As water crisis worsens on Colorado River, an urgent call for states to ‘act’ | Hacker News Reader

As water crisis worsens on Colorado River, an urgent call for states to ‘act’

latimes.com

64 pointsjdkee118 comments

Sigh (emphasis added):

> “We are facing the growing reality that water supplies for agriculture, fisheries, ecosystems, industry and cities are no longer stable due to climate change,” Trujillo said.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. See Figure 2 (page 10) [1]. This is a decades-long trend of outflows increasing based on estimates of inflows that were unrealistic from a particularly wet period.

In some ways this is just like the mass shooting problem: people look around for all sorts of reasons that aren't the obvious, which is the easy access to firearms. Here too people look around for any reason but the obvious: agriculture is using too much water.

Agriculture is simply going to have to transition to using less water-intensive crops. We're still "exporting water" to China in the form of alfalfa [2] in addition to other water intensive crops like almonds.

We don't need desalination. We don't need cities to cut back on water. agriculture will have to take the hit on this one.

[1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

It can be all of the above (though sure technically what you wrote is correct if nit picking the word due to mean solely caused by - but I don't feel like that's the intention / argument made)

And yes agriculture is wasting way more water than climate change.

But climate change does have an effect.

USGS paper showing climate change affects

https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aay9187

"Drought and warming have been shrinking Colorado River flow for many years. Milly and Dunne used a hydrologic model and historical observations to show that this decrease is due mainly to increased evapotranspiration caused by a reduction of albedo from snow loss and the associated rise in the absorption of solar radiation (see the Perspective by Hobbins and Barsugli). This drying will be greater than the projected precipitation increases expected from climate warming, increasing the risk of severe water shortages in an already vulnerable region."

This is a good opportunity for people to learn some basic media literacy and how to deconstruct propaganda.

For the record, I'm o fthe opinion that the evidence for climate change is clear, compelling and undeniable. So don't take this or my previous comment to any kind of denial. Climate change is real. It's just not the primary cause of the problem.

So, what we see with an effort to blame this on climate chang eis an effort at misdirection. Climate change as a political issue tends to follow left vs right divisions. If you're left-leaning, you tend to believe in climate change. If you're right leaning, you tend to be a denier.

Agricultural industries are, by their nature, rural. Rural voters tend to be conservative. So why is a business that leans conservative blaming climate change for the Colorado River problems? Because it blames the issue that many will deny the existence of and for those that don't deny, many will believe there's nothign that can be done.

And on the left, some so want the very real issue of climate change to be taken seriously, they'll latch onto any media coverage that shows the ill-effects of climate change, even when climate change isn't the primary cause. I personally believe this undermines the cause because when people realize it's an unrelated issue it undermines that issue.

So agribusiness blaming this on climate change is smart propaganda because people on both sides will latch onto the narrative (for different reasons).

But this is propaganda.

Central Valley farmers love to deny climate change and blame the government for all their problems. What they don't want to admit is their "perfect" farmland was bone dry a few centuries ago, and is now reverting back to that state.

Yes, I agree completely. I once structured a month's unpaid leave in the early '90s around a camping tour partially as an "eye's on the ground" of Mark Reisners "Cadillac Desert"[1]. It was, erm, eye opening to see the built environment for water across Eastern CA (including Owen's Valley), Utah, Colorado, and of course AZ. I have been across Imperial Valley a whole bunch of times on all of the externally connecting roads.

Agribusiness is not stupid. Climate change is the perfect wedge issue.

(I am also not a climate change denier!)

[1] Recent experts seem to dislike that book but at least it provides a nice map for things to see.

Ok so will anything be done about either topic? Unsustainable agriculture and climate change?

I don't think anyone here is disputing that climate change plays a role, but we live in a world where, if we simply stopped shipping almonds overseas, California would have enough water for three more cities the size of LA.[0] That's just one example of the ridiculous agricultural inefficiencies we're dealing with: 80% of California's water goes to agriculture.[1]

Climate change is hurting things for sure, but it's still agriculture that needs to adapt if we stand any chance. Marginal improvements in residential usage will not solve the problem.

[0] https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/real-problem...

