California: Govenor orders historic 25 percent mandatory water use reduction

[realibrad]

How very American of you, hoping your fellow citizens suffer.

This is stupid and wrong. This is not an "American" sentiment. I have many friends from Europe and they feel the same way. People want retribution for injustice. When you see someone suffering because of their actions, many enjoy it. Hell, the Germans came up with a word for it (schadenfreude), where they get pleasure from others misfortune. Some people like to see others suffer.

 

[brycejones]

This is stupid and wrong. This is not an "American" sentiment. I have many friends from Europe and they feel the same way. People want retribution for injustice. When you see someone suffering because of their actions, many enjoy it. Hell, the Germans came up with a word for it (schadenfreude), where they get pleasure from others misfortune. Some people like to see others suffer.

I think you misunderstood my point.

 

[unokitty]

The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. Residents across the state are being told to take shorter showers and stop watering their lawns, but the acreage devoted to the state's almond orchards have doubled in the past decade. The amount of water that California uses annually to produce almond exports would provide water for all Los Angeles homes and businesses for almost three years.

Its just a matter of priorities.

If California politicians want to prioritize water for export crops over water for people to use, who could possibly object?

Uno

 

[realibrad]

I think you misunderstood my point.

Either you are saying it is, American to think that way, or not American to think that way. Either option you are wrong about. Every culture I have seen has people that feel this way. Not one culture I have seen is worse/better than the other.

Your implication that some may or may not believe something in this regard is wrong.

 

[realibrad]

Its just a matter of priorities.

If California politicians want to prioritize water for export crops over water for people to use, who could possibly object?

Uno

CA is a great example of what happens when you try and cast away Capitalism.

 

[JSt0rm]

Some people will never admit this point sadly. They have the blinder locked in place.

Its not that hard to admit. Its true. Whats also true aside from the economic impact of that is the environmental impact of water migration. If I pay higher water prices so all of you get cheap strawberries I'm gonna write a letter or something.

 

[Jaskalas]

CA is a great example of what happens when you try and cast away Capitalism.

Because Capitalism would prioritize people over farming profits? 😕

If anything, it's being argued that the government isn't being controlling enough in staking a claim for the people over the farmers.

 

[JSt0rm]

CA is a great example of what happens when you try and cast away Capitalism.

Its so much more complicated then that. For instance water is sucked out of the ground on your property... how would capitalism change that? A almond famrer can pull 600 gallons of water out of the ground for 4 cents.

What is needed is more government regulation on how much water they can pull out of the ground, not more capitalism.

 

[JSt0rm]

Because Capitalism would prioritize people over farming profits? 😕

If anything, it's being argued that the government isn't being controlling enough in staking a claim for the people over the farmers.

exactly. The mess comes from the county governments being in control of those water rights. A county of farmers is gonna suck suck suck.

Here is a counter point and one I really dont care about...

"US consumers pay just 6.2% of their disposable income on food for their families compared to 10.2%t in 28 other high-income countries. At the same 10.2% rate US families would have to increase the amount they spend on their food budget by almost $4,000 per year,"

 

[Vic]

CA is a great example of what happens when you try and cast away Capitalism.

You lost me there. How is allocating public resources towards for-profit industry an example of anti-Capitalism?

 

[Subyman]

You lost me there. How is allocating public resources towards for-profit industry an example of anti-Capitalism?

Yeah, capitalism is very vague and has many types. Nothing is purely laissez-faire these days. The state controlling water allocation is therefore controlling agricultural investment, which is more like a state capitalism system. Though it isn't wide spread across many industries. The US is funny how it picks and chooses what to control and what not to control.

 

[cabri]

Its so much more complicated then that. For instance water is sucked out of the ground on your property... how would capitalism change that? A almond famrer can pull 600 gallons of water out of the ground for 4 cents.

What is needed is more government regulation on how much water they can pull out of the ground, not more capitalism.

Is that water being pumped from their own wells or is it be sent in via canals/rivers.

If the later; then capitalism (cost) should come into play

 

[Vic]

Yeah, capitalism is very vague and has many types. Nothing is purely laissez-faire these days. The state controlling water allocation is therefore controlling agricultural investment, which is more like a state capitalism system. Though it isn't wide spread across many industries. The US is funny how it picks and chooses what to control and what not to control.

California's water resources derive mostly from snowpack in the high Sierras and Cascades. Getting all that water from Shasta to LA required the construction of an immense system of dams, canals, and aqueducts that was beyond the means of private capital.

