6 ms·

As California Drought Enters 4th Year, Conservation Efforts and Worries Increase

38 points by erickhill 12y ago

duncan_bayne 12y ago
http://boingboing.net/2009/11/16/is-there-really-a-wa.html http://boingboing.net/2009/11/16/is-there-really-a-wa.html "Neither in developed or developing countries is there a physical scarcity of water. The problem is lack of infrastructure, and more importantly, the lack of management. And those are things that are bad in both the developing and developed world." Furthermore, treating droughts with water rationing actually makes the problem worse: http://mises.org/library/clean-water-scarcity-and-market-prices http://mises.org/library/clean-water-scarcity-and-market-pri... "In the case of droughts government monopolies set prices arbitrarily and this sends consumers distorted prices. Just as bad crops increase the price of oranges so should droughts increase the price of water. Individuals then internalize their decisions to make best use of the scare resources — their own finances and the water commodity. Government distorting prices prevents individuals from acting most efficiently to conserve scarce resources."
- api 12y ago
  The problem is liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to block infrastructure for "green" or NIMBY reasons, while conservatives de-fund it because infrastructure is socialism. It's time to smash the whole political continuum and start implementing policies that work based on reason and evidence instead of vapid ideology and back room corruption.
  - masterleep 12y ago
    An excellent proposal. The first thing to do is stop allocating water through the political process, and start using the price system.
  - duncan_bayne 12y ago
    I'd put it slightly differently: it's time to start implementing policies based on ideology that is itself grounded in reality. Taxpayer funded infrastructure is socialism, and is a species of the problem discussed in the second article I linked. Edited: perhaps I should clarify the above since I'm getting downvoted into oblivion (without argumentation, but that's another issue). Essentially, the issue with existing policies is that they aren't based on ideology, or that they are but the ideology itself is wrong. That is, coercing taxpayers to pay for infrastructure is not only morally wrong, it causes price distortions, moral hazards and malinvestment that all contribute to the 'water shortage' that people are worried about. The correct solution is to entirely deregulate the production and provision of water, and let the free market determine the real price.
    - api 12y ago
      Things like water distribution are natural monopolies. Or are you suggesting that we have several independent water vendors built completely separate water pipeline infrastructures?
      - duncan_bayne 12y ago
        From http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly (with emphasis added): "Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs. It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process."
ars 12y ago
> and orders to restaurants not to serve water to customers unless asked. And in one small sentence all the problems are laid bare. This? This is their solution to drought? Not serving a cup of water in a restaurant? Can politicians really be that stupid? Or is this "we have to do something, anything, never mind if it's actually useful"? If they feel the need to actually do something, then fund a massive leak detection and fixing program. Or install mater meters and bill on an exponential scale based on number of people in the house and expected usage. Or shut down any industry that uses a lot of water (and rehire the people for the water leak program). Or fix all the well documented water waste for farming. Or copy some techniques from middle eastern nations on how to farm with less water. But no, they instead chose to not serve water in a restaurant.
- electic 12y ago
  These are all great ideas and should be implemented. But also keep in mind that every bit helps. There are a lot of restaurants in CA and it all adds up.
  - BurningFrog 12y ago
    This is Hacker News, and any hacker needs to know that it's pointless to waste effort on optimizing things that already are a microscopic cost. It does NOT add up to anything useful, and it wastes time and focus to do. 80/20 rule, people!
  - x0x0 12y ago
    Yeah, but we're quibbling about a fraction of a percent going to drinking water in restaurants while 1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; 2 - agriculture -- and my problem here is profligate doesn't begin to describe how they use water; wantonly wastes is not even accurate -- is, collectively, delusional. CA grows rice. In desert. Rice is the most water intensive crop in the world. CA grows almonds, which use 1.1 gallons of water per almond. We grow alfalfa. We grow cotton. Etc etc. Farmers have giant sprinklers running in 90+F weather in near zero humidity at 1pm in the afternoon. CA needs to have a serious discussion about what crops should be grown here, and that probably ends with both adding at least 2 if not 4 zeros to the water price paid by agriculture, and not permitting the growth of the most water intensive crops. That's not to say cities are blameless; Sacramento doesn't even meter water. They hope to do so by 2025. Oh, and (imo) the worries about food are overblown. We export lots of those food crops, and people can live without almonds. (a quick google claims 10% of the state's water use is for almonds!!! [1]) I love almonds, but we will survive without them. Here's a quote About 70 percent of alfalfa grown in California is used in dairies, and a good portion of the rest is exported to land-poor Asian countries like Japan. Yep, that’s right: In the middle of a drought, farmers are shipping fresh hay across the Pacific Ocean. The water that’s locked up in exported hay amounts to about 100 billion gallons per year—enough to supply 1 million families with drinking water for a year. [1] In the midst of a severe drought, there is zero reason to permit export of incredibly water intensive crops. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...
swamp40 12y ago
You guys sit next to an ocean full of water. And you have a critical mass of the smartest people on the planet. Get crackin'.
- ars 12y ago
  And lots of heat too. Use some solar thermal collectors for energy (not solar electricity, use the heat to directly run a pump), and desalinate some water.
  - sfeng 12y ago
    That would cost money.
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  Smart people already know that that is not an economical way to get water. Besides, the problem is more regulatory than physical.
  - sfeng 12y ago
    The economics change when the water runs out. California almonds might get a whole lot more expensive in a year.
    - BurningFrog 12y ago
      Part of me hopes that will happen. I doubt the California regulatory system will change unless the system hits rock bottom.
- druiid 12y ago
  We already have one nearly finished in San Diego. The problem is that is makes for very expensive water because it's a large scale industrial desal plant and the technology still hasn't changed in such a way as to not require lots of energy. That said, it's still at least going to provide a huge amount of water with just the one plant so there is that.
scottfr 12y ago
80% of California water is used by agriculture and antiquated water allocation laws lead to massive inefficiencies in the agriculture sphere. Stopping serving water in restaurants, putting bricks in your toilets, and turning off the fountain outside your company are all effectively irrelevant in helping conserve water. Everything of importance in solving our water issues can be found in the farm fields of the central valley.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- obstinate 12y ago
  Nope, not even close. There is plenty of water for the people living in CA. Residential use consumes less than 30%. Some farms will have problems, so food prices might increase slightly. But there is also plenty of food being grown in the US -- it is not even the second largest line-item for most families. And this is not counting all the water we waste on unnecessary things like watering lawns and taking 10 minute showers.