[1] https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...

Forget almonds, only alfalfa (a very cheap crop) needs to be stopped. For at least the next decade, there's plenty of water for ever current use.

> For at least the next decade

For the next decade? That's like saying there's a wildfire nearby, but my house will be fine for the next five minutes. What about the next century?

California is drying up. It's not happening overnight, but it's happening and can't be stopped. California has had centuries-long droughts far worse than the present, caused by temperature increases cooler than the present. The only way to prevent California from drying up again would be a complete and rapid reversal of global warming. Even if we merely halted climate change completely, the present climate already spells disaster for California in the long run.

> if we simply stopped shipping almonds overseas, California would have enough water for three more cities the size of LA.

Only for a while. Things are likely to dry up a whole lot faster and quicker than you're expecting. Paleo-climatology has revealed that this whole corner of the US has historically been much drier than it is presently, particularly during the Medieval Warming Period (which we've blown past.) The same dynamics which dried up California Climate change is going to make the entire region much dryer than it ever has been in recorded history. It's not just the Colorado river of course. A lot of people seem to think the Central Valley will be fine, or could be fine if we got rid of the farms, but the coming droughts will be felt there hardest of all.

One way or the other, the agriculture will go. But that won't bring the rain back.

That's how I read OPs comment (and kind of his reply too just reinforced my perception of it).

For sure I don't disagree that ag is the #1 problem.

On the same hand can't deny climate change is also a problem.

Plus ways to improve ag can also lower emissions.

The easiest / biggest one: stop eating cows so we don't have to grow as much alfalfa

Is there something wrong with desalination?

I mean, just like inventing power generation a magnitude of order better than before advances civilization, couldn't cheap and clean desalination let us utilize water more liberally?

There's a lot wrong with it. People like to point out Israel as an example of successful desalination, but that ignores the fact that Israel is a quarter of the size of San Bernardino County and basically a narrow strip of land next to an ocean.

You would need to build 4-8 plants the size of the largest desal plant Israel has for each major population center in the Southwest, and you'd have to do it very very quickly.

But even that's not the problem. The problem is physics. The entire West, an area the size of Europe, is basically the Rockies sloping down to the Pacific, with a few inland coastal mountain ranges like the Cascades to break the flow. The rivers start in the mountains from snowmelt and flow downward and generally westward from there.

So you'd need to reverse the hydrology of the entire region and pump that water uphill thousands of feet and inland over hundreds - thousands - of miles of terrain that is often rough enough that people still don't really live there. A region in which many areas are regularly seeing temperatures approaching 120°F for much of the year.

And you'll have to do this in a matter of single digit years, not decades, in a country that's facing the worst political divisions since the Civil War, with an economy teetering on the edge of recession and possibly - almost certainly if he domino effect of this water crisis plays out the way a lot of people, myself included, think it will - actual collapse.

So it's fine in theory, but absolutely impossible in practice. The civilizational complexity of the American West is about to be reduced, and nothing short of a deus ex machina will stop it.

You're talking about it as if desalination alone would be expected to entirely reverse the water loss of the region, as opposed to it being one aspect of a holistic approach to the problem.

Desalination can absolutely make a huge difference, here and in many other places, if we can get it refined to the point that it's (relatively) cheap to run (both in money and in other resources). That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop growing almonds in a desert.

On the climate change angle, what they said on the NPR story I heard about this today was that climate change has pushed up the schedule. Water reduction that they had planned to phase in over the next several years now has to be done much sooner.

I think climate change is real, but I completely agree with your position here. Big Ag is just using climate change as a scapegoat, in order to maintain the status quo of sucking the lakes dry.

I'm having trouble following your reasoning here. How would using climate change as a scapegoat help maintain the status quo?

If we were taking aggressive steps to avert climate change I can see that might work, because they could argue that the taking care of climate change will take care of the water problems and so we don't need any separate action now on water.

But we aren't taking aggressive steps on climate change. So tying that water problems to climate change actually strengthens that case for taking separate aggressive action on water usage, which is the opposite of what those who want to maintain the status quo want.

