5 ms·

I disagree that we should build desalination, even if we can "afford" it. There are agricultural users of water paying astronomically lower prices due to long s

by s0rce 4y ago

I disagree that we should build desalination, even if we can "afford" it. There are agricultural users of water paying astronomically lower prices due to long standing water rights. It would almost certainly be cheaper to pay them to conserve (grow less of water-wasting crops, leave fields fallow, or upgrade to more efficient drip irrigation). The urban water use is around 20%, making them pay billions for this 20% makes no sense when the majority of the remaining is wasted on inefficient agriculture. If we actually had scarce water and agriculture could pay market rate for desalinated water along side residential consumers then we should build. I don't think there are there yet. Maybe soon...

rektide 4y ago
Now that there is a Tier 1 & escallating water shortage, there literally is no longer a water resource available to farmers. Personally, the thought of the state paying people to lower usage sounds absurd, when there literally was not the resource to use in the first place. These water-rights holders are holding rights which are underwater.
beambot 4y ago
Solutions that ensure access to a necessary element for all life are not mutually exclusive. The water rights (and disputes) date back centuries; waiting for the courts could easily result in calamity -- even if those rights are quintessentially & obviously a non-ideal "tragedy of the commons."
BurningFrog 4y ago
Yeah, buying out the current water right owners and moving towards market prices on water seems like the best way to handle this. But that requires a government that can and wants to do things. I hope to be surprised, but I don't see California doing either of these things...
- nikanj 4y ago
  That requires a population that wants a government that does things. Not very popular in the US.
TimTheTinker 4y ago
> leave fields fallow Please no. We're facing intense inflation, and the solution has to involve supply-side improvements, not just demand-side tweaks. Subsidies for drip irrigation sounds interesting, though - as long as actual water usage reduction is part of the requirement.
- s0rce 4y ago
  It might be objectively better to pay someone to not grow alfalfa for export to the middle east then it is to waste water on growing it. In the end, this is likely cheaper than building desalination infrastructure to make up for the wasted water so you save money. Don't think this is a good long term plan though.
  - TimTheTinker 4y ago
    > pay someone to not grow alfalfa for export to the middle east Or just add tariffs for anything we'd like to curb export of - that's the traditional solution, and it does work. Then turn around and use the tariff proceeds to further alleviate water issues.
  - jdkee 4y ago
    Or let the market price and allocate water.
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    > In the end, this is likely cheaper than building desalination infrastructure to make up for the wasted water so you save money. Fresh water is scarce and the demand for fresh water continues to grow annually (growing population, growing economy, etc). Fresh water is an appreciating asset, with fixed (or reducing) supply. Increasing the supply of fresh water is beneficial for many, many reasons globally, and increasing investment into desalination will keep reducing the cost (helping developing countries also build desalination). Getting society to "use less fresh water" is non-competitive, and at best a medium term "stop gap". The economy is competitive, it doesn't "allow for" non-competitive players. You can try to change the inertia of the economy, but you would likely fail. Building infrastructure to increase the amount of fresh water we have on earth (without unaccounted for externalities - e.g. it should be carbon-neutral/negative) is economically competitive and as such 1. durable; 2. improves lives; 3. changes the mental-model from "wasted water" to "wasted energy" (which is a simpler problem to solve). > I disagree that we should build desalination, even if we can "afford" it. Spreading this message of disagreement with increasing durable, cost-effective, and carbon-neutral infrastructure because it is not cost-optimal does a disservice to the global population and the long term sustainability of the global ecosystem. Way better off with the message "I agree with building more desalination. We should also get ... to do ...".
pengaru 4y ago
Or just make agriculture desalinate their own water on their own dime and let the people continue drinking the ground/river water. It's not like you should be irrigating fields with that mineral-heavy water anyways, isn't it slowly salting the land? If agriculture had to foot the bill for their desalination needs they would become more efficient automatically.
- thghtihadanacct 4y ago
  OOH, pipe the water in from mid ocean, farmers (us subsidizing of course) desal and use the water. This has prob been brought up but i aint heard it yet. I like it.
redsid 4y ago
I hope we do this instead of financialzing one more necessity of life. Structurally increasing such supply significantly will really bring down the costs and can help people worldwide
trhway 4y ago
>The urban water use is around 20% which means that around $20B/year will cover desalination of all the water consumed in California solving all the environmental issues caused by water consumption, and all those problems probably would become close to nonexistent even if we cover only half the needs at $10B/year. Especially considering that climate change would be making situation only worse, and thus desalination is unavoidable anyway.

