How California Is Winning the Drought(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
How California Is Winning the Drought
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/how-california-is-winning-the-drought.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=opinion-c-col-right-region®ion=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0
197 comments
If we're willing to invest in engineered solutions like hydroponics and vertical farms, then there is no need to be growing crops in California in the first place. The advantage of California agriculture is that you can grow crops outside year round. If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are.
> The advantage of California agriculture is that you can grow crops outside year round.
It's a little more complicated than that. When it comes to produce, I think you are right being able to grow year round is a huge advantage. But, many of the nuts and stone fruit grown in California would actually do better if were cooler (better fruit set, fewer pests). What is very compelling about California agriculture is the dry, low humidity summers that prevent crop damage and at least in the central valley, quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet. Of course the federal and state water projects also help a lot by increasing access to water and historically have been a huge indirect government subsidy to CA agriculture.
> If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are.
California has a population approaching 40 million.
It's a little more complicated than that. When it comes to produce, I think you are right being able to grow year round is a huge advantage. But, many of the nuts and stone fruit grown in California would actually do better if were cooler (better fruit set, fewer pests). What is very compelling about California agriculture is the dry, low humidity summers that prevent crop damage and at least in the central valley, quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet. Of course the federal and state water projects also help a lot by increasing access to water and historically have been a huge indirect government subsidy to CA agriculture.
> If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are.
California has a population approaching 40 million.
> quite possibly the best agricultural soil on the planet
I think the Salinas Valley in California is even a stronger contender for this title than the Central Valley.
I think the Salinas Valley in California is even a stronger contender for this title than the Central Valley.
> If you're growing inside, then you might as well grow where the water/people are.
Well, no, you want to, ideally, grow where the water is but the people aren't. Because otherwise agricultural use and human use are competing for space in the same high-demand areas, and driving the prices up for each other. It may be even be worth moving some water to where the people aren't to support growing to permit this, given the normal tendency for people to also be where the water is.
Well, no, you want to, ideally, grow where the water is but the people aren't. Because otherwise agricultural use and human use are competing for space in the same high-demand areas, and driving the prices up for each other. It may be even be worth moving some water to where the people aren't to support growing to permit this, given the normal tendency for people to also be where the water is.
It's actually way more complicated than that: farm grower agribusinesses aim to minimize costs of competing tensions between locating input supplies, growing, processing, transportation and distribution. The reality is government should move to align business interests to ecological productivity and sustainability to compel corporations to get with the program. It would take a Bernie Sanders 2016 to get that going in the US, because the corporations have too much power and don't like change (change = risk, obstinacy = power).
Why Bernie Sanders? Is this topic in his agenda?
It's not critical. Bernie is an honest, consistent, socialist. Look at his interviews from 30 years ago, his message hasn't changed. He's against TTIP. His biggest objectives will include campaign finance reform, income inequality, justice sys racial bias... the long road of fixing the very broken republic. He voted and spoke out against the wars Iraq and Afghanistan which costed $5 trillion USD +- $2 trillion. I won't get into it further because HN is allergic to political speech.
Efficiency? What efficiency?! CA farmers are increasing nut trees acreage because nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought, and thus the farmers are rushing to increase the production of such profitable product. (Heard on NPR)
Here's a print version of the NPR story you're talking about: http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/430077437/the-twisty-logic-of-...
I looked it up because I thought there was no way that it could be true, you must've missed some important detail. But no, the article says exactly what you said it does.
What a perfect example of the intersection of the free market and the tragedy of the commons.
I looked it up because I thought there was no way that it could be true, you must've missed some important detail. But no, the article says exactly what you said it does.
What a perfect example of the intersection of the free market and the tragedy of the commons.
Its not a tragedy of the commons. Charge market prices for water and this goes away.
It's a tragedy of the commons until you charge market prices for water.
Privatization, regulation, collectivization, adaptive fees / "market pricing" - these are solutions proposed to situations which resemble the tragedy of the commons, in order that we can avoid the worst case scenario associated with continued individually-incentivized over-exploitation.
The term refers to situations where these incentives operating on a common good line up in a way which is potentially self-destructive to the system - not strictly to situations where they've already destroyed the system.
Privatization, regulation, collectivization, adaptive fees / "market pricing" - these are solutions proposed to situations which resemble the tragedy of the commons, in order that we can avoid the worst case scenario associated with continued individually-incentivized over-exploitation.
The term refers to situations where these incentives operating on a common good line up in a way which is potentially self-destructive to the system - not strictly to situations where they've already destroyed the system.
It's almost the definitive example of the tragedy of the commons. How do you propose charging market prices for privately pumped well water?
Privatize the groundwater?
It's a tragedy of the commons because groundwater is legally a common resource that anyone can exploit as they see fit. You can't charge market prices for it without changing that picture and declaring that someone else (eg the state) has a property interest in the groundwater, at which point it's no longer in the commons.
Groundwater is not exploitable as people see fit in Oregon. http://www.water-law.com/water-rights-articles/domestic-grou...
edit: proper link
edit: proper link
OK, but this article is about California and the article even mentions that California is exceptional among the states in having this approach. Groundwater is freely exploitable here: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/board_info/water_r...
Yes, if you start charging for the 'common', then you can avoid the tragedy of the common. They would first have to outlaw pumping your own water in order to start charging market price for it.
CA farmers are increasing nut trees acreage because nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought
It simply isn't possible for things to happen the way you describe them.
Prices are a function of supply and demand. When you say "nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought" this implies that supply of nuts went down during the drought. Otherwise, consumers would have no reason to care about the amount of water required to produce nuts.
Given this, "CA farmers are increasing nut trees acreage" must be an incomplete picture. Even if some farmers are increasing acreage, there must be others who are decreasing by even more, otherwise prices would be going down, not up.
It simply isn't possible for things to happen the way you describe them.
Prices are a function of supply and demand. When you say "nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought" this implies that supply of nuts went down during the drought. Otherwise, consumers would have no reason to care about the amount of water required to produce nuts.
Given this, "CA farmers are increasing nut trees acreage" must be an incomplete picture. Even if some farmers are increasing acreage, there must be others who are decreasing by even more, otherwise prices would be going down, not up.
You're only looking at half his argument. Nut costs are up, because nut trees are thirsty. Everyon eknows this, so consumers accept that nut prices go up (also nuts are more popular than they used to be). As long as nut prices are going up faster than nut costs, so will nut acreage. It's a mistake to rely on simple supply-and-demand to analyse this situation because laws of supply and demand are generally considered in an atmosphere of perfect competition, and ceteris parabus - all other factors being held equal other than the water cost, in this case. But neither condition is true. Nut pricing is not just a function of production cost, but also of public taste, advertising, availability of substitute goods, and so on.
Nut costs are up, because nut trees are thirsty. Everyone knows this, so consumers accept that nut prices go up
That doesn't make sense. Consumers have no reason to care why prices change. Do you really think that when there is a drought, consumers increase the amount of nuts that they consume at a given price, because they find the price reasonable due to the drought?
It's a mistake to rely on simple supply-and-demand to analyse this situation because laws of supply and demand are generally considered in an atmosphere of perfect competition, and ceteris parabus - all other factors being held equal other than the water cost, in this case.
It's a bigger mistake to assume consumers behave in ways that make no sense, in order to justify someone else's verbal argument (which made no reference to why consumers would act a certain way, and probably didn't even consider the issue).
That doesn't make sense. Consumers have no reason to care why prices change. Do you really think that when there is a drought, consumers increase the amount of nuts that they consume at a given price, because they find the price reasonable due to the drought?
It's a mistake to rely on simple supply-and-demand to analyse this situation because laws of supply and demand are generally considered in an atmosphere of perfect competition, and ceteris parabus - all other factors being held equal other than the water cost, in this case.
It's a bigger mistake to assume consumers behave in ways that make no sense, in order to justify someone else's verbal argument (which made no reference to why consumers would act a certain way, and probably didn't even consider the issue).
It doesn't make sense because you didn't read it properly.
Consumers have no reason to care why prices change.
In a world of pure supply and demand considerations that would be true. but as I've pointed out, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where many consumers are experiencing the same drought as the nut growers, and are aware of the impact it could have on prices, either because they live in the same place as where the nuts are grown or because they like to read the news.
Do you really think that when there is a drought, consumers increase the amount of nuts that they consume at a given price, because they find the price reasonable due to the drought?
No, and I didn't say that they did. I said they "accept that nut prices go up." Someone who enjoys nuts will limit their consumption if prices go up so much that the nuts are no longer affordable, but if they only go up a bit that person may consume the same amount of nuts they did before at a higher price because there isn't a suitable substitute. In other words, consumer preferences can result in inelasticity of demand.
It's a bigger mistake to assume consumers behave in ways that make no sense, in order to justify someone else's verbal argument (which made no reference to why consumers would act a certain way, and probably didn't even consider the issue).