The point is, the blame the problem on climate change, rather than the real culprit. As long as people think climate change is the problem, then Big Ag can do whatever they want, because people wont be looking at them.

Also the situation is compounded by the fact that a good chunk of the population don't even think climate change is real. So Big Ag can lobby against climate change, making the problem even worse.

I agree with everything you say. Calfiornia is growing lettuce and strawberries with field irrigation when we can go indoors and CEA. These crops are low calorie and low nutrition and trucked nationwide. Over 40% wastage cold refrigerated trucks have to be used. Criminal waste of water and fuel.

There is no excuse to grow almonds in this drought to export them worldwide. And sending alfafa to China for their dairy in boxes. California has lost the plot long time ago.

> California is growing lettuce and strawberries with field irrigation

Taking up as much land as possible is the point, and the water usage is secondary to that. It’s a mechanism to curtail population growth and overlaps with the comically inadequate housing supply, the troubles building transit (e.g. the fragmented mess of systems in the Bay Area, the HSR boondoggle), the freeway revolts, etc.

See also: ranching, areas now considered “conserved” (for whom?) despite being clear-cut once already, all the vineyards in Napa/Sonoma, cannabis in Mendo/Humboldt. Anything but housing.

All that land will be useless in 30 years after salt water intrusion. It’s all going to be housing.

California ag brings jobs and income that adds 350 billion to the state’s economy. That’s not trivial.

Having said that..putting up housing will lead to even more water shortages. People take up more water than trees and plants.

Water should be conserved and aquifers replenished.

Why should we have a limitless influx of population to California. Shouldn’t the number of people be in synch with available resources?

Which brings up the question..who can live here? Who can afford the resources of course. If everyone wants to live in the Bay Area because they want to and not because they can afford to..of course, there will be a resources crunch.

Your comment lacks explanation. Why do they need to farm? If produce isn't the goal why not leave the land empty? Why are they so opposed to housing?

> Your comment lacks explanation.

Well, I don’t entirely have an explanation, just an observation. Coming up with an explanation any deeper than “random chance arrangement of related issues” would require speculating about other people’s intent, something I consider to be a complete waste of time as intent is fundamentally unknowable. The outcome is what matters, not the intent, so I’m fine with not knowing.

What I mean to say is that these types of discussions rarely achieve anything because we’re picking away at a single issue (in this case water shortage) which is conceptually interlocked with several other issues such that no progress can be made on any one component.

It’s a pattern that repeats all over the place once you know to look for it, but let’s stick with the example from this sub-thread: there is a water shortage, in part because of inefficient land use for crops, because that land doesn’t have the transportation or other infrastructure to be economically viable as anything else, because building infrastructure is very expensive or even legislatively impossible, because Environment™, because there is a water shortage (among many other things).

They’re interlocked such that none of them would be an issue if they weren’t all an issue. It’s a Hermetic Seal in the classical sense (not as in “air-tight”[0]). Does that make any sense? Not asking you to agree with me, just that you’re right that it is difficult to explain :)

[0] https://wstyler.ucsd.edu/posts/hermetically_sealed.html

Just because there is land and we can plop a house in it doesnt mean that it can support more people.

It takes a lot for liveable cities. Mostly natural resources that aren’t renewable.

We are not food sustainable nor do we have a small food footprint. We need more trees and grassland to sequester carbon.

Lots of land doesn’t mean it’s all habitable. There is a reason the tropics are the most populated. Most of earth is not friendly to humans and are better suited to support environment and habitat and climate. It is futile imagination that makes us think that we have an abundance of resources.

In fact..everything runs on fossil fuels. Even food is fossil fuel turned into calories.

Population at half of today’s level is still above carrying a capacity of earth. I am a big proponent of E.O.Wilson’s Half Earth where half the planet must be returned to nature ti be rewilded and habitat must be restored.

This isn’t to say that procreation must be penalized. We need human beings to keeP our species from going extinct. What we need is an environment that nurtures all species. We rely on other species and habitat as we are a super apex predator and need them for our survival.

It’s overpopulation that is endangering our survival. The solution is simple. Women don’t want to be mothers because they are called birthing persons these days. Give women back their power.

