'm confused about what you're trying to say. As I understand it, about 50% of CA's water use goes to maintaining rivers, things like making sure fresh water always flows out the golden gate, rather than letting seawater flow into the Sacramento delta (which would be an ecological catastrophe). You can "instrument" (measure?) all the water you want, but in California you will always need a ton of water flowing out through the Bay unless you want to destroy huge areas of wetlands. The amount that goes towards environmental needs won't decrease just because you measure it. But overall I completely agree with you: we should measure and users should be charge appropriately for water in agriculture, as they are for any other use -- the water rights system means that water use is not allocated efficiently in the economic sense, but rather by seniority and incumbency (as is typical with other scarce resources in the state: zoning, Prop 13, rent control, etc).

luckylion 5y ago
> Are you saying California is to be "blamed" for letting water run through rivers it normally Don't you think there's a valid argument to not just interfere in one particular area ("pumping up water") and then throw your hands up when it comes to others that could help offset the first interference? If you have e.g. flood events and you don't capture that water, you're essentially wasting it. Instead, draining wetlands and channeling rivers makes sure that you get rid of the water as soon as possible and dump it into the ocean instead of giving it a chance to permeate into the ground.
- zamfi 5y ago
  I do think there’s an argument to be made for this, and it’s in fact what’s happening in California — where water reservoirs (Hetch Hetchy, etc) flooded valleys that were once habitat for spawning fish, the state has built fish tunnels, etc., and the state is careful to release water that keeps the downstream flow going to preserve wetlands, etc. All this is important, and it’s the “environmental” use that I read the OP complaining about — but maybe I misread.