Except a) this is an issue I happen to already be familiar with and b) I find consumers' behavior quite rational when I consider the totality of the circumstances.
Consumers have no reason to care why prices change.
In a world of pure supply and demand considerations that would be true. but as I've pointed out, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where many consumers are experiencing the same drought as the nut growers, and are aware of the impact it could have on prices, either because they live in the same place as where the nuts are grown or because they like to read the news.
Do you really think that when there is a drought, consumers increase the amount of nuts that they consume at a given price, because they find the price reasonable due to the drought?
No, and I didn't say that they did. I said they "accept that nut prices go up." Someone who enjoys nuts will limit their consumption if prices go up so much that the nuts are no longer affordable, but if they only go up a bit that person may consume the same amount of nuts they did before at a higher price because there isn't a suitable substitute. In other words, consumer preferences can result in inelasticity of demand.
It's a bigger mistake to assume consumers behave in ways that make no sense, in order to justify someone else's verbal argument (which made no reference to why consumers would act a certain way, and probably didn't even consider the issue).
Except a) this is an issue I happen to already be familiar with and b) I find consumers' behavior quite rational when I consider the totality of the circumstances.
>In a world of pure supply and demand considerations that would be true. but as I've pointed out, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where many consumers are experiencing the same drought as the nut growers, and are aware of the impact it could have on prices, either because they live in the same place as where the nuts are grown or because they like to read the news.
None of this explains how knowledge of supply shocks would change a consumer's intrinsic demand for nuts.
>In other words, consumer preferences can result in inelasticity of demand.
Earlier you said As long as nut prices are going up faster than nut costs, so will nut acreage
No matter how inelastic demand is, it is impossible for prices to increase faster than costs. In the limit of infinitely inelastic demand, prices increase at the same rate as costs (all costs are passed on to the consumer).
None of this explains how knowledge of supply shocks would change a consumer's intrinsic demand for nuts.
>In other words, consumer preferences can result in inelasticity of demand.
Earlier you said As long as nut prices are going up faster than nut costs, so will nut acreage
No matter how inelastic demand is, it is impossible for prices to increase faster than costs. In the limit of infinitely inelastic demand, prices increase at the same rate as costs (all costs are passed on to the consumer).
I agree that supply shocks are not changing the intrinsic demand for nuts. Rather, nut popularity happens to be increasing around the same time as a supply shock.
No matter how inelastic demand is, it is impossible for prices to increase faster than costs. In the limit of infinitely inelastic demand, prices increase at the same rate as costs (all costs are passed on to the consumer).
That only obtains under perfect competition, as I already said. I'm not trying to convince you that this behavior falls out of basic economic laws, I'm saying you're looking at it in the wrong context. Please look up the terms perfect competition and monopolistic competition, or we will just be talking past each other.
No matter how inelastic demand is, it is impossible for prices to increase faster than costs. In the limit of infinitely inelastic demand, prices increase at the same rate as costs (all costs are passed on to the consumer).
That only obtains under perfect competition, as I already said. I'm not trying to convince you that this behavior falls out of basic economic laws, I'm saying you're looking at it in the wrong context. Please look up the terms perfect competition and monopolistic competition, or we will just be talking past each other.
Re ceteris paribus, I address simliar criticism here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10064126. The key point is that the original post I was critiquing was already implicitly keeping all other factors fixed. And I only aimed to critique that post's reasoning, not the conclusions it made.
As for imperfect competition (which I'm also familiar with, I have a PhD in economics), I see you mentioned it above but I still don't know why. Even if not sellers were a monopoly or oligopoly, everything I said above would apply, at least in very broad terms. You could probably come up with some demand function such that increasing input costs of a monopolistic producer resulted in an increase in production, but I don't see why you would think that actually applied here.
As for imperfect competition (which I'm also familiar with, I have a PhD in economics), I see you mentioned it above but I still don't know why. Even if not sellers were a monopoly or oligopoly, everything I said above would apply, at least in very broad terms. You could probably come up with some demand function such that increasing input costs of a monopolistic producer resulted in an increase in production, but I don't see why you would think that actually applied here.
That doesn't make sense.
The world often doesn't.
Further up the thread is the citation that the thing you insist can't happen... is happening. Might be time to adjust your economic theories.
The world often doesn't.
Further up the thread is the citation that the thing you insist can't happen... is happening. Might be time to adjust your economic theories.
It's a peculiar thing I've noticed on HN and a few other places where people with slightly-better-than-average understandings of economics tend to congregate:
> I have a model of economics which makes sense to me
> Here is a case in the real world that breaks my model
> The real world must be wrong.
It makes economics resemble religious ideology rather than an attempt to understand and predict real-world behaviors.
> I have a model of economics which makes sense to me
> Here is a case in the real world that breaks my model
> The real world must be wrong.
It makes economics resemble religious ideology rather than an attempt to understand and predict real-world behaviors.
I've answered similar criticisms elsewhere in this thread, feel free to respond to them directly. I have a PhD in economics, so hopefully more than a "slightly-better-than-average" understanding of economics.
> Prices are a function of supply and demand.
Sure.
> When you say "nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought" this implies that supply of nuts went down during the drought.
No, it doesn't. It could equally (in a real market with humans instead of an ideal market with rational actors -- particularly, in a market in which the perfect information assumption of rational choice theory does not hold) mean that demand for nuts increased because purchasers (not necessarily consumers -- nuts are purchased by lots of processed-food makers) expected supply to decrease in the drought, and there was a desire to stock up before that occurred.
> if some farmers are increasing acreage, there must be others who are decreasing by even more, otherwise prices would be going down, not up.
Even if we assume that the price increase must be supply driven (rather than demand driven based on price expectations based on beliefs about future supply), this is wrong, because it assumes that production per acre is constant, rather than, e.g., declining in a drought. If production on the same land use drops in a drought, then you could have reduced supply driving prices up without reducing land use -- depending on elasticity, this could conceivably even increase the total revenue of almonds sold -- leading to increased incentives to bring more acreage into production.
Sure.
> When you say "nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought" this implies that supply of nuts went down during the drought.
No, it doesn't. It could equally (in a real market with humans instead of an ideal market with rational actors -- particularly, in a market in which the perfect information assumption of rational choice theory does not hold) mean that demand for nuts increased because purchasers (not necessarily consumers -- nuts are purchased by lots of processed-food makers) expected supply to decrease in the drought, and there was a desire to stock up before that occurred.
> if some farmers are increasing acreage, there must be others who are decreasing by even more, otherwise prices would be going down, not up.
Even if we assume that the price increase must be supply driven (rather than demand driven based on price expectations based on beliefs about future supply), this is wrong, because it assumes that production per acre is constant, rather than, e.g., declining in a drought. If production on the same land use drops in a drought, then you could have reduced supply driving prices up without reducing land use -- depending on elasticity, this could conceivably even increase the total revenue of almonds sold -- leading to increased incentives to bring more acreage into production.
I suppose that could happen, is there any particular reason to think it is?
>Even if we assume that the price increase must be supply driven...
That doesn't matter to me, I was arguing against a specific mechanism. I never said there was no reason that more acreage might be used. I said that the reasoning of the poster was wrong.
depending on elasticity, this could conceivably even increase the total revenue of almonds sold
It really couldn't. If you are, as you say, assuming prices are driven by supply and demand, and there are no demand shocks, then total revenue must go down. That is econ 101.
>Even if we assume that the price increase must be supply driven...
That doesn't matter to me, I was arguing against a specific mechanism. I never said there was no reason that more acreage might be used. I said that the reasoning of the poster was wrong.
depending on elasticity, this could conceivably even increase the total revenue of almonds sold
It really couldn't. If you are, as you say, assuming prices are driven by supply and demand, and there are no demand shocks, then total revenue must go down. That is econ 101.
...assuming prices are driven by supply and demand, and there are no demand shocks, then total revenue must go down. That is econ 101.
If that's what you learned in that class, you should ask for a refund. If the demand curve is relatively steep (i.e. not elastic), then a supply shock (e.g. a drought) could change price drastically while changing quantity very little. This is not an uncommon situation, especially with respect to food commodities.
[EDIT:] Haha whoops! I certainly didn't intend to tell you anything about your own field. I think that in this case you might be missing important details about the situation on the ground. Irrigation water isn't auctioned off to the highest-bidding farmer. Rather, different farmers have rights to various amounts of water, and those rights are ordered so that some farmers will get nothing in a drought while others will get the same amount they get every year. So, while the industry as a whole has not profited from the supply shock we're discussing, the "lucky" farmers with senior water rights certainly have.
If that's what you learned in that class, you should ask for a refund. If the demand curve is relatively steep (i.e. not elastic), then a supply shock (e.g. a drought) could change price drastically while changing quantity very little. This is not an uncommon situation, especially with respect to food commodities.