by s0rce 4y ago

rektide 4y ago

Now that there is a Tier 1 & escallating water shortage, there literally is no longer a water resource available to farmers. Personally, the thought of the state paying people to lower usage sounds absurd, when there literally was not the resource to use in the first place. These water-rights holders are holding rights which are underwater.

beambot 4y ago

Solutions that ensure access to a necessary element for all life are not mutually exclusive. The water rights (and disputes) date back centuries; waiting for the courts could easily result in calamity -- even if those rights are quintessentially & obviously a non-ideal "tragedy of the commons."

BurningFrog 4y ago

Yeah, buying out the current water right owners and moving towards market prices on water seems like the best way to handle this. But that requires a government that can and wants to do things. I hope to be surprised, but I don't see California doing either of these things...

nikanj 4y ago
That requires a population that wants a government that does things. Not very popular in the US.

TimTheTinker 4y ago

> leave fields fallow Please no. We're facing intense inflation, and the solution has to involve supply-side improvements, not just demand-side tweaks. Subsidies for drip irrigation sounds interesting, though - as long as actual water usage reduction is part of the requirement.

s0rce 4y ago
It might be objectively better to pay someone to not grow alfalfa for export to the middle east then it is to waste water on growing it. In the end, this is likely cheaper than building desalination infrastructure to make up for the wasted water so you save money. Don't think this is a good long term plan though.
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  > pay someone to not grow alfalfa for export to the middle east Or just add tariffs for anything we'd like to curb export of - that's the traditional solution, and it does work. Then turn around and use the tariff proceeds to further alleviate water issues.
- jdkee 4y ago
  Or let the market price and allocate water.
- yazaddaruvala 4y ago
  > In the end, this is likely cheaper than building desalination infrastructure to make up for the wasted water so you save money. Fresh water is scarce and the demand for fresh water continues to grow annually (growing population, growing economy, etc). Fresh water is an appreciating asset, with fixed (or reducing) supply. Increasing the supply of fresh water is beneficial for many, many reasons globally, and increasing investment into desalination will keep reducing the cost (helping developing countries also build desalination). Getting society to "use less fresh water" is non-competitive, and at best a medium term "stop gap". The economy is competitive, it doesn't "allow for" non-competitive players. You can try to change the inertia of the economy, but you would likely fail. Building infrastructure to increase the amount of fresh water we have on earth (without unaccounted for externalities - e.g. it should be carbon-neutral/negative) is economically competitive and as such 1. durable; 2. improves lives; 3. changes the mental-model from "wasted water" to "wasted energy" (which is a simpler problem to solve). > I disagree that we should build desalination, even if we can "afford" it. Spreading this message of disagreement with increasing durable, cost-effective, and carbon-neutral infrastructure because it is not cost-optimal does a disservice to the global population and the long term sustainability of the global ecosystem. Way better off with the message "I agree with building more desalination. We should also get ... to do ...".

pengaru 4y ago

Or just make agriculture desalinate their own water on their own dime and let the people continue drinking the ground/river water. It's not like you should be irrigating fields with that mineral-heavy water anyways, isn't it slowly salting the land? If agriculture had to foot the bill for their desalination needs they would become more efficient automatically.

thghtihadanacct 4y ago
OOH, pipe the water in from mid ocean, farmers (us subsidizing of course) desal and use the water. This has prob been brought up but i aint heard it yet. I like it.

redsid 4y ago

I hope we do this instead of financialzing one more necessity of life. Structurally increasing such supply significantly will really bring down the costs and can help people worldwide

trhway 4y ago

>The urban water use is around 20% which means that around $20B/year will cover desalination of all the water consumed in California solving all the environmental issues caused by water consumption, and all those problems probably would become close to nonexistent even if we cover only half the needs at $10B/year. Especially considering that climate change would be making situation only worse, and thus desalination is unavoidable anyway.