OT Just how bad is the drought? Just curious OT

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 509 - 528 of total 1730 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jul 17, 2014 - 11:16am PT

this data is all 2005

klk

Trad climber

cali

Jul 17, 2014 - 11:24am PT

Having everyone pay the same price for water is no disincentive to the waste of water....it is merely a mechanism for the lower and middle class to subsidize the rich, who have larger properties, with lusher landscapes, bigger pools, more water features.

actually, if we charged a market rate for water, we'd have plenty. we massively subsidize agricultural water-- an dif we didn't, most of cali ag would disappear tomorrow.

a genuine market mechanism would actually be more egalitarian than what we currently practice. but it'd be an economic catastrophe for the central valley.

folks in ag econ sometimes talk about "market reform" for irrigation water, but what they usually mean is letting big farmers buy water at below market rates and then sell it at market rate to their small farmer neighbors. the big farmers can then use the profits to dig megawells and drain the aquifer out from under their poorer neighbors. then they can turn around and sell that water back to their neighbors, too, if they deice that's more fun than farming.

happening right now all over the central valley and on your tax dime.

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber

Livermore, CA

Jul 17, 2014 - 11:38am PT

of course, agribusiness pays taxes on its production...

the question is where the balance is, in terms of people-centric productivity (water to the urban centers) vs. agribusiness productivity.

when the state productivity is dominated by the need to have more people, with little economic loss due to the reduction in agribusiness, then you'll see the water rights renegotiated.

dirtbag

climber

Jul 17, 2014 - 01:02pm PT

Rant: I really wish my neighbor would quit watering her super green lawn in the middle of the day.

Patrick Sawyer

climber

Originally California now Ireland

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 17, 2014 - 01:52pm PT

Stevep, that is a good point. As far as wineries go, vines do not need, indeed do not necessary like, a lot of water (depending on the soil, but generally), however, having grown up in a tiny winery (about 1,000 cases/year), working in wineries in California and France, the water issue with such is washing tanks, etc.

But by the chart, SLO does seem to go through a fair amount of water.

I still think, perhaps foolishly, if managed properly, a lot of California's water problems, while not being solved or alleviated, could be lessened with better management, informed water users at all levels, and a collaborative effort on all users. A pipe dream?

mouse from merced

Trad climber

The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.

Jul 18, 2014 - 02:36pm PT

"...Merced's water use was down by an average of about 12% from last year..."

Toujours le caveat:
"Despite dfforts like those in Merced County, water usage has risen in the state. Californians as a whole have failed to conserve water during the worst drought in a generation..."

And the UC Cooperative Extension rep. concludes that "...setting higher fines to push conservation would likely knot lead to sustainable changes to water use."

bergbryce

climber

East Bay, CA

Jul 19, 2014 - 08:29pm PT

This excessive monsoonal flow is bringing an abnormal amount of summer time precip to CA. There are showers and thunderstorms popping up across much of the southern 2/3 of the state right now with chances for rain all up and down the central valley and bay area tonight.

Also interesting to look at the 72 hr precip totals, there have been some locally heavy rains this week.

http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/google.php?type=precip

ruppell

climber

Jul 19, 2014 - 09:35pm PT

rain dance...duh.

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Jul 19, 2014 - 11:58pm PT

Just for perspective, the actual numbers:

the MWD sells water from the sacto River to LA for $861 /af.

The cost to farmers in the central valley is $20

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Jul 20, 2014 - 12:03am PT

If that's true, then why do farmers waste their time farming? Seems like they could make a hell of a lot more money selling water than actually farming.

Where else can you turn $20 into $861?

Something has to be very wrong with your equation there, Ken. There's obviously more to it than you let on, if your numbers are accurate.

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Jul 20, 2014 - 01:22am PT

Chaz, if you can find some contradicting numbers, let's see them.

but you might consider that the farmers have no distribution system.

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Jul 20, 2014 - 07:58am PT

If you could drink ag water, then maybe you could compare its price to municipal water.

There are two water systems servicing my neighborhood.

One's the same as everyone else's; Municipal tap water. It's expensive because it's been treated to be drinkable.

The other is agricultural water. The ag water isn't treated, filtered, or even strained very good. I find debris like sticks and dead animals in it all the time. It's cheap because it's simply sent down the line without any treatment whatsoever. It'd kill you if you drank it.

A fifty-pound sack of flour costs nine bucks, yet a little tiny cupcake goes for three dollars.

John M

climber

Jul 20, 2014 - 08:16am PT

Chaz.. the guys are talking about bulk water delivery. Not the final product. What a city pays to get the same water as the farmer before the city then treats it.

Ken, part of that cost difference is the cost of transporting the water over the tehachapi. Delivery to the central valley is mostly by gravity. To LA involves a lot of pumping.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Jul 20, 2014 - 09:03am PT

you guys gotta get past this 'politicians all evil, all stupid, all corrupt, all incompetent. Because those are the people that are going to deliver your water.

We actually want ag in California. Its good business. It just needs to be more responsibly managed to prevent over use and ultimate degradation of the land itself, aka Afghanistan or Iraq. (which can very well happen here too)

Ag water should be cheaper than residential. We should subsidize ag water, for the sake of labor if nothing else. What we should not do is subsidize ag water AND cede control of that water to the customer. Stupid idea. Fox is in the henhouse.

i take your point about the ranting against politicians on issues driven by the electorate.

but water is actually one of those issues on which the leg and governor's office have the most culpability. the wonks are the ones who deliver the water, and will continue to be. but water is frankly one area, like utility regulation, that genuinely has been corrupted by influence peddling. and if the proposition system actually could do what it is supposed to do, allow an enlightened electorate to out-maneuver and incompetent or corrupt parliament. of course, the electorate is full of incompetent and entitled folks like chaz, so it's become part of the problem.

re ag, water and subsidies: for large municipalities, the higher rates charged do not reflect end distribution. and i think that aacross the board water subsidies for ag is part of the disfunctionality.

for a start,"ag" and "farmer" cover too much ground-- khanom is a farmer. david resnick is a farmer. they're both farmers! except that resnick is a billionaire massively subsidized by the state to grow export almonds and destroy the aquifer while he does it.

in my view, we should indeed support ag, but our current system for distributing that kind of support is a disaster.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Jul 20, 2014 - 09:16am PT

f you could drink ag water, then maybe you could compare its price to municipal water.

you don't know what you are talking about, at least outside of your own backyard.

municipalities have traditionally paid vastly more per acre/ft than ag users. that is before treatment cost. again, the history is thoroughly recounted in norris's book, it's written in prose accessible to a general reader, if you can type into the box for ST, you ought to be able to process at least the relevant portions of it.

there are local variations, but these are not historically significant.

the history of water mining, too, has been treated at great length and not just by norris. i've recounted parts of it in this thread. the response of federal and state governments to water mining has been basically to pretend it isn't happening, then to legalize it, and most recently, to try to hide it (the cali state leg actually passed into law,60-some ago, a bill that makes it illegal for the cdw to disclose what limited data it has on groundwater pumping).

https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/news/2014/07/06/center-scientist-slams-secrecy-state-aquifer-data

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Jul 20, 2014 - 11:34am PT

Ken, part of that cost difference is the cost of transporting the water over the tehachapi. Delivery to the central valley is mostly by gravity. To LA involves a lot of pumping.

I think that is valid.

It does not involve treatment. MWD does offer to deliver treated water, but it costs a lot of money. The City of LA chooses to treat it themselves, and saves a bundle by doing so.