[EDIT:] Haha whoops! I certainly didn't intend to tell you anything about your own field. I think that in this case you might be missing important details about the situation on the ground. Irrigation water isn't auctioned off to the highest-bidding farmer. Rather, different farmers have rights to various amounts of water, and those rights are ordered so that some farmers will get nothing in a drought while others will get the same amount they get every year. So, while the industry as a whole has not profited from the supply shock we're discussing, the "lucky" farmers with senior water rights certainly have.
I actually have a PhD in economics. You are right that revenue can increase due to a supply shock. What I should have said is that revenue net of costs can never increase due to a supply shock. Because of this, the full statement this could conceivably even increase the total revenue of almonds sold -- leading to increased incentives to bring more acreage into production is still wrong.
Consider the limit as demand becomes (locally) infinitely inelastic. Then a shift of input costs of X will cause the price to change by X. Total volume (call it Y) of goods sold stays the same and total revenue increases by YX. Total revenues net of costs remain the same since total costs increased by YX.
The main point here is that markets don't do weird counterintuitive things, at least in a partial equilibrium analysis. Shocks to the costs of inputs always result in less production and less profit.
[Reply to edit] No offense taken, I shouldn't have said "econ 101" in the first place since it could be interpreted as disparaging. What I meant is that once we accept the assumptions of partial equilibrium analysis, it really constrains what can happen, and it can be shown by simple well known theory. And you were right, I wrote "revenue" when I should have written "profit".
I'm sure that what you are saying about water rights is true, but I'm simply arguing that the increased "cost" of water must move the supply curve of nuts up (at every point) not down. This shift of the supply curve might cause some people to stop growing and others to start, there is nothing in the theory that contradicts that. But everything in this thread still fits into partial equilibrium analysis.
Consider the limit as demand becomes (locally) infinitely inelastic. Then a shift of input costs of X will cause the price to change by X. Total volume (call it Y) of goods sold stays the same and total revenue increases by YX. Total revenues net of costs remain the same since total costs increased by YX.
The main point here is that markets don't do weird counterintuitive things, at least in a partial equilibrium analysis. Shocks to the costs of inputs always result in less production and less profit.
[Reply to edit] No offense taken, I shouldn't have said "econ 101" in the first place since it could be interpreted as disparaging. What I meant is that once we accept the assumptions of partial equilibrium analysis, it really constrains what can happen, and it can be shown by simple well known theory. And you were right, I wrote "revenue" when I should have written "profit".
I'm sure that what you are saying about water rights is true, but I'm simply arguing that the increased "cost" of water must move the supply curve of nuts up (at every point) not down. This shift of the supply curve might cause some people to stop growing and others to start, there is nothing in the theory that contradicts that. But everything in this thread still fits into partial equilibrium analysis.
Well maybe next time you could read a bit more about the situation, before hauling out the neoclassical big guns on us. Anyway I don't think anyone has suggested that the supply curve for nuts has moved down. You got confused because you made assumptions about that, based on limited information about the supplies of necessary inputs to nut production.
I think that the issue is that I only wanted to critique the following line of argument:
CA farmers are increasing nut trees acreage because nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought, and thus the farmers are rushing to increase the production of such profitable product. (Heard on NPR)
Taken by itself, this contradicts neoclassical economics, no matter how charitably you read it. If it were implied there were more complex mechanisms whereby acreage increased even while total production decreased (as neoclassical economics implies it must), then the statement could not use the words "because" and "thus" in the way it did.
You and others have implied that I was wrong because the conclusion that nut tree acreage increased is still possible, but I never said it wasn't. I think it's perfectly fine, and important, to critique an argument as opposed to a conclusion. If I let this slide, then should I also nod and smile when someone argues that people should buy local since it makes everyone richer?
CA farmers are increasing nut trees acreage because nut trees require a lot of water, and thus nut prices are going up in the current drought, and thus the farmers are rushing to increase the production of such profitable product. (Heard on NPR)
Taken by itself, this contradicts neoclassical economics, no matter how charitably you read it. If it were implied there were more complex mechanisms whereby acreage increased even while total production decreased (as neoclassical economics implies it must), then the statement could not use the words "because" and "thus" in the way it did.
You and others have implied that I was wrong because the conclusion that nut tree acreage increased is still possible, but I never said it wasn't. I think it's perfectly fine, and important, to critique an argument as opposed to a conclusion. If I let this slide, then should I also nod and smile when someone argues that people should buy local since it makes everyone richer?
don't forget the timing - because of the drought the supply may have been hit (even if only in futures market at wholesale stage), thus price increase - thus planting more trees today to catch what seems to be great profit tomorrow. Anyway, i only mentioned what i heard on NPR. Another commenter found and posted the link to it.
Or, yields have dropped in the drought so farmers are forced to increase acreage? Probably that?
That could well have happened, but that's not my point. I was critiquing a certain mechanism, which claimed that an increase to input costs could, in itself, cause in increase in supply.
> I was critiquing a certain mechanism, which claimed that an increase to input costs could, in itself, cause in increase in supply.
That was not the claim. The claim was that an decrease in supply of one input (water) could drive market conditions which lead to an increase in consumption (in the course of production) of another input (land use).
That was not the claim. The claim was that an decrease in supply of one input (water) could drive market conditions which lead to an increase in consumption (in the course of production) of another input (land use).
What you're missing is that water is not an input cost for many of these farmers. The farmers that have cheaper access to water are increasing production of these same water intensive crops, because they are more lucrative. The problem is in assuming a level playing field in the market, which it isn't entirely, due to how water is dealt with in CA.
If water wasn't an input cost for all farmers, then the price of nut wouldn't have gone up in the first place. As I said, there must be some farmers who face increases in costs, and there must be some farmers whose costs increase enough that they produce less. Otherwise, prices would not have gone up in the first place.
Why not? It's possible (I make no claims as to whether it's correct) that a large portion of farmers do have water as a cost, enough so to affect price, and as the price increases, the farmers that weren't growing nuts (or were more diversified) that don't have water as a cost (or its cost is less than it is for other farmers) may switch to the lucrative crop, exacerbating the problem.
I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that instability in market prices for a good may cause odd market behavior that has consequences in related areas.
I don't think it's that much of a stretch to think that instability in market prices for a good may cause odd market behavior that has consequences in related areas.
[deleted]
[deleted]
It doesn't happen in a vaccuum. There is game theory at work here.
Farmers and ranchers don't just use muni water sources. Yes, water is common when you look at the water table, but muni water districts tend to use reservoirs and farmers must use water rights (which are built into the California Constitution, BTW).
Nut farmers may be in a position to use more water (I doubt all of them are), but that doesn't mean that all California farmers are able to do the same. California rice farmers, for example, (farming rice in an arid near-desert should almost be a crime) have been netting more money by leasing their water rights than working their crops for years now.[1]
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_26181042/high-bidding-...
Farmers and ranchers don't just use muni water sources. Yes, water is common when you look at the water table, but muni water districts tend to use reservoirs and farmers must use water rights (which are built into the California Constitution, BTW).
Nut farmers may be in a position to use more water (I doubt all of them are), but that doesn't mean that all California farmers are able to do the same. California rice farmers, for example, (farming rice in an arid near-desert should almost be a crime) have been netting more money by leasing their water rights than working their crops for years now.[1]
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_26181042/high-bidding-...
I don't think it's very fair to call Glenn County a "near-desert". It drains a huge mountain watershed via the Sacramento River and in many places in that county the main hazard to agriculture is the high water table. The depth to water table in the flat part of the county is only 10-20 feet.
When I say "desert", I am talking about the technical definition, which is based off of the amount of precipitation.
OK, does your private definition of "desert" include a county that averages 20" of rainfall per year and is regularly flooded? Growing rice in arid flood plains has been practiced for a very long time.
If you think that Glenn, Butte, and Tehama counties are deserts I strongly urge you to visit them, especially in the early spring. There's just water everywhere.
If you think that Glenn, Butte, and Tehama counties are deserts I strongly urge you to visit them, especially in the early spring. There's just water everywhere.
Simple: Charge appropriately for water.
All the other points might be correct, but green lawns aren't meaningless. Green helps people to calm down and focus. That's why chalk boards for schools use a dark green tone. Having some grass in front of your kitchen might be a way of us to stay sane. If the price is okay in an environment were water is very rare is a good question, though. There might be other sources of green plantation that doesn't use as much water.
There are other plants that are green that aren't non-native, aren't water hungry, and can contribute meaningfully to other aspects of quality of life (not just human life, but biodiversity as well)
That, plus increased efficiency in the use of food (less waste).
I wish there would be a good way to link related stories on HN, because what you describe is what I was referring to in a comment to a story about plastic-ball-based sun roofs for water reservoirs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10052633
I wish there would be a good way to link related stories on HN, because what you describe is what I was referring to in a comment to a story about plastic-ball-based sun roofs for water reservoirs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10052633
Actually, judging by the countermeasures taken during the drought, the real problem is restaurant patrons being given water that they didn't ask for and might not drink.
(Even though the effect of automatically-provided water is to nudge people away from drinks that require plants and therefore more water to produce...)
