4 ms·

At the very least, regionalize the production better. Throwing out the way we currently do water rights and putting sensible limits on how much can be used for

At the very least, regionalize the production better. Throwing out the way we currently do water rights and putting sensible limits on how much can be used for ag production would go a long ways.

causi 3y ago
Throwing out the way we currently do water rights Good luck with that one. Southern California has defeated basically every attempt to reform water rights.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  Referendums can do almost anything in California can't they? Pass a water reform law as an amendment to their constitution that states the judiciary has no power to interpret the amendment. Declare war on the pacific and declare pi to be 3.
  - eppp 3y ago
    Arent water rights mostly a federal issue at this point?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      No. The water compacts between states are the responsibility of the federal government, but water rights (i.e. landowners' right to access ground water and sometimes river water) are state matters.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      Why would the federal government have any control over a states water rights? Except on water on federal land the US government has no authority to control a state’s use of its water, nor should it.
    - datavirtue 3y ago
      Climate change === mass migration. Right now all the people out west think that is something that applies to people in third world countries. In the US it's going to be an attempted migration of the west's middle class to other regions. At first they will have buyers for their homes to fund the migration...until they don't. Before that there will be a frenzy of wasteful government spending to try to preserve the regions and way of life. It will not work. Climate change is the reason we keep digging up civilizations that "just disappeared without a trace."
      - galangalalgol 3y ago
        The actual west coast is pretty low impact other than sea rise. If you are close enough for the breeze but far enough to avoid the storm surge with a 1.5m rise, that is your ideal. The reason is the cool/cold pacific current. There is no prediction that it will shift, and if it did, I'm not sure any models would tell us what came next. The rainfall issue is certainly a thing, but it impacts agriculture and housing further inland. The east isn't safe either, the extremes will get more extreme. Places that don't usually have A/C will need it. Altitude is your best bet. Buy on the west side of the rockies for the rain at ~7-9kft. Not that your deed will matter when everyone comes knocking.
        dredmorbius 3y ago
        Southern California's watershed (Los Angeles, San Diego, Inland Empire), extends 1,500 miles eastward, to the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains, watershed for the Colorado River. One reason urban developments are so sparse and widely-separated west of the Rockies is that there's simply insufficient water, rights are held under Spanish-derived law (seniority), and those senior rights are held, many by large West Coast cities, most especially Los Angeles. Climate changes across that entire region will have a profound impact on coastal dwellers, even if sea-level rise is modest and coastal climates are largely unchanged. Simply because that's not where the water is coming from. (Northern California's water largely comes from Sierra Nevada snowpack (San Francisco, Central Valley), or local reservoirs (mostly coastal counties). Santa Barbara similarly relies on local sources, largely Lake Cachuma, a reservoir in the Santa Ynez Valley. Supplies can dip parlously low in drought years. <https://www.countyofsb.org/2795/Reservoirs https://www.countyofsb.org/2795/Reservoirs>).
masklinn 3y ago
> regionalize the production better. Most crops you can’t regionalise, they grow where they grow and that’s about it. You won’t get oranges in Maine (except under greenhouses at insane costs). The Central Valley is exceptional because of how flexible and productive an environment it is, it’s home to half the fruits, vegetables, and nuts production of the US, 8% of the US agricultural value, and is the primary worldwide producer of several crops. So what is necessary is to change minds about what produces people get, and when.
- hattmall 3y ago
  Any idea what percent of it irrigation it accounts for?
jacobr1 3y ago
There is already a great way to do this: prices! The market isn't perfect, but with commodities it really does seem to function. We don't need artificial usage limits, we just need to charge for water on the open market. Reserve whatever is needed for residential use and sustainability and auction the rest. Or allow it to be sold freely. Right now many pleases have a tragedy of the commons situation. If you don't use up as much water as possible, and dig deeper wells to use it up faster than your neighbors, then you can end up with no water and out of business. If you could secure specific water rights you could plan your business. Farms _would_ go out of business with crops that are too water-intensive relative to the price, but that is actually a desirable property of the system. Those crops will raise in price until the demand lowers and the cost of higher water is sustained. Lower water-utilizing crops will replace the previous higher intensity usage.
- lapcat 3y ago
  Letting a few billionaires buy all of the water in the country is just one step closer to complete dystopia.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    Yeah, making water sources private property might not turn out well. But if the water sources are publicly managed and water consumption is priced progressively (and sustainably) at the source, I don't see what the problem is of letting markets do the rest. Although water pollution should be addressed as well, but this is required regardless of the scenario.
- happymellon 3y ago
  > There is already a great way to do this: prices! The market isn't perfect, but with commodities it really does seem to function. That's absolutely insane. Don't worry poor people, you won't be able to drink water because Amazon is being lazy with pumping tap water to cool it's data centers, but it's okay because markets have deemed you irrelevant!
gruez 3y ago
>Throwing out the way we currently do water rights IANAL but is that even remotely feasible? My impression is that they're basically akin to property rights, and the state unilaterally revoking them is going to be blocked by the courts.

