Slashdot Mirror


As Drought Worsens, California Orders Record Water Cuts

New submitter GordonShure.com writes: The State of California has made an unprecedented move by uniformly restricting water supplies across the entire state as demand outstrips supply. Farms are most affected, though food prices aren't anticipated to rise in any hurry: imports from out of state continue apace. Notably, this is a problem Silicon Valley hasn't much helped to solve.

Will this move induce meaningful modernization upon the infrastructure supporting the state's thirty-eight million residents? Or will things continue to be corn, corn, corn for the time being?

33 of 599 comments (clear)

  1. Let those mud fish die by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    You want to have more water? Stop dumping your fresh water into the marsh lands to "save the mud fish!"

  2. $68 Billion for high speed trains by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Instead of spending $68 Billion on a single high speed rail line between 2 cities that are already linked by several adequate transportation options, maybe we should use a fraction of that money for water projects? Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem. Why not solve it instead of being a victim of the weather?

    1. Re:$68 Billion for high speed trains by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "You mean continue the rape and pillage of waterways?"

      Yes, that's exactly what Californians need to do. Either/oring water projects with HSR is not hugely relevant, because what's holding up both projects is not lack of money, but angry Druids and their lawyers. I would love to see the next group of anti-infrastructure protesters get the crap beaten out of them by California's Grapes of Wrath thirsty, unemployed union Democrats.

    2. Re:$68 Billion for high speed trains by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right that residential use is a tiny fraction of California's water (and it's silly trying to get people to act on this thinking it'll make a difference), and agriculture is in the range of 80% of all water use...but of that, over half is devoted to livestock. So it's the animals that are the problem - not the produce. Also lot of America's produce comes from California, and I think it'd be difficult for the rest of the country to compensate. Getting rid of livestock, however, would go a long way to conserving water AND keeping people well fed. Here are some stats on that.

    3. Re:$68 Billion for high speed trains by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Back in planet reality, fresh water is a finite resource. In the fantasy land that is especially inhabited by conservatives we just take fresh water from one place and move it to another, but where will it come from? Is Las Vegas going to give up it's water so that california can use it? If they did, be sure it would not come cheap. Water rights are paramount, and those with rights have the ability to charge whatever they want. Sometimes money can help. Las Vegas is building a new pipeline so it can tap the lower portions of the reservoir. That is a temporary solution. Rainwater reclamation for most structures would help a great deal. Desalinization would help, but would require a large amount of extra energy and would increase the cost of water a non trivial amount.

      Which is the problem. People want a solution that will not raise the cost of water so they can continue to waste it. We cannot continue to treat water as an infinite resource that can be sold at cost assuming a near zero cost of production(actual cost is a few dollars per thousand gallons). Yes, we should have low cost for the first maybe 1000 gallons a household uses per month, but after that costs should be set by the market.

      It is amazing how quickly even the most ardent conservatives becomes a socialist when they asked to pay for water. How the though of losing green lawns and swimming pools makes then forsake their Ayn Rand philosophy. The thing is that tier prices would provide the funds to exactly what so many conservatives want. it would provide funds to acquire additional water rights and build additional infrastructure. As a bonus these things would be paid for directly by those who benefit from them, not the general taxpayer many of whom probably are responsible water users.

      Here is another thing that would make conservatives happy. There is water available but it is often being wasted on two profit crops, like Alfalfa hay. As mentioned, tared prices would free up funds to buy water rights. Paying farmer a dollar per thousand gallons of water would mean they would probably make more money than growing and selling the alfalfa.

      Instead the socialists are winning because low water rates is forcing states like California to take that water away from farmers, thus threatening their livelihoods. I don't know why applying the solution that Cuba used to solve it's problem is preferable to good old capitalism.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:$68 Billion for high speed trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In order to say that getting rid of lifestock would actually help the problem, you'd need to look at how much water would be required for foods to replace meat and dairy entirely, and where that water would need to come from (it doesn't help the problem if you replace lifestock with plants if those plants end up requiring more water from aquifers than the lifestock does).