(Even though the effect of automatically-provided water is to nudge people away from drinks that require plants and therefore more water to produce...)
...people's obsession with meaningless green lawns...
I suspect there's a reason why green is a common favorite color; it's a sign of life and vitality. Have there been any studies of mental health in areas without many green lawns?
Of course, there are less thirsty plants that can provide greenery.
I suspect there's a reason why green is a common favorite color; it's a sign of life and vitality. Have there been any studies of mental health in areas without many green lawns?
Of course, there are less thirsty plants that can provide greenery.
I don't think California grows a lot of corn, or any for that matter. It is more into specialized fruits and nuts..and cows of course.
I drive by a lot of corn fields out here. California produces 16% of the nation's sweet corn, #2 in the nation.
http://www.seecalifornia.com/farms/california-corn.html
http://www.seecalifornia.com/farms/california-corn.html
Ah I didn't realize it. I've never driven through a corn field on California, or I've never noticed it like in the Midwest. And it's all to feed the cows of course.
The "number 2 in sweet corn" is a little bit cherry picked, sweet corn is the corn grown for humans and is just a little bit of the total corn grown (~1%). It's much nicer fresh, so it isn't surprising that a huge state grows quite a lot of it.
The numbers at the provided link reveal the picture, talking about California having ~200,000 acres of grain corn and the US having 87 million acres of corn.
(As an aside, in my limited experience, Europeans might not know that corn on the cob as eaten in the US is always sweet corn, and that modern varieties barely need to be cooked, pretty much just heated through. Methods vary, but just a minute or two of boiling is pretty common.)
The numbers at the provided link reveal the picture, talking about California having ~200,000 acres of grain corn and the US having 87 million acres of corn.
(As an aside, in my limited experience, Europeans might not know that corn on the cob as eaten in the US is always sweet corn, and that modern varieties barely need to be cooked, pretty much just heated through. Methods vary, but just a minute or two of boiling is pretty common.)
California farmers are moving in that direction, at various speeds but not to minimal footprint, efficient production. What I'd like to see is a produce supply chain that uses the least resources and organically delivers for look and taste while depending less on monocultural GMO. It's entirely possible with applied ingenuity.
> What I'd like to see is a produce supply chain that uses the least resources and organically delivers for look and taste while depending less on monocultural GMO.
You are aware there have to be tradeoffs along those various axes, right? In particular, if you rule out the use of GMOs you're shooting yourself in the foot with regards to achieving other goals in a short timeframe.
You are aware there have to be tradeoffs along those various axes, right? In particular, if you rule out the use of GMOs you're shooting yourself in the foot with regards to achieving other goals in a short timeframe.
>Unsustainable food production is more of a contributor than personal consumption
I wonder when we will finally admit that we need to watch what foods we consume. Casava instead of rice, soy instead of meat, etc.
I wonder when we will finally admit that we need to watch what foods we consume. Casava instead of rice, soy instead of meat, etc.
Long before we'll get most people to watch what they eat, we'll have inexpensive, tasty, 'lab grown' meat that uses drastically less water to create. That'll be commercially available within 15-20 years. Soy as a replacement will never end up being a necessity, technology and ingenuity will once again fix our problems.
A reasonable agricultural solution is to stop growing food in California. There are many fewer farms in the eastern part of the country than there once were because the settlement of California, fossil fertility, underground fossil water, and federally-subsidized surface water projects made agriculture in California dirt cheap. That put the east coast growers out of business. The eastern USA of course has undergone a huge multi-century boom and bust cycle, being naturally forested, then significantly cleared for European-style agriculture, and now again highly forested.
If we just grew food where the water is, we wouldn't be having so much fuss over agriculture in the desert.
If we just grew food where the water is, we wouldn't be having so much fuss over agriculture in the desert.
Believe it or not, California has plenty of water... in non drought years. That;s a aside.
Food will continue to grow in California, because the support systems for wide scale farming are present, until the support systems develop elsewhere the farming won't move either.
Food will continue to grow in California, because the support systems for wide scale farming are present, until the support systems develop elsewhere the farming won't move either.
Cambria, where I live, halfway between San Francisco LA, is particularly hard hit. Cambria is supplied completely by well water. We had been trying since 2008 to build a desalinization plan, but had been blocked at every turn by the Coastal Commission and other regulatory bodies, because we would have had to dig a pipeline across the beach to get to the salt water. As a result draconian conservation measures were put into place. We were allocated only 50 gallons per person per day. If you exceeded your allotment, you were fined, two periods in a row your water was cut off. There was an immediate 40% drop in water usage. That wasnt enough. Last year with only a 6 months water supply left. The Community Services District decided to build a brackish water treatment plant. Treated water from the sewage treatment plant was to be pumped into the aquifer and withdrawn and treated by a reverse osmosis purification plant. Even then there were a whole bunch of regulatory hassles including that the $3 million plant be used only for the current drought without being recertified again.
EDIT: Cambria is in one of only three Monterrey Pine forests in CA, essentially an urban forest. The drought has exacerbated the pitch canker and beetle infestations. Forty per cent of the pine trees died last year. I lost four of the five on my property. Another four had died earlier. We are in danger of an explosive urban fire like the Oakland hills fire of 1991. One huge problem is the pines are protected. You cannot cut down one without a permit at $125 + $25 for each additional tree, plus restoration requirements. Most lots are small and close together so it may cost up to $2000 to cut down a tree. I had only four and I said screw the permit. But my neighbor has hundreds. It will cost millions to clear out the dead trees in town, but no state or federal grants seem to be forthcoming, but if you dont cut down your trees, after all the red tape, you get fined.
EDIT: Cambria is in one of only three Monterrey Pine forests in CA, essentially an urban forest. The drought has exacerbated the pitch canker and beetle infestations. Forty per cent of the pine trees died last year. I lost four of the five on my property. Another four had died earlier. We are in danger of an explosive urban fire like the Oakland hills fire of 1991. One huge problem is the pines are protected. You cannot cut down one without a permit at $125 + $25 for each additional tree, plus restoration requirements. Most lots are small and close together so it may cost up to $2000 to cut down a tree. I had only four and I said screw the permit. But my neighbor has hundreds. It will cost millions to clear out the dead trees in town, but no state or federal grants seem to be forthcoming, but if you dont cut down your trees, after all the red tape, you get fined.
Just to correct a couple things the brackish/treated water Cambria plant, which cost $9 million not $3 million, was approved and completed in 'record time' (quote below). The picture of intractable government being painted in the comments here is only partially accurate.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/03/18/3544036/cambria-wate...
In nominating the Cambria project, GWI said the fast-tracked construction of the project “is unprecedented in California” and “sets a new benchmark for what is achievable in the face of severe water stress.”
...
The nomination also said, “Although the city had looked at seawater desalination before, Governor (Jerry) Brown’s declaration of a drought emergency freed up the possibility of developing an alternative brackish water option, which was exempt from a burdensome environmental review process, enabling it to move ahead in record time.”
If you want to see what life is like without environmental regulations take a trip to any major Chinese city. Has the pendulum maybe swung too far in the us? Perhaps, certainly in some ways and combined with nimby zoning there's certainly a lot of room for improvement. But in other ways it's worked great and with climate change you could argue the reverse.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2015/03/18/3544036/cambria-wate...
In nominating the Cambria project, GWI said the fast-tracked construction of the project “is unprecedented in California” and “sets a new benchmark for what is achievable in the face of severe water stress.”
...
The nomination also said, “Although the city had looked at seawater desalination before, Governor (Jerry) Brown’s declaration of a drought emergency freed up the possibility of developing an alternative brackish water option, which was exempt from a burdensome environmental review process, enabling it to move ahead in record time.”
If you want to see what life is like without environmental regulations take a trip to any major Chinese city. Has the pendulum maybe swung too far in the us? Perhaps, certainly in some ways and combined with nimby zoning there's certainly a lot of room for improvement. But in other ways it's worked great and with climate change you could argue the reverse.
Sorry, you are correct. The original estimate was $3 million (probably from the consulting company), as built $9 million. It was built in record time, but it would have been built even quicker if the coastal commission had been more cooperative. The CSD finally gave in. Examples of current restrictions: it can be used only for stage four droughts. It must go through the whole permit process again if it is to be used again. It has more stringent water quality restrictions. It cannot be used as the basis for additional water connections. Cambria has had a moratorium on new water hookups since 1991. If I spent $9 million on something, I would like to use it more than once without going through the whole process.
BTW, The link to the Tribune just goes to their front page, but that's always problem if one is not a subscriber.
The original desal plant wasnt just looked at. It was fully funded as demonstration desal plant in 2009 by Obama's jobs program.. It was finally killed by the Coastal Commission's refusal to allow the drilling of a test well on the beach to measure water flow.
I'm not against environmental regulation. I certainly wouldnt want to live China or even Texas. We need more or more effective. Dont get me going on Wall street or regulatory capture or Citizens United.
