3 ms·

> 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 "b

by 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.
  - kodah 5y ago
    I wish I'd found the article that lists every major river California has redirected for their own needs. It starts to make the "habitat preservation" reasoning look really dim. It's about six major rivers in total and most of them are dried up now. Why are California's habitats considered so important versus the habitats and communities that lived near those rivers in the first place? That doesn't even begin to touch the agricultural based consumption, which is equally significant.
    - zamfi 5y ago
      Well, basically every river from the Sierra that goes into the Central Valley has been dammed or redirected, and yes many are now a trickle because of it, and the Bay and Sacramento River delta are saltier for it. I think the pushback is about externalities, which I mentioned elsewhere. Fishermen [1], for example, suffer from the increased diversion of rivers that blocks spawning grounds, etc., demands for water conservation fall on already-relatively-thrifty households rather than profligate farmers, etc. > Why are California's habitats considered so important versus the habitats and communities that lived near those rivers in the first place? I'm not sure which "habitats and communities" you're referring to, there are several. But given my read of your stance on this whole thing, I presume you're thinking of the farming communities that now benefit from the vast cheap irrigation water that comes from these reservoirs (in wet years, anyway) -- and not the Native American populations that preceded them, nor the millennia of wildlife prior still. If so, I think the idea is that the people who benefitted from nearly-free water at state and environmental expense can in fact adapt if the true cost of the water is suddenly expected of them -- or, even, is merely taken away from their heirs or corporate interests. The fish and birds, not so much. Do we have an obligation to preserve natural diversity and preexisting ecological habitat? What about if it does -- or doesn't -- benefit society over time even as it exacts real costs on those who have so far benefited from prior policy? I think ultimately these are philosophical questions. > That doesn't even begin to touch the agricultural based consumption, which is equally significant. Agreed, and this needs fixing. The "incentives matter" school in economics would probably argue that hiding the true cost of water leads to inefficiencies with respect to the harms caused by overuse. Your point on this is spot-on, though I think mere instrumentation is not enough, and prices should reflect costs. How you calculate those costs, though... [1]: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-river-flows-20180822-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-river-flows...

by zamfi 5y ago

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.
- kodah 5y ago
  I wish I'd found the article that lists every major river California has redirected for their own needs. It starts to make the "habitat preservation" reasoning look really dim. It's about six major rivers in total and most of them are dried up now. Why are California's habitats considered so important versus the habitats and communities that lived near those rivers in the first place? That doesn't even begin to touch the agricultural based consumption, which is equally significant.
  - zamfi 5y ago
    Well, basically every river from the Sierra that goes into the Central Valley has been dammed or redirected, and yes many are now a trickle because of it, and the Bay and Sacramento River delta are saltier for it. I think the pushback is about externalities, which I mentioned elsewhere. Fishermen [1], for example, suffer from the increased diversion of rivers that blocks spawning grounds, etc., demands for water conservation fall on already-relatively-thrifty households rather than profligate farmers, etc. > Why are California's habitats considered so important versus the habitats and communities that lived near those rivers in the first place? I'm not sure which "habitats and communities" you're referring to, there are several. But given my read of your stance on this whole thing, I presume you're thinking of the farming communities that now benefit from the vast cheap irrigation water that comes from these reservoirs (in wet years, anyway) -- and not the Native American populations that preceded them, nor the millennia of wildlife prior still. If so, I think the idea is that the people who benefitted from nearly-free water at state and environmental expense can in fact adapt if the true cost of the water is suddenly expected of them -- or, even, is merely taken away from their heirs or corporate interests. The fish and birds, not so much. Do we have an obligation to preserve natural diversity and preexisting ecological habitat? What about if it does -- or doesn't -- benefit society over time even as it exacts real costs on those who have so far benefited from prior policy? I think ultimately these are philosophical questions. > That doesn't even begin to touch the agricultural based consumption, which is equally significant. Agreed, and this needs fixing. The "incentives matter" school in economics would probably argue that hiding the true cost of water leads to inefficiencies with respect to the harms caused by overuse. Your point on this is spot-on, though I think mere instrumentation is not enough, and prices should reflect costs. How you calculate those costs, though... [1]: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-river-flows-20180822-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-river-flows...