
In Sharp Reversal, California Suspends Water Restrictions - jstreebin
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/us/california-suspends-water-restrictions.html
======
snomad
Here is a great site from USGS visualizing the drought - from 2011 (pre-
drought) to today:
[http://cida.usgs.gov/ca_drought/](http://cida.usgs.gov/ca_drought/)

With this subject, I wish we could get away from some of the regular knee-jerk
blame ag / fracking. We should talk about it in absolute numbers:

\- How much water falls per year (average and this year) (194.2 million acre-
feet, don't have this year's)

\- How much is used by people (roughly 10%, varies by how wet the year was)

\- How much is used by Ag (roughly 30%, varies by how wet the year was)

\- How much water was saved through conservation efforts 2015-16 (1.2 million
acre feet)

\- How much is naturally processed through the environment

This is where it gets confusing, and the state does a poor job reporting. They
say 60%, but that is not just natural runoff. Much of that runoff is
discharged through municipal wastewater systems and then out to the oceans.
Urban environments - especially southern California - would do us all a favor
by installing green tech / LID devices ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-
impact_development_(U.S._a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-
impact_development_\(U.S._and_Canada\)) ). This 60% also includes evaporation
from moving water through our numerous aqueducts systems from north to south.

If we really want to address this let's start by getting real numbers - from
the state and the media. This should include storm water that was flushed
through wastewater discharge (something large urban areas don't want to talk
about) and evaporation (something Southern Californians don't want to talk
about).

------
whamlastxmas
Unbelievable the amount of bullshit happening here and I don't understand how
so few people seem to know about it or care. Urban water use is such a
tremendously small percentage of total water use, and they try to fix the
problem by telling people to take shorter showers and flush the toilet less.

~~~
thephyber
I still don't understand this argument. Yes, it matters that residents use
less water than prior to the drought -- at least a lot more than you give it
credit.

The residential water reservoir system in California isn't being plundered by
Big Agri, Big Ranch, Big Bottled Water, or Big Frack. Yes, those things use
most of the water in the state. No, the vast majority of that water would not
otherwise make it into an existing reservoir that supplies residents. It would
make it into a non-reservoir body of water or it would help replenish the
water table (which is what they were using until this winter).

There is a finite volume of reservoir space and it currently takes several
years to build new ones. There is a fixed and finite amount of surface area
upstream of those reservoirs that collect and consolidate rainwater into the
reservoirs. Average long-term usage by a slightly growing population (at least
until recently) is still outpacing long-term replenishment rates of those
reservoirs.

Yes, when California urban residents get fined for running their sprinklers
mid-day, it helps align incentives. Yes, incentivizing residents to buy low-
flow toilets helps (at least when they don't clog due to insufficient force to
flush solids).

I'd rather we kick golf courses and sprawling estates off of the residential
water system or at least charge incrementally more for more water used per
property. But it still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of water
rights in the state is (1) used by industry that doesn't get their water from
the same reservoirs that residences do and (2) the current water rights regime
is enshrined in the California constitution so it would take a well organized
campaign and a tremendous amount of political willpower to get it changed. I
don't see that happening right now, especially since it threatens several
major industries in the state.

~~~
joshuaheard
It's quite simple. Residential water use is 10% of total state water usage,
while Agriculture uses 90%. So, if you save 25% of Residential water, you save
2.5% overall, but if you save 25% of Agricultural water usage, you save 27.5%
overall. So, common sense dictates you seek savings in the Agricultural space.

This is especially true where the Agricultural space does not use efficient
free market principals to allocate resources, but uses an antiquated,
arbitrary, and subsidized bureaucratic system that should be reformed but for
powerful lobbying interests.

Your description of water distribution is not accurate. Water in Southern
California, whether for Residential use or Agriculture, is mostly brought down
from Northern California via the Colorado River and several man-made
aqueducts. Since the water is distributed not based on any rational manner, we
have Agriculture using water to grow rice in the desert. I won't even discuss
the wacky environmental laws that prevent water from going to grow food
because of some tiny fish somewhere.

~~~
jedberg
It's not that simple though. If you reduce residential use by 25%, there is no
impact to the economy -- actually there is a boost because of the increased
revenues for landscapers and home improvement stores.

On the other hand, if you reduce agriculture by even 10%, it would destroy our
state's economy.

~~~
yarou
Does demanding efficiency of a business that is heavily subsidized and enjoys
trade protectionism lead to economic decline?