BTW, The link to the Tribune just goes to their front page, but that's always problem if one is not a subscriber.
The original desal plant wasnt just looked at. It was fully funded as demonstration desal plant in 2009 by Obama's jobs program.. It was finally killed by the Coastal Commission's refusal to allow the drilling of a test well on the beach to measure water flow.
I'm not against environmental regulation. I certainly wouldnt want to live China or even Texas. We need more or more effective. Dont get me going on Wall street or regulatory capture or Citizens United.
Thanks for this. I was having trouble finding things newer than about 2010.
I also note that one of the things that makes life more difficult for the water situation there is that they lost use of an aquifer due to gasoline contamination by Chevron.
I also note that one of the things that makes life more difficult for the water situation there is that they lost use of an aquifer due to gasoline contamination by Chevron.
Chevron was forced to clean it up. Last fall the contaminated well was tested, found contaminant free, and brought back online. Since the cleanup was something like 20 years ago, I feel safe in drinking the water.
My wife grew up in the Del Monte forest, and they had a number of dangerous trees on their property. Her parents applied for a permit to fell the worst ones but was denied because the trees were only mostly dead.
Next winter, there was a windstorm and a tree fell on a neighbors house.
Next winter, there was a windstorm and a tree fell on a neighbors house.
Only mostly dead?
Well then some hooligans might poison those trees and oh look, now they are completely dead (easier to do than you might think, copper nails driven in will do the trick).
Well then some hooligans might poison those trees and oh look, now they are completely dead (easier to do than you might think, copper nails driven in will do the trick).
> We had been trying since 2008 to build a desalinization plan, but had been blocked at every turn by the Coastal Commission and other regulatory bodies, because we would have had to dig a pipeline across the beach to get to the salt water.
Except that you seem to conveniently omit the fact that there were also anti-tax people complaining about the unfair burden it would put on ratepayers.
In addition, part of the whole deal is that a desalinization plant is intended to allow more people into the area rather than simply servicing the existing ones.
Finally, I have a better solution. Let's shut down the town. It would be cheaper to dump all your sorry asses somewhere that has desalinization already.
Now, how about that solution? Oh, you don't like that solution? Gee, perhaps there's a bit of tension between different groups and the different solutions?
Except that you seem to conveniently omit the fact that there were also anti-tax people complaining about the unfair burden it would put on ratepayers.
In addition, part of the whole deal is that a desalinization plant is intended to allow more people into the area rather than simply servicing the existing ones.
Finally, I have a better solution. Let's shut down the town. It would be cheaper to dump all your sorry asses somewhere that has desalinization already.
Now, how about that solution? Oh, you don't like that solution? Gee, perhaps there's a bit of tension between different groups and the different solutions?
I am curious of what would happen if you all agreed to cut down the dead trees on mass? Can this level of civil disobedience really be stopped by any Californian authority? To allow a situation to continue that puts dead trees ahead of human life is totally insane.
> Can this level of civil disobedience really be stopped by any Californian authority?
Cambria is only 6,000 people, so, yeah, it probably could.
> To allow a situation to continue that puts dead trees ahead of human life is totally insane.
Except that fire is a standard part of the lifecycle of those trees. So, that town is in the middle of a known fire hazard area. And, given the population age and that there are practically no jobs other than tourism in the area, most of the people probably chose to buy a house there after they made their money elsewhere.
This is kind of like people who get flooded after they build a house in a flood plain.
Cambria is only 6,000 people, so, yeah, it probably could.
> To allow a situation to continue that puts dead trees ahead of human life is totally insane.
Except that fire is a standard part of the lifecycle of those trees. So, that town is in the middle of a known fire hazard area. And, given the population age and that there are practically no jobs other than tourism in the area, most of the people probably chose to buy a house there after they made their money elsewhere.
This is kind of like people who get flooded after they build a house in a flood plain.
I was actually in Cambria on Wednesday, for the first time ever, visiting a friend and his family that moved there a few years ago for his job as a CA state ranger. They shared the opinion on the job market and the people that live there. It came up in conversation, as we discussed the reason why small two bedroom one bath house with little to no extra land close to them was recently rented for $1800 a month, by an older couple.
Yes I can understand this. We had a similar issue here in Australia where we let people build in the middle of the forest (tree changers they are called). The stupidity of allowing this building was found out in the last big bush fire where 173 people died.
I was civilly disobedient and had my trees cut and chipped. We are not a geriatric community, but there are a lot of elderly, so they cant do it on their own. More serious problem is that most people dont have the skills to fell an 80 foot tree on a 50 foot wide lot next to another 50 foot wide lot. There are a lot of vacant lots the are owned by nonresidents. And large chunks of Cambria are owned by the state and conservation groups. They arent doing anything yet.
This sounds like a nightmare. Here in Australia we (population and authorities) are really sensitive to the hazards of bushfires and what can happen when you let fuel loads get out of control [1]. Lets hope for all your sakes that the latest el nino brings the risk down - unfortunately it is going to have the opposite effect for us :(
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires
1.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires
My family is conserving water in N California to water 100 ft (30 m) trees to prevent them from weakening and being colonized by borer insects which will then kill the trees. Having a tall dead around suburban homes is a very dangerous thing. They're also in an extremely risky area for fast-moving forest fires and a dried tree is fuel too. In addition to enough water, trees often need systemics (chemical treatment if there are specific pests) and annual inspections by arborists.
Stories like this make me glad that I don’t live in California.
I live in Australia (Sydney) which arguably has better weather than California and no earthquakes. We do have a few snakes, but not where I live :)
I saw on some web discussion area a post by an Australian who casually mentioned he killed a spider in his kitchen by tipping his refrigerator over on it.
The other Australians in the forum thought that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
So...a place with spiders so big that people consider tipping over a refrigerator a reasonable approach to killing them, or a place with earthquakes.
I'll take the earthquakes!
References:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDk9FPZVMDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRV4d9LCawU
http://www.cracked.com/funny-163-australia/
The other Australians in the forum thought that was a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
So...a place with spiders so big that people consider tipping over a refrigerator a reasonable approach to killing them, or a place with earthquakes.
I'll take the earthquakes!
References:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDk9FPZVMDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRV4d9LCawU
http://www.cracked.com/funny-163-australia/
Tipping a fridge is a bit extreme - you might spill the beer :)
Actually as far as dangerous animals here they are pretty rare in the cities where most people live. I grew up on a farm and snakes there were very common (not too many spiders though). I would run across a deadly snake around once or twice a week except during winter when they were hibernating. I was never bitten, but I did catch quite a few - it is not too hard to do as long as you use a long stick and have a strong bag without any holes to put them into.
Actually as far as dangerous animals here they are pretty rare in the cities where most people live. I grew up on a farm and snakes there were very common (not too many spiders though). I would run across a deadly snake around once or twice a week except during winter when they were hibernating. I was never bitten, but I did catch quite a few - it is not too hard to do as long as you use a long stick and have a strong bag without any holes to put them into.
Deadliest animal in Australia is the Honey Bee.
It is probably the deadliest animal in the USA too. I have to say I would rather be stung by a bee than bitten by a death adder [1] or brown snake [2].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_death_adder
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonaja
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_death_adder
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudonaja
The brown snake is by far the most dangerous snake in Australia, since it is aggressive, and even though there is effective anti-venom, it the venom kill you quite quickly.
I actually used to fear death adders more. Brown snakes 99% of the time hear you coming and all you see is them taking off at high speed away from you. Death adders on the other hand lie still waiting for their prey to come to them so don’t move. Since they are camouflaged that can be really hard to spot in the leaf litter. When I would go exploring in the bush around my home I would always take my dog and make him lead the way - he would bark and let me know if a death adder was up ahead. Of course there were a very high rate of false alarms (goannas mostly), but I would rather a 100 false positives than have one false negative bite me.
bsder(1)
Have you considered wastewater recycling? It's more energy efficient than desalination and doesn't require a pipe to the ocean!
Actually we have it. The new desal plant pumps treated water into the aquifer towards the ocean from the intake, reducing the intrusion of brackish water from the ocean. The desal plant is more for purification, but it does handle any brackish water that gets through. This is a much more cost effective model than direct ocean desalinization. Our plant was entered into a worldwide competition for brackis water desalinization and came in second.
A couple of decades ago I was on the board of a small mutual water company on Skyline above Woodside. We were having trouble meeting water quality standards, no serious violations, but the county was hassling us. We built a desal plant strictly for filtering water and removing minerals. Worked like a charm.
A couple of decades ago I was on the board of a small mutual water company on Skyline above Woodside. We were having trouble meeting water quality standards, no serious violations, but the county was hassling us. We built a desal plant strictly for filtering water and removing minerals. Worked like a charm.
Elsewhere, Ed Begley, Jr.'s house awesomely reuses and captures water. Such technology should be cheaper, subsidized and actively encouraged so that it's mostly required where it wouldn't make people destitute.