38 points by erickhill 12y ago

http://boingboing.net/2009/11/16/is-there-really-a-wa.html http://boingboing.net/2009/11/16/is-there-really-a-wa.html "Neither in developed or developing countries is there a physical scarcity of water. The problem is lack of infrastructure, and more importantly, the lack of management. And those are things that are bad in both the developing and developed world." Furthermore, treating droughts with water rationing actually makes the problem worse: http://mises.org/library/clean-water-scarcity-and-market-prices http://mises.org/library/clean-water-scarcity-and-market-pri... "In the case of droughts government monopolies set prices arbitrarily and this sends consumers distorted prices. Just as bad crops increase the price of oranges so should droughts increase the price of water. Individuals then internalize their decisions to make best use of the scare resources — their own finances and the water commodity. Government distorting prices prevents individuals from acting most efficiently to conserve scarce resources."

api 12y ago
The problem is liberals and conservatives. Liberals tend to block infrastructure for "green" or NIMBY reasons, while conservatives de-fund it because infrastructure is socialism. It's time to smash the whole political continuum and start implementing policies that work based on reason and evidence instead of vapid ideology and back room corruption.
- masterleep 12y ago
  An excellent proposal. The first thing to do is stop allocating water through the political process, and start using the price system.
- duncan_bayne 12y ago
  I'd put it slightly differently: it's time to start implementing policies based on ideology that is itself grounded in reality. Taxpayer funded infrastructure is socialism, and is a species of the problem discussed in the second article I linked. Edited: perhaps I should clarify the above since I'm getting downvoted into oblivion (without argumentation, but that's another issue). Essentially, the issue with existing policies is that they aren't based on ideology, or that they are but the ideology itself is wrong. That is, coercing taxpayers to pay for infrastructure is not only morally wrong, it causes price distortions, moral hazards and malinvestment that all contribute to the 'water shortage' that people are worried about. The correct solution is to entirely deregulate the production and provision of water, and let the free market determine the real price.
  - api 12y ago
    Things like water distribution are natural monopolies. Or are you suggesting that we have several independent water vendors built completely separate water pipeline infrastructures?
    - duncan_bayne 12y ago
      From http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly http://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly (with emphasis added): "Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconvenience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., digging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total costs. It is a myth that natural-monopoly theory was developed first by economists, and then used by legislators to "justify" franchise monopolies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale, capital-intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an absolutely desirable aspect of the competitive process."