At the very least, regionalize the production better. Throwing out the way we currently do water rights and putting sensible limits on how much can be used for ag production would go a long ways.

causi 3y ago

Throwing out the way we currently do water rights Good luck with that one. Southern California has defeated basically every attempt to reform water rights.

galangalalgol 3y ago
Referendums can do almost anything in California can't they? Pass a water reform law as an amendment to their constitution that states the judiciary has no power to interpret the amendment. Declare war on the pacific and declare pi to be 3.
- eppp 3y ago
  Arent water rights mostly a federal issue at this point?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    No. The water compacts between states are the responsibility of the federal government, but water rights (i.e. landowners' right to access ground water and sometimes river water) are state matters.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    Why would the federal government have any control over a states water rights? Except on water on federal land the US government has no authority to control a state’s use of its water, nor should it.
  - datavirtue 3y ago
    Climate change === mass migration. Right now all the people out west think that is something that applies to people in third world countries. In the US it's going to be an attempted migration of the west's middle class to other regions. At first they will have buyers for their homes to fund the migration...until they don't. Before that there will be a frenzy of wasteful government spending to try to preserve the regions and way of life. It will not work. Climate change is the reason we keep digging up civilizations that "just disappeared without a trace."
    - galangalalgol 3y ago
      The actual west coast is pretty low impact other than sea rise. If you are close enough for the breeze but far enough to avoid the storm surge with a 1.5m rise, that is your ideal. The reason is the cool/cold pacific current. There is no prediction that it will shift, and if it did, I'm not sure any models would tell us what came next. The rainfall issue is certainly a thing, but it impacts agriculture and housing further inland. The east isn't safe either, the extremes will get more extreme. Places that don't usually have A/C will need it. Altitude is your best bet. Buy on the west side of the rockies for the rain at ~7-9kft. Not that your deed will matter when everyone comes knocking.
      - dredmorbius 3y ago
        Southern California's watershed (Los Angeles, San Diego, Inland Empire), extends 1,500 miles eastward, to the eastern front of the Rocky Mountains, watershed for the Colorado River. One reason urban developments are so sparse and widely-separated west of the Rockies is that there's simply insufficient water, rights are held under Spanish-derived law (seniority), and those senior rights are held, many by large West Coast cities, most especially Los Angeles. Climate changes across that entire region will have a profound impact on coastal dwellers, even if sea-level rise is modest and coastal climates are largely unchanged. Simply because that's not where the water is coming from. (Northern California's water largely comes from Sierra Nevada snowpack (San Francisco, Central Valley), or local reservoirs (mostly coastal counties). Santa Barbara similarly relies on local sources, largely Lake Cachuma, a reservoir in the Santa Ynez Valley. Supplies can dip parlously low in drought years. <https://www.countyofsb.org/2795/Reservoirs https://www.countyofsb.org/2795/Reservoirs>).

masklinn 3y ago

> regionalize the production better. Most crops you can’t regionalise, they grow where they grow and that’s about it. You won’t get oranges in Maine (except under greenhouses at insane costs). The Central Valley is exceptional because of how flexible and productive an environment it is, it’s home to half the fruits, vegetables, and nuts production of the US, 8% of the US agricultural value, and is the primary worldwide producer of several crops. So what is necessary is to change minds about what produces people get, and when.

hattmall 3y ago
Any idea what percent of it irrigation it accounts for?

jacobr1 3y ago

There is already a great way to do this: prices! The market isn't perfect, but with commodities it really does seem to function. We don't need artificial usage limits, we just need to charge for water on the open market. Reserve whatever is needed for residential use and sustainability and auction the rest. Or allow it to be sold freely. Right now many pleases have a tragedy of the commons situation. If you don't use up as much water as possible, and dig deeper wells to use it up faster than your neighbors, then you can end up with no water and out of business. If you could secure specific water rights you could plan your business. Farms _would_ go out of business with crops that are too water-intensive relative to the price, but that is actually a desirable property of the system. Those crops will raise in price until the demand lowers and the cost of higher water is sustained. Lower water-utilizing crops will replace the previous higher intensity usage.

lapcat 3y ago
Letting a few billionaires buy all of the water in the country is just one step closer to complete dystopia.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  Yeah, making water sources private property might not turn out well. But if the water sources are publicly managed and water consumption is priced progressively (and sustainably) at the source, I don't see what the problem is of letting markets do the rest. Although water pollution should be addressed as well, but this is required regardless of the scenario.
happymellon 3y ago
> There is already a great way to do this: prices! The market isn't perfect, but with commodities it really does seem to function. That's absolutely insane. Don't worry poor people, you won't be able to drink water because Amazon is being lazy with pumping tap water to cool it's data centers, but it's okay because markets have deemed you irrelevant!

gruez 3y ago

>Throwing out the way we currently do water rights IANAL but is that even remotely feasible? My impression is that they're basically akin to property rights, and the state unilaterally revoking them is going to be blocked by the courts.