[deleted]
The article was wrong in stating that pretty much all the agricultural was usage was for food. 15-20% of the water is for growing alfalfa. That may be cow food, but it is a huge waste of water. A lot of press is given to the fact that 10% of the water is used for almonds, but they are at least a a high value crop. Another high water usage crop is cotton, again not food. Give it back to the South. And rice; you have to be nuts to grow rice in the desert. It's not worth destroying the aquifers for such crops.
Almonds aren't that high-value. Agriculture in total accounts for 2% of the state's GDP. I'm guessing less than 5% of all ag in the state is almonds. The California economy is expanding at faster than 2% per year currently.
I'm pretty sure we could tell the almonds to take a hike and not even notice.
I'm pretty sure we could tell the almonds to take a hike and not even notice.
"I'm guessing less than 5% of all ag in the state is almonds."
Based on what? Are you just making up numbers? By round numbers, it seems to be around 10% of agriculture. This report states that it is 15%, but the report is funded by the Almond Board and is probably making generous assumptions [1].
[1] http://aic.ucdavis.edu/almonds/Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Cal...
Based on what? Are you just making up numbers? By round numbers, it seems to be around 10% of agriculture. This report states that it is 15%, but the report is funded by the Almond Board and is probably making generous assumptions [1].
[1] http://aic.ucdavis.edu/almonds/Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Cal...
Let's not forget that orchards represent many years of investment. Killing an orchard has a much, much higher cost than simply choosing to grow a different yearly crop.
No mention of aquaponics?
I'm growing food in the backyard with it and it is awesome.
It uses much less water and is much less of a hassle. Better yields too.
I'm growing food in the backyard with it and it is awesome.
It uses much less water and is much less of a hassle. Better yields too.
In the '80s California, I had some nudist, hippie neighbors. And of course they did hydroponics (not just for pot), but did grow some vegetables including tomatoes in both horizontal vats and vertical trellises. I really think it's a lot more efficient because it uses less far less land than current methods.
(Btw: don't buy products which contain palm oil due to the prevalence of "green washed" intermediaries lying to downsteam suppliers, which in turn leads to persistent forest -clearing fires and land theft in places like Borneo and Indonesia to grow massive palm oil plantations to make cheap, Western consumer goods.)
(Btw: don't buy products which contain palm oil due to the prevalence of "green washed" intermediaries lying to downsteam suppliers, which in turn leads to persistent forest -clearing fires and land theft in places like Borneo and Indonesia to grow massive palm oil plantations to make cheap, Western consumer goods.)
This is a classic example of post-hoc analysis. It like American presidents who are always there to claim credit for any minor economic or job growth but quick to blame the job loss and any other negative effect on economy on "someone else who is evil".
So California had water shortage and they decided to use the resource wisely? Everyone except federal government knows that you can spend the resource you dont have.
I would like to know why California as a state and other cities have not invested in increasing number of reservoirs, not allowed desalination and other things despite the population of California has doubled in last 30 years. Part of this is the bone headed environmentalists who would rather save few trouts than saving human beings but I think the the local bodies arent putting up a fight either.
So California had water shortage and they decided to use the resource wisely? Everyone except federal government knows that you can spend the resource you dont have.
I would like to know why California as a state and other cities have not invested in increasing number of reservoirs, not allowed desalination and other things despite the population of California has doubled in last 30 years. Part of this is the bone headed environmentalists who would rather save few trouts than saving human beings but I think the the local bodies arent putting up a fight either.
It's hard for most people to accept that the situation is often beyond immediate and total human control, and instead use blame as a shortcut and abdication of responsibility and power. It's like sociolological bikeshedding instead of working on positive solutions to modify lifestyles toward prevention. Such is human nature, but thankfully it's not an universal condition.
We can learn from Israel dip irrigation system;
Or how the drought is loosing to California..
[deleted]
You had me up until "morning coffee brewed matter-of-factly with recycled water." HELL NO.
>> Last fall, prodded by Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, the California Legislature passed a sweeping groundwater law, taking California from having the least regulated groundwater in the country to being a model.
Unfortunately by the time the law envisions the new rules being fully implemented — 2040 — aquifers across the state are likely to be permanently damaged or destroyed by over-pumping.
Unfortunately by the time the law envisions the new rules being fully implemented — 2040 — aquifers across the state are likely to be permanently damaged or destroyed by over-pumping.
> Unfortunately by the time the law envisions the new rules being fully implemented — 2040 — aquifers across the state are likely to be permanently damaged or destroyed by over-pumping.
I view the law more as a warning to the agribusinesses than anything else.
Up until now, the agribusinesses assumed they had free rein. The fact that laws are now on books is a warning that if they don't start taking action, more laws are coming that will be far more immediate.
California has a proposition system. If the people aren't getting water, they will vote to shut down farming.
I view the law more as a warning to the agribusinesses than anything else.
Up until now, the agribusinesses assumed they had free rein. The fact that laws are now on books is a warning that if they don't start taking action, more laws are coming that will be far more immediate.
California has a proposition system. If the people aren't getting water, they will vote to shut down farming.
I'm curious if you have more information about that.
This is a good article on subsidence (caused by collapsing aquifers) and saltwater intrusion:
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2013/12/21/c...
And here's an article with the timeline for the law's implementation:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140917-calif...
http://www.desertsun.com/story/news/environment/2013/12/21/c...
And here's an article with the timeline for the law's implementation:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140917-calif...
As a number of folks have commented when water is removed too quickly from the aquifer it subsides and can't be refilled by percolation.
In a sad, and very close to home, way Sunnyvale has been drawing more heavily on wells in the area to back fill water allocations and that appears to have created some subsidence near my home.
But from a technical point of view, one wonders if it would be possible to build replacement aquifers underground. I'm imagining something related to a tunnel boring machine but leaves behind a structure capable of holding water and supporting the ground above itself when "empty" sort of a loose lattice network of structures.
In a sad, and very close to home, way Sunnyvale has been drawing more heavily on wells in the area to back fill water allocations and that appears to have created some subsidence near my home.
But from a technical point of view, one wonders if it would be possible to build replacement aquifers underground. I'm imagining something related to a tunnel boring machine but leaves behind a structure capable of holding water and supporting the ground above itself when "empty" sort of a loose lattice network of structures.
It might be possible, but I don't think it would be practical. It's easy to forget how big the numbers are when dealing with water.
For example, all three Chunnel tunnels add up to less than 4500 acre-feet in volume.
For example, all three Chunnel tunnels add up to less than 4500 acre-feet in volume.
The relationship between subsidence and groundwater pumping was actually discovered in the Santa Clara Valley in the 1940s. As a result, percolation ponds were built in the 1960s to recharge local aquifers and ground water pumping by the Santa Clara Water District (which serves Sunnyvale) was reduced to sustainable levels. Subsidence basically stopped in 1969. If it has returned, that would be a sad development.
I remember reading about Sun Valley in LA County that built cisterns to regulate flooding and then use that water for irrigation during dry periods.
Subsidence is a huge issue associated associated with aquifer depletion. http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/subsid... http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/anthropogenic/subsid...
That fact alone tells you a lot. Some formations are more resilient; these tend to experience less subsidence. In systematic terms, sticky bag vs rigid tank.
That fact alone tells you a lot. Some formations are more resilient; these tend to experience less subsidence. In systematic terms, sticky bag vs rigid tank.
Not really more information about that, per se, but if you have ever seen Ken Burns' documentary on the Great Dustbowl it is interleaved with a lot of really fascinating things about how groundwater/water effects the overall affluence and economy of America as a whole - enough to cause Great Depressions and so forth. At the end, if memory serves, they discuss the Oglala aquifer and how it is at currently dangerous levels that could potentially cause another Dustbowl/Great-Depression like chain of events.
This 60 mins segment touched on it: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/depleting-the-water/
Just seen, thanks.
Well done and... much less optimistic.
Overdrafting and dropping water tables can cause the following:
- Land subsiding (sinking) which permanently lowers the capacity of the aquifer
- Chemical and pH composition changes, which can limit the usefulness of water drafted in the future
- Irreversible damage to native aquatic ecosystems, where the water table reaches the surface, which would have normally survived the drought.
- Land subsiding (sinking) which permanently lowers the capacity of the aquifer
- Chemical and pH composition changes, which can limit the usefulness of water drafted in the future
- Irreversible damage to native aquatic ecosystems, where the water table reaches the surface, which would have normally survived the drought.
"At least as clean tap" really reads as "almost as clean" without an adequate explanation.
What? How do you read the opposite meaning because there isn't an explanation?
Because there's no source cited for the information and it's provided in editorial journalism.
What's described is a large polluted source of water and presumably it's being filtered with microscopic screen filters. While I'm sure if I were aware of the engineering behind it, that I would agree that it was potable and sanitary, just reading it sounds kind of iffy.
What's described is a large polluted source of water and presumably it's being filtered with microscopic screen filters. While I'm sure if I were aware of the engineering behind it, that I would agree that it was potable and sanitary, just reading it sounds kind of iffy.