 

[realibrad]

Because Capitalism would prioritize people over farming profits? 😕

If anything, it's being argued that the government isn't being controlling enough in staking a claim for the people over the farmers.

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is. CA and its water is a great example of tragedy of the commons scenario. The reason it is happening is because water is being treated as a resource that has no end. Capitalism would have long ago meant that the resource would become more expensive as supply was dropping. Because water was treated like a public good, the price was fixed, as raising it would be a burden on the less wealthy. What that caused was farmers to produce crops that were not cost aka resource efficient. The cost of moving that much water to farms was greater than what farmers were paying.

CA is a great state. I was born and raised there, and love when I get to go back. That does not cloud what is happening to me though. CA is following a socialist political system and views many things as needing a price cap. What that does is cause resources like water to get over used, and not to go their most efficient uses.

The public is paying to subsidize water for farmers. Capitalism says that the public should be paid for giving up their rights in a free exchange. The current system is not free exchange, because capitalism is not being used to set prices. Taking away the public's right to be compensated is not capitalism. Corruption is not capitalism, and many like you seem to think it is. Capitalism like all systems can be broken by those breaking the rules. Its not inherent to capitalism and capitalism is not immune to corruption.

 

[Vic]

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is. CA and its water is a great example of tragedy of the commons scenario. The reason it is happening is because water is being treated as a resource that has no end. Capitalism would have long ago meant that the resource would become more expensive as supply was dropping. Because water was treated like a public good, the price was fixed, as raising it would be a burden on the less wealthy. What that caused was farmers to produce crops that were not cost aka resource efficient. The cost of moving that much water to farms was greater than what farmers were paying.

CA is a great state. I was born and raised there, and love when I get to go back. That does not cloud what is happening to me though. CA is following a socialist political system and views many things as needing a price cap. What that does is cause resources like water to get over used, and not to go their most efficient uses.

The public is paying to subsidize water for farmers. Capitalism says that the public should be paid for giving up their rights in a free exchange. The current system is not free exchange, because capitalism is not being used to set prices. Taking away the public's right to be compensated is not capitalism. Corruption is not capitalism, and many like you seem to think it is. Capitalism like all systems can be broken by those breaking the rules. Its not inherent to capitalism and capitalism is not immune to corruption.

Pure laissez faire capitalism lacks the rigorous organizational structure and the stability to construct and maintain projects of this scale. The capital investment and risk are simply too high. It would impossible for a single private entity to acquire all the necessary contiguous easements and rights of way. And finally, how would it be determined who actually owns all that water, the majority of which fell as snow in distant mountains?
Do you complain that California's highway system is also publicly owned?

 

[IronWing]

You show a fundamental misunderstanding of what capitalism is. CA and its water is a great example of tragedy of the commons scenario. The reason it is happening is because water is being treated as a resource that has no end. Capitalism would have long ago meant that the resource would become more expensive as supply was dropping. Because water was treated like a public good, the price was fixed, as raising it would be a burden on the less wealthy. What that caused was farmers to produce crops that were not cost aka resource efficient. The cost of moving that much water to farms was greater than what farmers were paying.

CA is a great state. I was born and raised there, and love when I get to go back. That does not cloud what is happening to me though. CA is following a socialist political system and views many things as needing a price cap. What that does is cause resources like water to get over used, and not to go their most efficient uses.

The public is paying to subsidize water for farmers. Capitalism says that the public should be paid for giving up their rights in a free exchange. The current system is not free exchange, because capitalism is not being used to set prices. Taking away the public's right to be compensated is not capitalism. Corruption is not capitalism, and many like you seem to think it is. Capitalism like all systems can be broken by those breaking the rules. Its not inherent to capitalism and capitalism is not immune to corruption.

Read up on California water law and property rights. Almost everything you have written above is incorrect in the context of California's prior appropriation water rights scheme.

 

[realibrad]

Pure laissez faire capitalism lacks the rigorous organizational structure and the stability to construct and maintain projects of this scale. The capital investment and risk are simply too high. It would impossible for a single private entity to acquire all the necessary contiguous easements and rights of way. And finally, how would it be determined who actually owns all that water, the majority of which fell as snow in distant mountains?
Do you complain that California's highway system is also publicly owned?

So a few things.

First, you dont need to do a pure capitalism structure to help this problem. Setting up a market for the water would be a far better solution then what they have now.

You also dont need to have a single owner of all the water either.