      In what world is meat begin fed a vegan free diet? On Earth, cows drink water, but they also eat plants. There is no way in which it is more efficient to feed a corn to a cow to grow meat that people can eat later. It is better to feed the corn to the people directly. Most animal feed in the US is corn based, so don't bring up red herrings about free range grass eating cow. Also, you do not need to COMPLETELY replace meat 100%, so skip that red herring too.

      Please insert next red herring to continue...

    5. Re:$68 Billion for high speed trains by Vegan+Cyclist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone else pointed out, there isn't a whole lot of 'green water' in California right now. So now what?

      There are already many charts showing how inefficiently livestock convert resources...per calorie, per calorie of protein, or nearly any other metric, we're much more efficient eating plants ourselves. (And the fact is: we can live without meat, but can't live without plants.)

      Finally, just because it's a vegan website doesn't invalidate the resources it links to. The resources are all there, just go through it yourself. (And try not to cherry-pick items that make a thin defence for your case.)

  3. Solution was started in the 1960s stoped by greens by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Of course in a state that knew it had 7 year droughts and a history of 100 YEAR + long droughts the greens managed to get their way and prevent the needed infrastructure from being built.

    I really need to know what the science was behind these decisions ?

  4. Desalination by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here in Ventura County we pay more for water than in Israel or Saudi Arabia, two countries with much more severe water problems than California - and who get a large (or even majority) portion of their water from desalination. We have the world's largest body of water right next to us - and we simply don't utilize it. Desalination.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:Desalination by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So we build desalination plants. And then it rains. Then what? Do you pay to keep those plants running--remember that those plants cost money to run.

      Yes, you do! You live in the middle of a fucking desert! This drought will eventually end, but you will have another one. More importantly, even without the drought, you already had your neighbors to the North ready to tar and feather you due to rainwater collection restrictions and river passthrough quotas.

      You choose to live in a place with no water. You have the fifth largest economy in the world. You bail yourselves out of your current self-inflicted disaster - And then yes, you maintain that solution for next time.

  5. Desert by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here's a novel idea, move out of the fucking desert and quit trying to grow produce by piping in water from several states away.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  6. Water for people by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, whatever you want to call it. Sure. Bringing water to thirsty people is only good if you value people. If you don't value people, then it's understandable why you'd oppose helping them by making sure they have enough water.

    1. Re:Water for people by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bringing water to thirsty people is only good if you value people.

      And if you value thirsty fracking operations.

      http://www.reuters.com/article...

      But what if we value the next generation and the one after that?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Water for people by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's plenty of water that belongs to no one. Ocean water can be desalinated if there are no better options -- though I'm sure there are better options.

      Rather than fighting over a severely limited amount of water, we can choose to build the infrastructure to get more water to people. But you'd actually have to value people having plentiful water rather than valuing the opportunity to gain power by leading divided factions of people to fight each other over limited water.

    3. Re:Water for people by Wycliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that the other people like having water.
      Are you going to steal their water if they won't give it willingly?

      California is on the coast. There is more than enough water in the ocean to go around. The article about silicon valley nailed it.
      Even with the huge drought in California, water has no perceived value. This is one place where the government needs to
      probably step in. It needs to build a bunch of desalination plants. Desalination plants are relatively cheap, the only problem is
      that they are a huge risk to investors because if it does rain then they become worthless. Instead of waiting until it becomes
      more desperate, they need to stop hoping it will rain and just build the stupid things. Build them on barges if you want, that
      way you can sell them if it does rain but even if it does rain, you are so backlogged that you can still probably use the desalination
      plants.

    4. Re:Water for people by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      maybe the next generation will be smart enough not to live in a desert

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Water for people by zieroh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      maybe the next generation will be smart enough not to live in a desert

      This is misguided. No, I'll go farther than that -- it's self-satisfied smugness without any practical basis in reality, making it essentially a pointless comment. Humans have been adapting their environment to suit their needs for longer than recorded history, and will continue to do so well beyond the point that any of us have left this mortal coil.

      But more to the point, your statement implicitly includes the idea that someone is in charge of deciding where people can and can not live, or where cities can or can not be built. In the US, at least, there is no such person, no such board, no such decision-making process. Cities grow organically based on where people want to live, and where people want to live is driven by more variables than I could possibly enumerate in this post.