For anyone interested in this, I would recommend checking out The Water Knife (fiction) and Cadillac Desert (non-fiction).
And I suggest reading Cadillac Desert without first looking at the publishing date. It's shocking that we have been so lackadaisical about water consumption for so long.
-- spoilers --
The Water Knife is interesting to the extent that it creates a new sort of dystopian world, but then it doesn't do anything with it.
I wanted to see characters evolve, the balance of power shift, or a meaningful escape. Instead it was just competing actors chasing a shiny object, a silly miscommunication, and then everything goes back to normal.
The Water Knife is interesting to the extent that it creates a new sort of dystopian world, but then it doesn't do anything with it.
I wanted to see characters evolve, the balance of power shift, or a meaningful escape. Instead it was just competing actors chasing a shiny object, a silly miscommunication, and then everything goes back to normal.
> 70 percent more tomatoes per 1,000 gallons of water
Am I reading this wrong? The "1000 gallons" seems superfluous since we're already talking about percentages. Replace it with "gallon of water" or even "amount of water" and the 70% doesn't change.
Am I reading this wrong? The "1000 gallons" seems superfluous since we're already talking about percentages. Replace it with "gallon of water" or even "amount of water" and the 70% doesn't change.
Because "70 percent more tomatoes per unit of water" is too abstract for most people.
I think it is kind of a standard measure when talking large scale water usage. He's a farmer. It is probably habit to speak of water in those terms. His mental space is different from someone dealing with household usage.
If the measurement was originally per 1000 gallons it makes sense to preserve the unit. It may be rounded from acre-foot/year, which is 893 gallons/day.
Yes, it's mathematically superfluous. Real human communication is an evolved trait which often is logically or mathematically weird. Ask a person how many brownies to bake for a party and they might say "at least 10 to 20." The "to 20" is mathematically without meaning, but it seems to communicate something.
Is "to 20" superfluous? If they had said "at least 10" that leaves you open to baking a thousand. The "to 20" caps the possible range and makes the statement more confined.
I don't believe that it does cap the range. I see it as:
At least x (where x = 10-20). X is the minimum, and you can always exceed it, whether it is a single value or a range.
If you bake 100 brownies, you satisfy the requirement of baking at least 10 brownies, as well as the requirement of baking at least 10 to 20 brownies.
If you bake 100 brownies, you satisfy the requirement of baking at least 10 brownies, as well as the requirement of baking at least 10 to 20 brownies.
"The lower bound is estimated to be between 10 and 20"
Interesting article, but I feel like I am missing something here. According to the article, California can accommodate maybe another year or two of drought, so beyond that would be a problem? Also, the drought it causing the farmers to further deplete the depleting aquifers. So I'm not seeing how this is "winning the drought." It sounds more like maintaining the current unsustainability through better irrigation and depleting aquifers, but when the aquifer is gone it's going to be bad.
I think the article is trying to point out the things being done right, while also acknowledging the problems that still exist. You can only operate at a loss for so long before you need to fold up shop, no matter the ways you minimize that loss.
But "the state’s economy grew 27 percent faster than the country’s economy as a whole", and that's all that matters!
And says exactly nothing. Say the US economy has barely grown by 0.1 %. If California's economy would have grown by 0.2%, it would have grown 100% faster than the country's economy.
GDP growth for the US has been at 2.2-2.4 for the last 3 years[1]...if California is growing 25% faster, it isn't huge but it isn't negligible, either.
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
[1] http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG
For those wanting real info, watch this video from the state's water board's director to the MIT NorCal alumni club. It's super fascinating.
http://ttv.mit.edu/videos/31839-california-water-2015-felici...
http://ttv.mit.edu/videos/31839-california-water-2015-felici...
Win a drought? This isn't chess. The wording should be 'survive', cope with or even struggle through. (Take that nature!) There is no winning. I was in California six months ago and was taken aback by the lack of worry. Nobody seemed to be doing anything. The lawns and fields were green, the backyard pools all full and people were washing cars like normal.
> I was in California six months ago and was taken aback by the lack of worry. Nobody seemed to be doing anything.
Do what? Please do tell us what will fix the problem and we'll do it.
The problem is that there is nothing that the average consumer can now do that will materially affect the situation.
Southern California is building desalinization plants. That's something that local communities near the ocean will do. That can solve the water problem for many people.
However, the only real way to solve the water problem in California is to shut down agriculture in the Central Valley. There is no other option.
Do what? Please do tell us what will fix the problem and we'll do it.
The problem is that there is nothing that the average consumer can now do that will materially affect the situation.
Southern California is building desalinization plants. That's something that local communities near the ocean will do. That can solve the water problem for many people.
However, the only real way to solve the water problem in California is to shut down agriculture in the Central Valley. There is no other option.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, but I saw the same thing in Palo Alto earlier this year. I walked through the neighborhood and twice saw hoses left on leaking water on the home's front walkway. That doesn't count the 10-20 sprinklers that were running mid-day.
I understand that personal use is nothing compared to agricultural use, but it's as if everyone will continue business as usual until all the water is gone, and then it feels like "shrug oh well guess we'll move".
I understand that personal use is nothing compared to agricultural use, but it's as if everyone will continue business as usual until all the water is gone, and then it feels like "shrug oh well guess we'll move".
Rationally, what is anyone supposed to do?
In March people were claiming the state had 12 months of water remaining. Lets assume that number is holding and we've got about 7 months of water left.
If the entire state simply halted all urban and industrial water use, that would buy about 3 extra weeks before the state runs out of water. And that is in a scenario where 40 million people (and all non-ag industry) simply cease to consume water at all.
Not washing cars or watering lawns is a great emotional gesture, but nothing short of real policy or weather changes will make any meaningful difference.
In March people were claiming the state had 12 months of water remaining. Lets assume that number is holding and we've got about 7 months of water left.
If the entire state simply halted all urban and industrial water use, that would buy about 3 extra weeks before the state runs out of water. And that is in a scenario where 40 million people (and all non-ag industry) simply cease to consume water at all.
Not washing cars or watering lawns is a great emotional gesture, but nothing short of real policy or weather changes will make any meaningful difference.
Water doesn't work that way. Shutting off urban water supplies would not increase the supply available to growers, and the other way around, too. Growers can run out of water (delivered by the CWP/SWP) while cities (which each have their own water systems) might be set for years.
Interesting. Very different from Israel, which is in a part of the world that has long suffered from chronic droughts - the culture is very much that water needs to be preserved and not wasted (e.g., by taking long showers, etc). And I would say this is true even after Israel "beat" the drought with desalination plants (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/world/middleeast/water-...).
> it's as if everyone will continue business as usual until all the water is gone
This has happened before and in the past the state made a big deal about it and everyone panicked. But before we ran out of water, the biggest deluge of water hit California in decades and the populous prayed for sun instead.
This has happened before and in the past the state made a big deal about it and everyone panicked. But before we ran out of water, the biggest deluge of water hit California in decades and the populous prayed for sun instead.
Probably because those of us who do live here have seen it.
California is enormous--bigger than many nations. I suspect your sample size is very small. It also matters if you are in the north or the south.
I've lived in SoCal for about three years and even in that short time the changes brought on by the drought have been substantial.
I've lived in SoCal for about three years and even in that short time the changes brought on by the drought have been substantial.
Check the statistics which show reductions of 30-40% in many communities. These savings are achieved by people making dramatic changes.
https://www.calwater.com/latest_news/july-conservation-progr...
https://www.calwater.com/latest_news/july-conservation-progr...
And these dramatic changes are implementing water conservation strategies that have been common in Europe for decades.
Interesting. Landscaping lawns and communities into desert ecoscapes is common in Europe? I also wasn't aware that building desalination and greywater recovery plants was in vogue in Europe.
Actually, why would Europe institute such measures in the first place? They aren't suffering from drought. In a non drought situation why would you undertake such measures? The reason desalination plants aren't commonly built is that if you have adequate water alternatives, they actually hurt the environment, so there's no benefit.
Actually, why would Europe institute such measures in the first place? They aren't suffering from drought. In a non drought situation why would you undertake such measures? The reason desalination plants aren't commonly built is that if you have adequate water alternatives, they actually hurt the environment, so there's no benefit.
Well, not directly, but: Watering your lawn is (a) expensive, and (b) seen as wasteful. So most people never water their lawn at all, only letting it survive on rain water, or they collect rainwater from roof collectors and water with that. Usually, not a single liter of household water ends up on the lawn.
And most Germans use toilets that never fill the bowl and only rush about 1 liter of water to save water (the new ones without poop shelf, at least).
Why we do this? (a) efficiency, (b) water is expensive, even though we have more than we can use.
Actually, in my city people use so little water that the water company (despite population growth) has to clean the pipes artificially, because they were designed to self-clean from the constant water stream, but people just don’t use enough water for that. (Why they have to be cleaned? We have insane CaCO3 concentrations in the water. Wash clothes, and your jeans can stand on their own).