ars 12y ago

> and orders to restaurants not to serve water to customers unless asked. And in one small sentence all the problems are laid bare. This? This is their solution to drought? Not serving a cup of water in a restaurant? Can politicians really be that stupid? Or is this "we have to do something, anything, never mind if it's actually useful"? If they feel the need to actually do something, then fund a massive leak detection and fixing program. Or install mater meters and bill on an exponential scale based on number of people in the house and expected usage. Or shut down any industry that uses a lot of water (and rehire the people for the water leak program). Or fix all the well documented water waste for farming. Or copy some techniques from middle eastern nations on how to farm with less water. But no, they instead chose to not serve water in a restaurant.

electic 12y ago
These are all great ideas and should be implemented. But also keep in mind that every bit helps. There are a lot of restaurants in CA and it all adds up.
- BurningFrog 12y ago
  This is Hacker News, and any hacker needs to know that it's pointless to waste effort on optimizing things that already are a microscopic cost. It does NOT add up to anything useful, and it wastes time and focus to do. 80/20 rule, people!
- x0x0 12y ago
  Yeah, but we're quibbling about a fraction of a percent going to drinking water in restaurants while 1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; 2 - agriculture -- and my problem here is profligate doesn't begin to describe how they use water; wantonly wastes is not even accurate -- is, collectively, delusional. CA grows rice. In desert. Rice is the most water intensive crop in the world. CA grows almonds, which use 1.1 gallons of water per almond. We grow alfalfa. We grow cotton. Etc etc. Farmers have giant sprinklers running in 90+F weather in near zero humidity at 1pm in the afternoon. CA needs to have a serious discussion about what crops should be grown here, and that probably ends with both adding at least 2 if not 4 zeros to the water price paid by agriculture, and not permitting the growth of the most water intensive crops. That's not to say cities are blameless; Sacramento doesn't even meter water. They hope to do so by 2025. Oh, and (imo) the worries about food are overblown. We export lots of those food crops, and people can live without almonds. (a quick google claims 10% of the state's water use is for almonds!!! [1]) I love almonds, but we will survive without them. Here's a quote About 70 percent of alfalfa grown in California is used in dairies, and a good portion of the rest is exported to land-poor Asian countries like Japan. Yep, that’s right: In the middle of a drought, farmers are shipping fresh hay across the Pacific Ocean. The water that’s locked up in exported hay amounts to about 100 billion gallons per year—enough to supply 1 million families with drinking water for a year. [1] In the midst of a severe drought, there is zero reason to permit export of incredibly water intensive crops. [1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...

swamp40 12y ago

You guys sit next to an ocean full of water. And you have a critical mass of the smartest people on the planet. Get crackin'.

ars 12y ago
And lots of heat too. Use some solar thermal collectors for energy (not solar electricity, use the heat to directly run a pump), and desalinate some water.
- sfeng 12y ago
  That would cost money.
BurningFrog 12y ago
Smart people already know that that is not an economical way to get water. Besides, the problem is more regulatory than physical.
- sfeng 12y ago
  The economics change when the water runs out. California almonds might get a whole lot more expensive in a year.
  - BurningFrog 12y ago
    Part of me hopes that will happen. I doubt the California regulatory system will change unless the system hits rock bottom.
druiid 12y ago
We already have one nearly finished in San Diego. The problem is that is makes for very expensive water because it's a large scale industrial desal plant and the technology still hasn't changed in such a way as to not require lots of energy. That said, it's still at least going to provide a huge amount of water with just the one plant so there is that.

scottfr 12y ago

80% of California water is used by agriculture and antiquated water allocation laws lead to massive inefficiencies in the agriculture sphere. Stopping serving water in restaurants, putting bricks in your toilets, and turning off the fountain outside your company are all effectively irrelevant in helping conserve water. Everything of importance in solving our water issues can be found in the farm fields of the central valley.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

obstinate 12y ago
Nope, not even close. There is plenty of water for the people living in CA. Residential use consumes less than 30%. Some farms will have problems, so food prices might increase slightly. But there is also plenty of food being grown in the US -- it is not even the second largest line-item for most families. And this is not counting all the water we waste on unnecessary things like watering lawns and taking 10 minute showers.