Capitalism is not unstable. Just because it has instabilities does not mean it is unstable, because that would mean it has more instabilities when compared to other options. Right now is a perfect example that the current system is unstable.

Ownership and markets would go a long way to helping the water issue. Right now, farmers can use massive amounts of water for very little cost to themselves.

 

[brycejones]

Public water is commie water.

 

[DrPizza]

exactly. The mess comes from the county governments being in control of those water rights. A county of farmers is gonna suck suck suck.

Here is a counter point and one I really dont care about...

"US consumers pay just 6.2% of their disposable income on food for their families compared to 10.2%t in 28 other high-income countries. At the same 10.2% rate US families would have to increase the amount they spend on their food budget by almost $4,000 per year,"

Not sure who did the math on that one, but the median household income in the United States is no where near $100,000. Actually, it would need to be much more than $100,000 for those statistics to work, since they claim it's based on "disposable income."

 

[JSt0rm]

Not sure who did the math on that one, but the median household income in the United States is no where near $100,000. Actually, it would need to be much more than $100,000 for those statistics to work, since they claim it's based on "disposable income."

Those numbers come from the farm lobby.

 

[DCal430]

The largest agricultural use of water in California is in the production of milk and other dairy goods, the second largest is for beef and pork production. Together these two count for probably almost 30 to 50% of all agra water usage.

The use of land and water for animals to produce milk and meat is very inefficient, maybe we should all become vegans.

 

[DCal430]

The real problem is global warming, California normally has one of the highest total precipitation in the world in its mountains, mountains would be covered with hundreds of inches of snow. Some years we could see over a 1000 inches of snow in some places of California.

Now we are lucky to see even 100 inches in a year.

 

[unokitty]

As drought squeezes California, thirsty crops still being planted

Even as the worst drought in decades ravages California, and its cities face mandatory cuts in water use, millions of pounds of thirsty crops like oranges, tomatoes and almonds continue to stream out of the state and onto the nation’s grocery shelves.

But the way that California farmers have pulled off that feat is a case study in the unwise use of natural resources, many experts say. Farmers are drilling wells at a feverish pace and pumping billions of gallons of water from the ground, depleting a resource that was critically endangered even before the drought, now in its fourth year, began.

As a drilling frenzy unfolds across the Central Valley, California’s agricultural heartland, the consequences of the overuse of groundwater are becoming plain to see.

In some places, water tables have dropped 50 feet or more in just a few years. With less underground water to buoy it, the land surface is sinking as much as a foot a year in spots, causing roads to buckle and bridges to crack. Shallow wells have run dry, depriving several poor communities of water.

... for decades, California farmers have been overdrawing many of the state’s water-holding formations — its aquifers — even in years when surface water for irrigation was plentiful, the equivalent of overdrawing a checking account.

Consequences of groundwater overuse becoming plain to see?
Decades of overdrawing California's aquifers?

I'll take case studies in unwise use of natural resources for $500, Alex.

Uno

 

[tweakmonkey]

What I wonder is this how could desalination be economically viable -FOR AG-? This is something I am reading all over the place.

Isn't the entire reason these farmers are able to sell the crops (especially exporting the majority of almonds, alfalfa etc. overseas) at a profit due in big part to cheap water? Desalination can't be nearly that cheap, and the crops simply wouldn't make sense without the water. Making your own has to cut all the profits out.

For example if an almond takes a gallon of water to produce, and it takes 8(? some number) watts just to to desalinate a gallon of water, what would the total cost of that water be once you factor in the following:
-costs of creating, operating (fuel alone!) and maintaining the power plants to produce this kind of power (almonds alone used 1.1 trillion gallons of water last year I believe)
-cost of creating and running the desalination plants
-costs of creating the piping and pumping (more energy) all the water to farms from the ocean. Most of the dry farms are 100+ miles from the ocean I think.
-pollution - ecological impacts to the ocean or surrounding areas of the desal plants where the waste is left, emissions from burning all the natural gas or coal

I can't imagine how it could ever still be profitable to use that kind of water to grow a water intensive crop in a desert. I imagine you'd have almonds costing $50/pound or something and nobody would buy them or for cheaper from another place.

 

[JSt0rm]

The real problem is global warming, California normally has one of the highest total precipitation in the world in its mountains, mountains would be covered with hundreds of inches of snow. Some years we could see over a 1000 inches of snow in some places of California.

Now we are lucky to see even 100 inches in a year.

Yes. Of course. Nobody wanted to do anything about that when we had the chance so we all will now have to live it. Thats the reality. The universe moves on.