And most Germans use toilets that never fill the bowl and only rush about 1 liter of water to save water (the new ones without poop shelf, at least).
Why we do this? (a) efficiency, (b) water is expensive, even though we have more than we can use.
Actually, in my city people use so little water that the water company (despite population growth) has to clean the pipes artificially, because they were designed to self-clean from the constant water stream, but people just don’t use enough water for that. (Why they have to be cleaned? We have insane CaCO3 concentrations in the water. Wash clothes, and your jeans can stand on their own).
You could have walked around Wall St. in 2008-2012 and thought a recession never happened. You're not going to see 40 million people with rain catchers outside their homes if that's what you are expecting. The effects are much more insidious than that. It doesn't mean people aren't worrying or doing anything about it.
40+ million rain catchers (ie buckets attached to downspouts) would be a great start. I live in a far wetter city (vancouver) and loads of people are installing rainwater storage to ease the load during the summer.
In some jurisdictions in the United States it's actually unlawful to divert rainfall.
This is just more anti-government FUD. It is legal in all 50 states to collect rainwater on your property.
http://www.enlight-inc.com/blog/?p=1036
The story that keeps circulating on the internet is that a guy in Colorado was fined for doing just for that. But looking at it more closely you find he was damming creeks on his property and building holding ponds (essentially lakes), which is subject to standard environmental regulations.
http://www.enlight-inc.com/blog/?p=1036
The story that keeps circulating on the internet is that a guy in Colorado was fined for doing just for that. But looking at it more closely you find he was damming creeks on his property and building holding ponds (essentially lakes), which is subject to standard environmental regulations.
I'm not sure what your link is supposed to prove. It unequivocally states that Colorado makes it unlawful to collect rainwater. Indeed this linked website of the state of Colorado confirms that "you cannot collect rainwater in any other manner, such as storage in a cistern or tank, for later use."
http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/DWR_RainwaterFlye...
Anyway, there is nothing inherently "anti-government" about pointing out what is and is not proscribed by the law.
http://water.state.co.us/DWRIPub/Documents/DWR_RainwaterFlye...
Anyway, there is nothing inherently "anti-government" about pointing out what is and is not proscribed by the law.
Hell, I live in Germany and even everyone here collects all rainwater from roofs, just to water plants, etc.
The stuff california implements now has been standard here for decades, and we have more water than we can use.
The stuff california implements now has been standard here for decades, and we have more water than we can use.
By my estimate my covered pool takes, on average, about an extra 0.5 gallons per day. Less than a toilet flush.
> I was in California six months ago and was taken aback by the lack of worry.
Exactly. I was there in April. It was surreal to me how normal everything seemed to me. I do not think reality sets in until you run out, which has happened to some towns in the Central Valley.
Edit: also, the fact that some residential areas are not metered seems nuts: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25303957/california-dr...
Exactly. I was there in April. It was surreal to me how normal everything seemed to me. I do not think reality sets in until you run out, which has happened to some towns in the Central Valley.
Edit: also, the fact that some residential areas are not metered seems nuts: http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25303957/california-dr...
> The lawns and fields were green, the backyard pools all full and people were washing cars like normal.
The reason for this is that lawns and pools aren't the problem. The problem is, and continues to be agricultural use of water. You could rip out literally every single lawn and golf course in the entire state of California today and the impact it would have on statewide water use would be within the margin of error for measurement. We're talking literally less than 5% of total water usage.
The scope of this problem is so massive that most people have difficulty comprehending it, both due to the massive amount of water involved, and the massive amount of land area involved. People think all the lawns cover a huge surface area. It's a rounding error compared to the size of the industrial farms in the Central Valley and the amount of water they use.
Some crops in particular use far more water than others as well. The two biggest offenders are almonds and alfalfa. If we temporarily stopped growing those two crops in California, the crisis would be literally non-existent. The entire cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco use about 800,000 acre-feet of water per year COMBINED.[1] Alfalfa growers in California are using 5.3 MILLION acre feet of water.[2]
On top of that, Alfalfa contributes so little to the California economy that we could buy out the entire Alfalfa growing industry in this state and it would only cost a total of about two dollars per resident.
Most people are already fairly water conscious, and don't go around wantonly wasting it, so when they're asked to further cut back an additional 20% on their water use and threatened with increased fees and fines if they don't, they tend not to be too happy about it. Especially when you take into account the fact that household water use(drinking water, showers, toilets, cooking, lawns, swimming pools, sprinklers and such) accounts for roughly 3%[2] of total use in the entire state, why should we all suffer, cut back, put up with low-flow showerheads, drain our pools, let our lawns die and leave piss sitting in our toilets to save 20% of 3%? All that to save 0.6% of the total water used in the state? Sorry, but no.
Read over link [2] below in it's entirety, it has great data and really provides some excellent perspective on the state's water issues.
[1] http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/n...
[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...
The reason for this is that lawns and pools aren't the problem. The problem is, and continues to be agricultural use of water. You could rip out literally every single lawn and golf course in the entire state of California today and the impact it would have on statewide water use would be within the margin of error for measurement. We're talking literally less than 5% of total water usage.
The scope of this problem is so massive that most people have difficulty comprehending it, both due to the massive amount of water involved, and the massive amount of land area involved. People think all the lawns cover a huge surface area. It's a rounding error compared to the size of the industrial farms in the Central Valley and the amount of water they use.
Some crops in particular use far more water than others as well. The two biggest offenders are almonds and alfalfa. If we temporarily stopped growing those two crops in California, the crisis would be literally non-existent. The entire cities of Los Angeles and San Francisco use about 800,000 acre-feet of water per year COMBINED.[1] Alfalfa growers in California are using 5.3 MILLION acre feet of water.[2]
On top of that, Alfalfa contributes so little to the California economy that we could buy out the entire Alfalfa growing industry in this state and it would only cost a total of about two dollars per resident.
Most people are already fairly water conscious, and don't go around wantonly wasting it, so when they're asked to further cut back an additional 20% on their water use and threatened with increased fees and fines if they don't, they tend not to be too happy about it. Especially when you take into account the fact that household water use(drinking water, showers, toilets, cooking, lawns, swimming pools, sprinklers and such) accounts for roughly 3%[2] of total use in the entire state, why should we all suffer, cut back, put up with low-flow showerheads, drain our pools, let our lawns die and leave piss sitting in our toilets to save 20% of 3%? All that to save 0.6% of the total water used in the state? Sorry, but no.
Read over link [2] below in it's entirety, it has great data and really provides some excellent perspective on the state's water issues.
[1] http://www.pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/n...
[2] http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...
>buy out the entire Alfalfa growing industry in this state and it would only cost a total of about two dollars per resident.
that's interesting - you could say that if you can convince just 10% of people in california (4mil people) to donate $20 bucks, they can reduce the drought problem by half. I'd say that should be agreeable for most, except for the alfalfa related industries...
that's interesting - you could say that if you can convince just 10% of people in california (4mil people) to donate $20 bucks, they can reduce the drought problem by half. I'd say that should be agreeable for most, except for the alfalfa related industries...
Six months ago was during the rainy season. I'm not surprised you were able to find green fields.
For a century, California has pioneered innovations that have changed the way we all live.
For probably over a century in fact. And California has pioneered environmental laws for decades as well, going back to about (or "at least"?) the 1960's.
Salt Dreams is a fascinating book about the history of water usage, the Colorado River and the Salton Sea going back hundreds of years, to before the existence of the Salton Sea. I also recently read a history of another water use district in the Central Valley. I cannot recall the name of that book, but the history of water usage and water law in California is rich and fascinating and a lot of pioneering things have happened out here.
For probably over a century in fact. And California has pioneered environmental laws for decades as well, going back to about (or "at least"?) the 1960's.
Salt Dreams is a fascinating book about the history of water usage, the Colorado River and the Salton Sea going back hundreds of years, to before the existence of the Salton Sea. I also recently read a history of another water use district in the Central Valley. I cannot recall the name of that book, but the history of water usage and water law in California is rich and fascinating and a lot of pioneering things have happened out here.
Necessity is the mother of invention
I wish the article did a better job of exploring various agricultural solutions - drip irrigation is just a baby step when compared to something like hydroponics. Hydroponic production uses anywhere (and I'm just trying to remember the various claims I've seen in both studies and articles without going back to them) from 75%-90% less water than conventional ag, beating drip irrigation off the low end.
Agroecology challenges the monoculture system that (I think) caused this over-consumption. By planting thirsty crops like corn and polluting the existing aquacultures with the pesticides needed to preserve an area lacking any sort of biodiversity, monocultures have created a fragile food supply that increasing prices (and terrible subsidies) continue to highlight. Agroecology, on the other hand, encourages a system of farming that takes into account the cultural/social context of a region while suggesting methods (grounding those suggestions in data) of production that respect local ecology and agricultural practices for increased production.