So, the drought in California

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, that's about what you can expect if you're consuming more water than is replenished by natural means. Par for the course, so far.

I'm a bit astounded by the industry's (read: agriculture) attitude towards policy changes by the government, however. They're criticising attempts to regulate which plants they should plant as "disturbing the free market" and "having unwanted economic effects".

Well, d'oh. What do they think will happen if there's even less water than there currently is (which for this years is practically guaranteed)? Talk about "unwanted economic effects". One of the better examples of the "tragedy of the commons" - even when the consequences of their profligacy are staring them right in the face, they still want to continue as if nothing will ever change.

[Flixy]

They don't want to disturb the free market? This coming from farmers? They are aware they are subsidised, and even their water should be much, much more expensive?

[Loki]

I can't really think of any industry in the US that's less free market than agriculture.

[Khendraja'aro]

I guess it's the usual reaction of "regulations are bad if they're bad for me! Nevermind that my business will collapse in a few years time anyway if we don't do something!"

[Loki]

This is the industry that managed to have the government legislate price floors and to give them money for burning crops.

[GGT]

Northern CA farmers are supposedly selling their water (for higher profit margins) instead of planting crops.

This is their worst drought since the 70's....with rainfall and snow pack the lowest in at least a century. This affects more than just the agriculture industry -- when peoples' wells run dry, and they have to buy bottled drinking water at $5/gallon -- that's serious stuff.

Water Rights and Land Use management in CA have been a mess for decades. Giving preference to farmers and crop irrigation, so they could turn desert land into major food-production, seemed like a good idea about a hundred years ago. But it doesn't make much sense to grow high water-use commodities like rice when water is the more valuable (and scarce) commodity.

On top of the drought, they're expected to have another year of massive wildfires.....

what a mess

[Loki]

$5 a gallon of bottled drinking water? Do you buy water made from gold? It costs under $2.

[GGT]

$5 a gallon of bottled drinking water? Do you buy water made from gold? It costs under $2.

The price of water varies by state, as does the price of gas.

[Loki]

Bottled water? Not so much.

[earthJoker]

$5 a gallon of bottled drinking water? Do you buy water made from gold? It costs under $2.

Maybe she buys only French bottled water. So posh.

[Loki]

Or she buys pint-sized bottles and then pours then into a gallon one...

[EyeKhan]

Northern CA farmers are supposedly selling their water (for higher profit margins) instead of planting crops.

This is their worst drought since the 70's....

what a mess

Word I heard this morning is "they" are calling it the worst drought in the last 1000 years. Not sure how "they" conclude that - tree ring data to guesstimate rainfall history?

[Flixy]

And I'm also guessing it depends on whether you call something a drought based on how much water is available, or how much you need. I'd say the latter is the problem, but luckily also fixable! I read farmers water their crops using extremely wasteful means, mostly by simply flooding the fields. Hell, even in famously dry Netherlands we don't do that...

[LittleFuzzy]

Word I heard this morning is "they" are calling it the worst drought in the last 1000 years. Not sure how "they" conclude that - tree ring data to guesstimate rainfall history?

You do use the tree ring data and it's not a bad proxy at all, but whoever "they" are would be wrong if they're using the tree ring data. The tree ring data says that there have been much much worse droughts in California history and that what is considered "normal" rainfall, as per the last 150 years, is actually one of the wettest periods in the area's history.

And I'm also guessing it depends on whether you call something a drought based on how much water is available, or how much you need. I'd say the latter is the problem, but luckily also fixable! I read farmers water their crops using extremely wasteful means, mostly by simply flooding the fields. Hell, even in famously dry Netherlands we don't do that...

It depends on the crop and the local irrigation solutions. Some crops that's the best method (see rice). Of course, IMO, those are crops that probably shouldn't be planted around here.

[EyeKhan]

what is considered "normal" rainfall, as per the last 150 years, is actually one of the wettest periods in the area's history.

That's very interesting in and of itself - do you have a link or anything?

[LittleFuzzy]

That's very interesting in and of itself - do you have a link or anything?

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/sc...alifornia.html (note, this article is from 20 years ago)

*****************************/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/pr...st/kunzig-text

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weathe...ught/14446195/

And for kicks

http://www.riversimulator.org/Resour...dhouse2005.pdf

[Loocid]

Must be pretty bad if the Energy Commission are mandating the standards of toilets and faucets that can be sold.

[Lewkowski]

Must be pretty bad if the Energy Commission are mandating the standards of toilets and faucets that can be sold.

That's just big government run amok. Just like banning certain types of light bulbs. Its all about the government picking economic winners and losers and scoring points with the green lobby.

[EyeKhan]

That's just big government run amok. Just like banning certain types of light bulbs. Its all about the government picking economic winners and losers and scoring points with the green lobby.

No it isn't. It's government doing what it's supposed to do - addressing problems that the private sector is incapable of addressing in a way that doesn't cause long term unnecessary cost/ suffering.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/07/19/sc...alifornia.html (note, this article is from 20 years ago)

*****************************/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/pr...st/kunzig-text

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weathe...ught/14446195/

And for kicks

http://www.riversimulator.org/Resour...dhouse2005.pdf

Thanks for the links. Not that you probably care, but the science link is broken, I skipped the NYT because of it's age, the national geographic was very good, I skipped the USA today because of the source (as if ) and the one for kicks was perfect.

The broader issue highlighted here is that our modern civilization has grown so rapidly there is no way to know whether the natural systems some parts of it rely upon - like water availability in the southwest - are stable in any longish term way. Well, there is a way to know as discussed in the articles, but in this specific case only way after the fact... Seems like the desalination business may be a good longish term investment bet out West.