      TL;DR: You're not actually smarter than anyone else. You're just a smug prick who thinks he is.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    6. Re:Water for people by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      way to overlook the point i have been making, put words in my mouth AND insult me at the same time. Kudos....

      I got no problem if people want to live there.

      I DONT WANT TO PAY FOR THEM TO

      If I make a smart decision to live somewhere where the weather is nice and i have plenty of water, I dont want you people in california coming over and taking it from me. If you thought ahead you wouldnt be begging me for water now would you

      so TL;DR - right back at ya

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:Water for people by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe we start to realize that we are paying below market for said almonds, walnuts, broccoli, etc. Maybe we realize that we need to price these things (and other stuff like petroleum products but that's another rant) at replacement value.

      So our kids can have almonds, walnuts, broccoli, etc.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Water for people by Wycliffe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do you think water has no perceived value in the first place? It's because government has "stepped in" for over a century.

      There are probably plenty of ways that the government has "stepped in" and made it worse but the government is good at a few things
      related to this area. One, is the government is best positioned for protecting the "tragedy of the commons". Secondly, the government
      is good at building large infrastructure and funding "insurance policies" which is what a desalination plant is when it's raining. And
      lastly, the government has the ability to tax water and raise the price of existing water to be on par with what it would cost coming from
      a desalination plant before the plant has even been built reducing the demand. Charging more for water makes more sense than
      rationing it. Most people's home water bill is an insignificant portion of their budget. The big abusers like golf courses and farmers
      though would quickly come up with better ways of doing business (even if that includes leaving the area or only planting crops when it
      rains)

    9. Re:Water for people by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why isn't building more infrastructure so everyone can have more of what they need a better and more enlightened course of action?

      Look, the cost of the electricity to desalinate water is worth FAR more than the cost of the crops that a farmer could grow with it. So instead spending X dollars burning coal to generate electricity to desalinate water, when not just give far LESS than X dollars to the farmer to pay him not to farm? That would make far more sense. But we don't even need to do that. We just need to end the subsidies the incentivize the farmer to squander water. If water is subsidized, the farmer will take the easy route and use flood irrigation, rather than far more efficient, but slightly more expensive, drip irrigation.

    10. Re:Water for people by zieroh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      there is little reason to ship all that produce all over the country and world when many many smaller plots would be more ecologically safe.

      Except for the small, inconvenient fact that much of the country doesn't have the climate to support growing stuff year-round, leaving vast swaths of the country without produce for much of the year.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    11. Re:Water for people by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can see where both of you are coming from; The people in California are running out of drinking water, and people are a higher priority than walnuts, almonds and alfalfa. At the same time, paying farmers to use more water is obviously making things way worse, when farming is already using a disproportionately large amount of hydrating fluid in the first place.

      But this is sorta like the whole "renewable vs. nuclear" argument to me. Sure, both are important steps toward securing a vital resource, but they both play different roles on different time scales. Renewable power can help a lot in the medium and long term for cutting back on fossil fuels, but nuclear is more viable right now at supplying the vast majority of power regardless of the weather. And in the event humans go to other cosmic bodies, wind and solar are no guarantees, so nuclear is a better bet again.

      In this case, making farmers pay a fair price for water (thus hopefully ending their reliance on water-thirsty crops and irrigation methods) is a good start, fer sher. But California is going to be an arid slab of land for the foreseeable future, and the current water supplies will not last forever if humans can't create more rain for that area of the country. Also, that drought isn't expected to let up anytime soon, which makes things even worse. Even if the amount of water used for farming drops tremendously, the state will still run out without either spending bunches of money on importing more water from wetter places, OR producing it themselves using the ocean. Will it be expensive either way? Probably. Will the population eventually be forced to move out of the desert? Maybe so. But something's gotta give eventually, if more rain doesn't find a reason to fall onto them.

    12. Re:Water for people by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there is little reason to ship all that produce all over the country and world when many many smaller plots would be more ecologically safe.

      Except for the small, inconvenient fact that much of the country doesn't have the climate to support growing stuff year-round, leaving vast swaths of the country without produce for much of the year.

