4 ms·
I'm not disagreeing with the author- water is being sold at a discount to agribusiness and with an extra price for normal consumers. And something must be done
by mabbo 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with the author- water is being sold at a discount to agribusiness and with an extra price for normal consumers. And something must be done about it.
But, it's never just that simple.
Is that $800/foot-acre just the cost of the water? Or does the bill for the consumer household water use also include the incredibly expensive infrastructure to pipe water to each little suburban house across California? Low density housing (pervasive because NIMBYism) also means high infrastructure costs. Someone has to pay for all the work to build and maintain those water lines down each street. (And yet, people living in a condo where one pipe serves hundreds pay the same rates!)
Agricultural use often requires just dropping a hose into the river, and they business will handle those costs themselves.
In short, the water problem in California is more than just "blame China for stealing our water". It is that too, yes, but there isn't just one problem.
... Or I'm completely off base and that $800 figure is just the water and includes none of the other costs...
- llbeansandrice 3y agoI’m not quite sure how that matters much when the primary problem with water in the western US is simply that there is not enough. If infrastructure costs are higher that’s not that big of a deal when 80% is being used to grow thirsty crops in droughts.
- mabbo 3y agoI don't disagree with you: there is an issue with "we don't have enough water here". But when we criticize a problem, it's important that we are very accurate in the size and scale of the issues. Over-stating the costs to consumers by ignoring other components of the price tag runs the risk that those who are on the other side of this issue will use your oversight as a defence. "Oh clearly you aren't being honest, as you're hiding this other fact". What if the agri-business now publish a report that shows that in actuality, when you factor in infrastructure costs, they are actually paying more for water? (I doubt it, but it's entirely possible).
- njovin 3y agoThis is definitely as corrupt and not as nuanced as you might think. I recommend the book Cadillac Desert whenever this discussion comes up. The history of water management and delivery in the American west has been one of corporate greed, regulatory capture, and massive environmental damage in the interest of profits. The author details all of this dating back to the Dam boom and the Army Corps of Engineers being in cahoots with agro-giants early in the 20th century and damming rivers all over the west with the primary (but not admitted) purpose being cheaper water for corporate farmers.
- mike_d 3y agoI believe that number is for the water alone. My water bill includes all sorts of fees for the infrastructure, in addition to the $40k I paid for a 3 foot pipe to be installed to hook up to service a few years ago.