No, because the state is eating the cost of that inefficiency. It's time for
agriculture to be subject to market forces - they've enjoyed easy money like
the banks for decades.

~~~
jedberg
I actually agree with you, I think we need to get rid of the farm subsidies.
I'm just saying the issue isn't so black and white that you can just demand
the farms reduce their water usage.

------
hoodoof
Governments treat water and money in a similar way - if there appears to be
enough then they say "OK looks good let's spend freely!"

They rapidly forget how quickly it runs out.

~~~
hkmurakami
This was exactly my thought. I'm shocked at the sudden reversal since we could
easily go back into a drought in the coming years.

Their particular policies were ill designed, but they at least made us aware
of the problem and spurred discussion and what we _should_ be doing.

This really does mirror the state's budgetary attitude and it highly
disapponting.

~~~
hoodoof
Actually now that I think about it, governments show restraint when the water
is running out, but show no such restraint even when the money is all gone -
they just keep spending it. The difference is you can't go into "water debt".

~~~
Scarblac
In a way you can, if you take more out of the aquifers than comes in, you go
into water debt.

~~~
cobalt
i think is point being that if you use up all the water, you're going to have
a hard time getting any more. Seems pretty easy to get more money

------
partiallypro
If California had a proper market price for their water, they could alleviate
this problem a lot easier than outright restrictions. People will be a lot
more careful with their water usage if it's more expensive, that includes the
big companies and farms that use the water, no one wants their margins cut
into.

If people think that's regressive, give a discount to people in low income
housing...but current water prices are mostly just subsidizing the rich and
corporate farms. I would rather not subsidize anyone, but I'd rather subsidize
the poor than have corporate welfare.

~~~
maxerickson
My initial assumption would be that market pricing would result in lower
prices for utility customers.

------
srott
From my point of view, the only problem is that water is cheap.

Why don't they just rise the prices?

~~~
tirant
So rich people can still spend huge amounts, while low-income people have even
more problems? We are not talking about luxury items or services here, water
is a basic need for _everyone_.

~~~
harryh
Food is a basic need for _everyone_ too and we don't set the price
artificially low because of that.

If the poor don't have enough money to buy the things they need, the correct
thing to do is to give them money. Not artificially distort the prices of
things. Doing the latter misaligns incentives and leads to inefficient
allocation of resources.

~~~
intopieces
>Food is a basic need for everyone too and we don't set the price artificially
low because of that.

We most certainly do. Taxpayers heavily subsidize corn and soy, two crops that
facilitate the meat and processed food.

[http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-
pr...](http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-
farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers)

~~~
harryh
1) It's not clear that these subsidies actually lower the costs on the shelves
in grocery stores.

2) Almost everyone other than the recipients agrees that agricultural
subsidies are almost always a bad idea.

------
rconti
I posted this in reply to another comment, but it's the best long read on the
Colorado River, and water in the West, in general, that I've ever seen. It's
well worth your time if you haven't read it and you want to understand
byzantine water rights rules.

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-
disappearin...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/the-disappearing-
river)

~~~
nkurz
Thanks, that is a fine article. In return, if you haven't seen it, you might
enjoy this account of a rare opportunity to float the Colorado from the
mountains, through the delta, to the gulf:
[http://www.outsideonline.com/1928261/day-we-set-colorado-
riv...](http://www.outsideonline.com/1928261/day-we-set-colorado-river-free)

~~~
rconti
Thank you -- I actually lucked out and saw a ~30min cut of the film at the
Banff Film Festival last year! It was so cool.

------
jcoffland
> still partly filled parched reservoirs in Northern California and, more
> critically, partly replenished the mountain snowpacks that provide water
> into the spring and summer.

This article is so misleading. As I recently pointed out in another thread
both the California snow pack and reservoirs are only a bit below average for
this time of year. CA always has water issues this year is no exception.

[http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act...](http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action)

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-california...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/03/160330-california-
snow-survey-snowpack-water-drought/)

 _Edit_ : Statewide snow pack is actually now down to 33% of normal, as of
today, due to melt.

[http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/snowapp/sweq.action](http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/snowapp/sweq.action)

~~~
rconti
I'm not sure temps have been that far above average this spring, but we've had
a lot of late season rain which fell on the snowpack and accelerated melt. So,
it's not great, but it IS additional precip.....

~~~
jcoffland
Good point. The article blames the snow melt on climate change, which
presumably means global warming, when really it was due to rain.