      So, ya know, you actually grow "winter crops," i.e., things that either store well or which can be left in the soil and dug up later.

      A few years back, when I was living somewhere in the northeast U.S., I bought a share in a local farm. ALL of the produce was grown exclusively on that farm. Every week, I'd go pick up my fresh produce from that farm. In the summer, there were fun things like berries. In the fall, there was more than I knew what to do with, so I canned and fermented and froze things. And when it was winter, I got plenty of potatoes and squash and such to roast on cold winter nights, because those stored well.

      Believe it or not, people managed to survive in colder climates before they could truck in fresh fruit year-round from California. And actually, if they planned well, they could eat rather well with a variety of food. The stuff that didn't store well? Well, that's why they invented fermentation. And canning. And freezing.

      Personally, I like that lifestyle. You learn more about cooking when you have to cook what's available, rather than just going to the grocery store in January and getting fresh blueberries shipped in from South America that taste like sawdust. I'd prefer having my fresh blueberries picked off the bushes down the road for the month or so they actually grow -- when they actually taste fresh and sweet.

      Frankly, I think food is more meaningful that way -- tied into natural cycles, which make you appreciate certain foods more when they are plentiful and available.

      I understand that not everyone wants that. But it's actually very possible to have food available to eat year-round from local sources in most parts of the U.S.... well, except in deserts like California, where you have to ship in water for anyone to grow enough to survive.

  7. Re:Solution was started in the 1960s stoped by gre by Ryanrule · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the problem is the farms. they need to go.

  8. too little too late by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He said that the difference is that the state has grown in population to 38 million and has vast acres of farmland to irrigate, a problem with which the state cannot be blamed.

    the actual populous takes a surprisingly low amount of water. the problem was and always has been the absurd crops they are trying to raise there. the state can't be blamed? who is HEAVILY subsidising water for farmers? THE STATE. who has refused to restrict water to farmlands until now? THE STATE. who has refused to change until it's half a decade too late? THE STATE.

    i dont feel bad for California because this is their payment for their tireless efforts, day in and day out to use all the water they possibly can. this isn't a punishment, they earned this.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  9. Re:Solution was started in the 1960s stoped by gre by CaptainPinko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe those farms never belonged there in the first place, or they should have not let the population grow to the point that it was unsustainable?

    --
    Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
  10. Re:Simple Fix by shmlco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop listening to news soundbites. Of the many crops grown in CA, almonds don't really grow anywhere else in the US and they're a high-value crop, which really makes them the most bang for your buck (and water). And almonds are also the state’s most lucrative exported agricultural product, with California producing 80 percent of the world’s supply.

    As opposed to, say, hay. Alfalfa hay requires even more water, about 15 percent of the state’s supply. About 70 percent of alfalfa grown in California is used in dairies, and a good portion of the rest is exported to land-poor Asian countries like Japan.

    And more than 30 percent of California’s agricultural water use either directly or indirectly supports growing animals for food.

    What CA needs to do is grow what they grow best and leave hay and cows to the states better equipped to grow them.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
  11. Re:Or hey, maybe we need by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not?

    Because in the real world, it's NOT simple to move water around at all. Moving water around has involved some of the most expensive undertakings this country has ever attempted, and has been responsible for massive environmental damage and the disruption of the livelihoods of countless people.

    Moreover, the water has to come from somewhere. If you hadn't noticed, the entire western US has almost no extra water. Precipitation is simply not refilling the original sources of Western water supplies. Maybe you think it's cheap and easy to pipe it over the continental divide, after somehow wresting water rights from people in the East. If so, you're an ignoramus.

    And desalinization is totally unrealistic to address anything but urban water use, which is a drop in the bucket.

    I don't know why you're surprised by "weird nastiness" over water rights. Civilizations all over the world have been highly protective of their water rights for millennia, and many wars have been fought over water. Fresh water is probably the single most important resource on the planet, and nobody is going to give up their water without a fight, even if they're not using all of it at this exact moment. There is simply not going to be any Kumbaya solution to these issues.

