5 ms·

Um, but the water in California is cheap and plentiful. Sustainably sourced, I don't know. But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" pri

by rmah 4y ago

Um, but the water in California is cheap and plentiful. Sustainably sourced, I don't know. But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" price, they get steep steep discounts. All the lawn watering, all the toilet flushes, all the swimming pools, etc. all amount to around 10% of water use in California. And those people already pay, on average, many multiples of what farmers pay per gallon.

throwaway09223 4y ago
Exactly so. Water is cheap, plentiful and available in nearly limitless quantities in the amounts used for urban living. The only scarcity centers around the far larger amounts of water used by agricultural industry -- which are in large part not growing food needed for sustenance. Much of what we grow is exported, and could more easily be grown elsewhere. For example, Saudi Arabia has been expanding hay and alfalfa farms in California because they wish to reduce the depletion of the Saudi aquifers. California water policy simply allows this to happen, at the expense of our own aquifers. Domestic water curtailment programs are a fraud. The only issue is industrial allocations of farm water. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...
kolanos 4y ago
This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to really regret not having those reservoirs. [0] Most farms have had their water share cut to zero already. [1] People would rather waste water on LA lawns and swimming pools (or dump it in the Pacific, which is what happens to most of it that reaches LA [2]) rather than produce food with it. This is just baffling to me. [0]: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/ca-reservoirs-filled-to-top-in-2019-being-drained-by-state/ https://californiaglobe.com/articles/ca-reservoirs-filled-to... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-california-farmers-us-government-drought-water https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-califor... [2]: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rainwater-lost-wet-winter-california-20190220-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rainwater-lost-wet...
- mdavis6890 4y ago
  The point is that if you add up ALL the swimming pools in California, it totals ~0 water. Not even a rounding error. Farmers measure water use in MILLIONS of ACRE FEET. There is even an acronym for it: MAF. There are rice paddies surrounding the capital city of Sacramento. Why do we keep asking residents to sacrifice for even trivial pleasurers like swimming, when it makes no difference at all?
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    No political will to force ag and industrial water users to curtail usage to sustainable (less than aquifer replenishment rate) levels.
    - kolanos 4y ago
      Farmers have been curtailed to zero. [0] Now what ? [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-california-farmers-us-government-drought-water https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-califor...
      - mdavis6890 4y ago
        See my other comment below. Farms are not at zero.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    Who is sacrificing exactly? > The federal government said Wednesday that it won’t deliver water to farmers in California’s agricultural belt, which produces roughly a quarter of the nation’s food, due to the extreme water shortages that are expected to deepen if the direly dry conditions continue through March. [0] HN is throttling me, so I'll put this here. the CVP is the largest in the country. > In a normal year the CVP delivers about 7 million acre-feet of water for agricultural, urban, and wildlife use. [1] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-california-farmers-us-government-drought-water https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-califor... [1]: https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/central-valley-project https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/central-valley-proj...
gruez 4y ago
> But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" price, they get steep steep discounts. What are the reasons for these "steep discounts"? The obvious explanation is "lobbying", but I remember a comment from a while ago mentioning that the farmers "own" water rights and those can't be expropriated from them without a costly legal process. edit: comment mentioning the water rights aspect in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31593372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31593372
- lupire 4y ago
  The costly legal process is no problem. The gov can get that back by raising the price of water afterward.
- pkaye 4y ago
  The water that farmers use in not treated so there is no treatment cost.
  - ac29 4y ago
    Agricultural water varies in price greatly but it is often like 1000x cheaper than residential water in CA. Its not the treatment process - I think a substantial portion of actual costs of water is in delivery. This source estimates 2GW needed to move water around in California on peak days: https://energy.lbl.gov/publications/water-supply-related-electricity https://energy.lbl.gov/publications/water-supply-related-ele... That's about 5-10% of total electric use in the entire state.
- wahern 4y ago
  Discounts is a very misleading word in this context. The core issues relate to the fundamental legal doctrines surrounding water rights, particularly the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_righ... and https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1143&context=jcwre https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&ht... People with prior appropriation rights to water don't need to pay for the water at all, except perhaps incidental fees and taxes. The right to use the water, contingent on availability, is a property right. The prior appropriation doctrine threads through all water issues in the Western U.S. States also have appropriation rights as between each other. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact And then the Federal government introduces another dimension of complexity as they can pick and choose flow rates and distribution. Theoretically, and AFAIU, there's nothing fundamentally anti-market with the prior appropriation doctrine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem and also the above paper by Micha Gisser. And there are markets in prior appropriation rights--farmers buy and sell their prior appropriation rights. But apparently these markets aren't very extensive, presumably hindered by a century of complicating legislation and political bickering layered atop the underlying legal doctrines.