[LittleFuzzy]

No it isn't. It's government doing what it's supposed to do - addressing problems that the private sector is incapable of addressing in a way that doesn't cause long term unnecessary cost/ suffering.



Thanks for the links. Not that you probably care, but the science link is broken, I skipped the NYT because of it's age, the national geographic was very good, I skipped the USA today because of the source (as if ) and the one for kicks was perfect.

The broader issue highlighted here is that our modern civilization has grown so rapidly there is no way to know whether the natural systems some parts of it rely upon - like water availability in the southwest - are stable in any longish term way. Well, there is a way to know as discussed in the articles, but in this specific case only way after the fact... Seems like the desalination business may be a good longish term investment bet out West.

That was a link to the San Jose Mercury. Apparently it's owned by Digital First, which is the same company that owns the Denver Post. Wraith has forum code that obfuscates links to any of their media holdings because apparently they're very litigious against small internet sites.

You shouldn't have skipped the NYT article. I included it, despite its age, because everything in there is still accurate and it demonstrates that none of this is any sort of new science. And it's a shame you skipped the USA Today article because it's the one that directly spoke about the issue in precisely the way you'd have liked.

[Lewkowski]

No it isn't. It's government doing what it's supposed to do - addressing problems that the private sector is incapable of addressing in a way that doesn't cause long term unnecessary cost/ suffering.

Not it isn't. I'm OK with charging more for water. I'm OK with limiting the sheer amount of water each household can get from the public water system. I'm not OK with mandating how the water is used. If I want my toilet to flush with more water that's my business. If I want to water my lawn - that's my business. If I want to take 5 hour showers that is my business. When government regulates specific products out of existence that is government gone too far.

[EyeKhan]

If I want my toilet to flush with more water that's my business. If I want to water my lawn - that's my business. If I want to take 5 hour showers that is my business.

In your scenario, people with the means to pay can use as much water as they want. In this case water is a limited resource so the more that is used, the higher the price will become. With no limits on the water that can be used, the price goes up. As the price goes up, water use by poorer people is restricted more and more because they can't pay, while the richer people have little or no restrictions on their water use. Your scenario heads toward poor people who can only flush their toilet once every three days, shower once a week or less frequently, while the rich guy on the other side of the tracks has a 5 acre lawn he waters daily to a beautiful green. Water is a key resource that people's health depends upon - and it is the government's role to make sure a limited water supply is reasonably available to all citizens, regardless of their wealth.

[Flixy]

In your scenario, people with the means to pay can use as much water as they want. In this case water is a limited resource so the more that is used, the higher the price will become. With no limits on the water that can be used, the price goes up. As the price goes up, water use by poorer people is restricted more and more because they can't pay, while the richer people have little or no restrictions on their water use. Your scenario heads toward poor people who can only flush their toilet once every three days, shower once a week or less frequently, while the rich guy on the other side of the tracks has a 5 acre lawn he waters daily to a beautiful green. Water is a key resource that people's health depends upon - and it is the government's role to make sure a limited water supply is reasonably available to all citizens, regardless of their wealth.

Which is basically okay with certain goods, but things like water, food, etc., are a bit more vital as you say.

[Wraith]

I'm OK with limiting the sheer amount of water each household can get from the public water system.

In your scenario, people with the means to pay can use as much water as they want.

[Khendraja'aro]

When government regulates specific products out of existence that is government gone too far.

Yeah, because there are so many uses for enriched Uranium for private households!

[EyeKhan]

@ DW - understood, but he then contradicted that statement with

If I want my toilet to flush with more water that's my business. If I want to water my lawn - that's my business. If I want to take 5 hour showers that is my business.

It's only his business so long as it doesn't drive up the cost for everyone else, or make sufficient water unavailable to others in some other way, and that is essentially what a drought situation like this is all about. And in that drought situation, when people insist on doing whatever they want because it's their business, then the government has to step in and force a measure of fairness.

EDIT:

@Lewk

I'm OK with limiting the sheer amount of water each household can get from the public water system. I'm not OK with mandating how the water is used.

Leaving the higher cost bit aside, which is what I argued against a bit ago, are you saying you would support installing water meters that shut off at a certain amount of water? You just don't want low flow shower heads and low gpf toilets to be MANDATORY? Let the user decide what to do with their daily ration of water - long showers or lawn watering or whatever - just don't make them use water saving gadgets if they don't want them?

In the meter installation, who pays for the meter and install labor? Taxes? With low flow devices, there is no big up front cost like that. The devices get phased in as the old ones wear out and the cost isn't any more for a new low flow shower head vs. an old high flow. Your method seems like it would cost a LOT to implement. Not sure that's a sensible use of tax dollars.

[Wraith]

Not all of us use the eye-burning theme.

[EyeKhan]

Not all of us use the eye-burning theme.

No idea how that formatting got in there...

[Lewkowski]

If drought becomes *bad enough* then yes flow from public water can be capped. Again allow people freedom to use it how they desire. If they want to water their lawn and make up the savings with low flush toilets - good for them. If they don't mind their lawn going to crap but like to take 3 hour shows good for them. Its about liberty and the government NOT choosing economic winners and losers. Because guess what 'green' companies give money to politicians and oh wow their competitors get regulated out of business. Hmmmm...

[Spenni]

If drought becomes *bad enough* then yes flow from public water can be capped. Again allow people freedom to use it how they desire. If they want to water their lawn and make up the savings with low flush toilets - good for them. If they don't mind their lawn going to crap but like to take 3 hour shows good for them. Its about liberty and the government NOT choosing economic winners and losers. Because guess what 'green' companies give money to politicians and oh wow their competitors get regulated out of business. Hmmmm...

So you are for water rationing?