4 ms·

> price the water appropriately based on the sustainable supply. In the regions where the water problem is most relevant, pricing based on the sustainable supp

> price the water appropriately based on the sustainable supply. In the regions where the water problem is most relevant, pricing based on the sustainable supply isn't possible because the water supply isn't sustainable, and won't be no matter how much you charge or how little you use.

CaptainNegative 4y ago
Wouldn't that be a self-correcting problem as much of the population moves away due to enormous utility costs?
- Maursault 4y ago
  The water-use by agriculture is unsustainable whether there is population or not. Compared to agriculture use of water, all other water uses are negligible. So if you eliminate the residential population and empty the cities, agriculture will still use all the water and fail. But if you eliminate the agriculture, there will be plenty of water for the cities and population. A desert has enough water to support a population. It was foolish to introduce industrialized agriculture in a desert.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  It would be, except that the farmers become wealthy from their unsustainable business practices and start lobbying for insane shit like piping in water from wetter regions. The problem needs to be nipped at the bud; ban farming with fossil water.
Maursault 4y ago
And this sort of thing would also kill individual residents that aren't agriculture conglomerates with deep pockets. Agriculture water use must be separated from residential uses. They'll never recover enough water by squeezing residential use because 86% of the water in the West is used for crops.[1] Over 30% of all the water used is for growing crops to feed cows. I don't agree with the solution advanced in the linked video of paying farmers not to grow alfalfa. I think we should reduce the cow population by 75% (bringing meat consumption in line with the rest of the world), raise the price of beef, and tax the hell out of it. We do it for tobacco, and meat eaters put the same kind of strain on the health system, so let them pay for their entitlement. And saving water isn't the only benefit of reducing the population of cows, which would include longer life spans and much, much less contribution to Climate Change. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gN1x6sVTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gN1x6sVTc
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > And this sort of thing would also kill individual residents that aren't agriculture conglomerates with deep pockets. Agriculture water use must be separated from residential uses. That's pretty easy to do with graduated rates, where customers are charged a low rate for the first X gallons of water, but then higher rates for more usage. The bigger issue, though, is water rights are completely fucked. In a lot of jurisdictions you are free to suck out any water you can with a well on your property. That means those with the "strongest pump" are essentially free to suck out all the water from their neighbors. Our system of water rights in the West needs a major overhaul that won't be easy due to entrenched, powerful interests and the difficulty of changing some of these laws.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Residential water use is not the problem. Not even remotely. The penultimate problem is agriculture, and the singular ultimate problem is, seriously, cows. They can screw around with minor adjustments here and there, but the easiest and best solution is to adjust population diet, curb agricultural greed and entitlement, massively reduce the population of cows, raise the price of beef and tax it. The average American eats 55lbs. of beef a year, 4.5lbs. a month, over a pound a week. I guess we can wait until they all have massive coronaries, but it would be better to just stop this madness and restrict these eaters to 3 quarters of a pound of beef a week.
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      > Residential water use is not the problem. Not even remotely. The penultimate problem is agriculture, and the singular ultimate problem is, seriously, cows. I completely agree, which is why I said that graduated rates are a good solution - they would tax agricultural (and any heavy user) heavily while leaving residential use cheap. However, I'm also not in favor of other solutions that are complete fantasies when it comes to our political system. You say "but the easiest and best solution is to adjust population diet, curb agricultural greed and entitlement, massively reduce the population of cows, raise the price of beef and tax it." Except that is a guaranteed political non-starter in essentially every country that has high beef consumption.

CaptainNegative 4y ago

Wouldn't that be a self-correcting problem as much of the population moves away due to enormous utility costs?

Maursault 4y ago
The water-use by agriculture is unsustainable whether there is population or not. Compared to agriculture use of water, all other water uses are negligible. So if you eliminate the residential population and empty the cities, agriculture will still use all the water and fail. But if you eliminate the agriculture, there will be plenty of water for the cities and population. A desert has enough water to support a population. It was foolish to introduce industrialized agriculture in a desert.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
It would be, except that the farmers become wealthy from their unsustainable business practices and start lobbying for insane shit like piping in water from wetter regions. The problem needs to be nipped at the bud; ban farming with fossil water.

Maursault 4y ago

And this sort of thing would also kill individual residents that aren't agriculture conglomerates with deep pockets. Agriculture water use must be separated from residential uses. They'll never recover enough water by squeezing residential use because 86% of the water in the West is used for crops.[1] Over 30% of all the water used is for growing crops to feed cows. I don't agree with the solution advanced in the linked video of paying farmers not to grow alfalfa. I think we should reduce the cow population by 75% (bringing meat consumption in line with the rest of the world), raise the price of beef, and tax the hell out of it. We do it for tobacco, and meat eaters put the same kind of strain on the health system, so let them pay for their entitlement. And saving water isn't the only benefit of reducing the population of cows, which would include longer life spans and much, much less contribution to Climate Change. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gN1x6sVTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0gN1x6sVTc

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> And this sort of thing would also kill individual residents that aren't agriculture conglomerates with deep pockets. Agriculture water use must be separated from residential uses. That's pretty easy to do with graduated rates, where customers are charged a low rate for the first X gallons of water, but then higher rates for more usage. The bigger issue, though, is water rights are completely fucked. In a lot of jurisdictions you are free to suck out any water you can with a well on your property. That means those with the "strongest pump" are essentially free to suck out all the water from their neighbors. Our system of water rights in the West needs a major overhaul that won't be easy due to entrenched, powerful interests and the difficulty of changing some of these laws.
- Maursault 4y ago
  Residential water use is not the problem. Not even remotely. The penultimate problem is agriculture, and the singular ultimate problem is, seriously, cows. They can screw around with minor adjustments here and there, but the easiest and best solution is to adjust population diet, curb agricultural greed and entitlement, massively reduce the population of cows, raise the price of beef and tax it. The average American eats 55lbs. of beef a year, 4.5lbs. a month, over a pound a week. I guess we can wait until they all have massive coronaries, but it would be better to just stop this madness and restrict these eaters to 3 quarters of a pound of beef a week.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > Residential water use is not the problem. Not even remotely. The penultimate problem is agriculture, and the singular ultimate problem is, seriously, cows. I completely agree, which is why I said that graduated rates are a good solution - they would tax agricultural (and any heavy user) heavily while leaving residential use cheap. However, I'm also not in favor of other solutions that are complete fantasies when it comes to our political system. You say "but the easiest and best solution is to adjust population diet, curb agricultural greed and entitlement, massively reduce the population of cows, raise the price of beef and tax it." Except that is a guaranteed political non-starter in essentially every country that has high beef consumption.