by rmah 4y ago

throwaway09223 4y ago

Exactly so. Water is cheap, plentiful and available in nearly limitless quantities in the amounts used for urban living. The only scarcity centers around the far larger amounts of water used by agricultural industry -- which are in large part not growing food needed for sustenance. Much of what we grow is exported, and could more easily be grown elsewhere. For example, Saudi Arabia has been expanding hay and alfalfa farms in California because they wish to reduce the depletion of the Saudi aquifers. California water policy simply allows this to happen, at the expense of our own aquifers. Domestic water curtailment programs are a fraud. The only issue is industrial allocations of farm water. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...

kolanos 4y ago

This might just be me, but I prioritize agriculture over swimming pools. It's strange that it is agriculture to blame when LA doesn't source its own water and instead diverts water from the central valleys away from agriculture. Agriculture doesn't "pay their fair share", yet LA is actively taking water away from agriculture and also draining 5-7 year reservoirs. When wild fires are in full swing we're going to really regret not having those reservoirs. [0] Most farms have had their water share cut to zero already. [1] People would rather waste water on LA lawns and swimming pools (or dump it in the Pacific, which is what happens to most of it that reaches LA [2]) rather than produce food with it. This is just baffling to me. [0]: https://californiaglobe.com/articles/ca-reservoirs-filled-to-top-in-2019-being-drained-by-state/ https://californiaglobe.com/articles/ca-reservoirs-filled-to... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-california-farmers-us-government-drought-water https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-califor... [2]: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rainwater-lost-wet-winter-california-20190220-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-rainwater-lost-wet...

mdavis6890 4y ago
The point is that if you add up ALL the swimming pools in California, it totals ~0 water. Not even a rounding error. Farmers measure water use in MILLIONS of ACRE FEET. There is even an acronym for it: MAF. There are rice paddies surrounding the capital city of Sacramento. Why do we keep asking residents to sacrifice for even trivial pleasurers like swimming, when it makes no difference at all?
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  No political will to force ag and industrial water users to curtail usage to sustainable (less than aquifer replenishment rate) levels.
  - kolanos 4y ago
    Farmers have been curtailed to zero. [0] Now what ? [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-california-farmers-us-government-drought-water https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-califor...
    - mdavis6890 4y ago
      See my other comment below. Farms are not at zero.
- kolanos 4y ago
  Who is sacrificing exactly? > The federal government said Wednesday that it won’t deliver water to farmers in California’s agricultural belt, which produces roughly a quarter of the nation’s food, due to the extreme water shortages that are expected to deepen if the direly dry conditions continue through March. [0] HN is throttling me, so I'll put this here. the CVP is the largest in the country. > In a normal year the CVP delivers about 7 million acre-feet of water for agricultural, urban, and wildlife use. [1] [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-california-farmers-us-government-drought-water https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/23/rain-califor... [1]: https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/central-valley-project https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/central-valley-proj...

gruez 4y ago

> But the root of the problem is that farmers do not pay a "fair" price, they get steep steep discounts. What are the reasons for these "steep discounts"? The obvious explanation is "lobbying", but I remember a comment from a while ago mentioning that the farmers "own" water rights and those can't be expropriated from them without a costly legal process. edit: comment mentioning the water rights aspect in this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31593372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31593372

lupire 4y ago
The costly legal process is no problem. The gov can get that back by raising the price of water afterward.
pkaye 4y ago
The water that farmers use in not treated so there is no treatment cost.
- ac29 4y ago
  Agricultural water varies in price greatly but it is often like 1000x cheaper than residential water in CA. Its not the treatment process - I think a substantial portion of actual costs of water is in delivery. This source estimates 2GW needed to move water around in California on peak days: https://energy.lbl.gov/publications/water-supply-related-electricity https://energy.lbl.gov/publications/water-supply-related-ele... That's about 5-10% of total electric use in the entire state.
wahern 4y ago
Discounts is a very misleading word in this context. The core issues relate to the fundamental legal doctrines surrounding water rights, particularly the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_righ... and https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1143&context=jcwre https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&ht... People with prior appropriation rights to water don't need to pay for the water at all, except perhaps incidental fees and taxes. The right to use the water, contingent on availability, is a property right. The prior appropriation doctrine threads through all water issues in the Western U.S. States also have appropriation rights as between each other. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Compact And then the Federal government introduces another dimension of complexity as they can pick and choose flow rates and distribution. Theoretically, and AFAIU, there's nothing fundamentally anti-market with the prior appropriation doctrine. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem and also the above paper by Micha Gisser. And there are markets in prior appropriation rights--farmers buy and sell their prior appropriation rights. But apparently these markets aren't very extensive, presumably hindered by a century of complicating legislation and political bickering layered atop the underlying legal doctrines.