  12. Re:Doesn't corn, corn, corn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm responding to this, because this Poster doesn't seem to have an Agenda, and they asked an honest question.
    The rough current breakdowns are as follows:
    Residential and Municipal Usage: ~15%
    Industrial Usage: ~5%
    Agricultural Usage: 80%

    The surprising thing, looking back decades, is that the Population has nearly doubled, yet Residential Usage has remained stable, and Industrial Usage has actually gone down!
    Yet water demand has gone up, almost entirely due to Agriculture. We are not talking about Tomatoes and Watermelons here, we are talking about Alfalfa, Cotton, Rice, and Almonds, all of which require a lot of water, and have no place growing in an Arid Ecosystem.
    Now why are these crops grown? Because due to a Century of Corruption, Graft, Blackmail, and the occasional Homicide, a tightly-knit group of "Farmers" have a guaranteed flow of as much water as they want, at practically no cost, and by Federal Law, these "Rights" can't be contested.

    If Alfalfa, Cotton, Rice, and Almond growers had to pay "Market Price" for their water, they would move their operations elsewhere. (BTW, Almonds are new- they barely registered in the Water Surveys of the early eighties.) And we would have a Water Surplus, even with the current Drought.

    Now as to where the Water comes from, well it mostly comes from rain. A lot of early California farming depended on Winter storms; California was once an Exporter of Winter Wheat and other grains. Harvesting took place during early Summer, and then Ranching filled out the rest of the arid year.
    With certain exceptions, such as along the Sacramento Delta tributaries, the Central Valley was barren, unproductive, and unprofitable.
    Rain was stored in the Sierra Nevada Snowpack, which fed streams throughout the Summer, and could store enough to last through short periods of drought.
    Rain was also stored underground in various Aquifers, which had a peculiar property- over centuries, the ground above rose as the aquifer accumulated.

    Water storage was always a problem in California; over the years a mix of Irrigation and Flood Control projects in Northern California created a series of Dams that not only regulated the flow, but had the side benefit of Hydropower Generation as well.
    Meanwhile, Southern California got Thirsty.

    If it was just Angelenos wanting Swimming Pools, and Green Lawns, well, that could be dealt with.
    The problems lay with the Assholes who bought up a lot of worthless inland arid property, and insisted that the Rest Of Us not only build an Infrastructure to deliver Water to them so that they can grow low-value crops, but to do it essentially free of charge. Their sense of Entitlement is an awesome thing to see in the various recent public debates.
    These Assholes were, and are, powerful and untouchable. As in Republican.

    The cure for the California Drought Crisis is extremely simple- make everybody pay Market Rate for Water. Since not all Water is equal, Market Rates would vary, Potable Water would cost most, whereas Raw Sewage would cost least. (Note: I'm sure that Raw Sewage would work just dandy for growing Cotton.)

  13. CA water is feeding you ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually the situation is that water is being sold below market value and wasted in inefficient agriculture practices to provide YOU with inexpensive food. So CA residents are subsidizing your food prices.

    Residential use of water in CA accounts for 10%, industry another 10%, agriculture the remaining 80%.

    Over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US come from CA.

    1. Re:CA water is feeding you ... by sysrammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Central Valley and other broad expanses in Ca. used to be bottoms of seafloors. This means it is *outstanding* land for farming, and a valuable national resource. One of the reasons that Ca. is the 8th largest economy in the world.

      Cheap water is indeed subsidizing low food prices for the world. That will be changing, of course. I don't expect that we will be "coming over and taking it from" you, we will be paying market prices. At some point people with excess water will be happy to sell it to Ca.

      Hopefully it won't happen so quickly as to cripple the 8th largest economy in the world. That might not be good for anybody.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  14. CA subsidizes your food ... by perpenso · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CA should pay for its own water projects. There's no need for anyone else to pay for them.

    OK. Then CA can stop selling water below market value to agriculture. Agriculture that consumes 80% of CA's water. Agriculture that supplies over half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US. In short, your groceries are subsidized by CA.

    With 80% of water going to the agriculture that feeds you supplying some of the water is not exactly unjust.

    That said, CA agriculture could use a lot of reform and modernization.