This planet was formed by wise women… maiden, mother and crone held the power as life givers. Give it back to us. Women will nourish the species and the planet back to health. First we need to examine the reasons for over population that is unsustainable.

Start with getting rid of men and religious heads dictating what women can and should do with their bodies. Every woman has maternal instincts. No woman wants her body to be exploited by men. One of these instincts win. Right now, the latter is winning. Our species will perish. Unless women seize back the power over their own bodies.

> It’s overpopulation that is endangering our survival.

Fun research game: whenever a politician or other self-styled luminary parrots this tired meme, look up how many children they have :)

Paul Ehrlich. One child. Wikipedia says he says he's also had a vasectomy.

Does that lend credence to his views?

Or are you arguing that any sort of hypocrisy is enough to reject a point?

When an anti-smoking luminary like Wayne McLaren - one of the "Marlboro Man" who died of died of smoking-related diseases - tells you that smoking is unhealthy, does his history of smoking make him a hypocrite, so you can ignore his advice?

I don’t understand the point or relevance. Can you expand?

What about the non-native lawns, flowers, shrubs, and trees populated by millions of homes in the states fed by the Colorado? All of which require irrigation.

This already happens. Las Vegas has restrictions on this. LA does too. Additionally, just looking at the LA water rates [1] you see that depending on the size of the lot, you get a tiered water pricing depending on your usage. Put another way: the more water you use the more each unit of water costs you.

So you can have a big non-native lawn but it's going to cost you. Personally, I'm completely fine with that. Outright prohibition seems unnecessary.

[1]: https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/residential/r-custom...

These are done on a much smaller scale. It’s fun to blame people in a way that shames them, but it doesn’t always match reality. There is a whole lot of foolish water allocation to agriculture which should never have been done in the first place that just needs to stop. The sector needs to shrink to manageable levels.

Agricultural water use is something like 4x urban water use in California. There just needs to be less of it, and exporting heavy water using crops needs to be carefully considered.

They do require water (some lawns are watered in the form of irrigation; some aren't). But if you look at the water usage statistics, agriculture uses far more than homes (including their lawns). So if you want to do something about water use, it makes more sense to go after agriculture, because that's where the most use is.

Thanks. I didn’t know that.

Are you prepared to regulate individual homeowner's yards?

Uhh like the thousands of existing regulations? Personally I’m banned from having roosters in my yard, banned from watering on even-numbered days, banned from renting my lawn to campers, banned from having political signs outside of the 6 weeks pre & post election…

Also I’m fine with all these.

Everyone in the US seems to be; it's a national sport.

Just regulate lawn water usage. It's already done during droughts.

Climate change is the ultimate scapegoat for everything! It’s a politicians’ dream, something nobody can solve but everyone can blame

Yeah, I've been following some climate folk on twitter. All they do is make dire warnings and ask for money. Personally, I know climate change is very real and quite dire, but so much "climate activism" seems to only exist to exist, and not to solve anything. I mean, all I want to see is a threat model and a list of realistic policies. But all I get is, "The earth is burning, and they don't care, so DONATE NOW!" Pathetic, and disheartening.

> so much "climate activism" seems to only exist to exist, and not to solve anything. I mean, all I want to see is a threat model and a list of realistic policies.

The problem is Twitter, not the activists. Real organizations and professionals in the industry write the kinds of analysis you're asking for all the time. You literally only need to Google something climate-change related and it's all you will see.

They include realistic scenarios with sensitivity analyses, and they enormous troves of data that you can download yourself if you want to see where it came from.

The problem isn't that this information is missing, it's that you're looking in the wrong place (and seemingly spending not even 10 seconds of effort to find it).

Here are the first five Google results for "climate change scenario":

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_scenario (includes citations for further reading)

- https://climatescenarios.org/primer/ (explains what they are, includes citations, and overlays multiple climate models onto the same graph so you can see the differences)

- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/5-pos... (summarizes the IPCC report, which is exactly what you're describing)

- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/sres-en.pdf (an actual ICC report

That's just the usual NGO and charity crowd. You know why nobody solves anything? Because there's no solutions to be had. It's far too late for solutioneering, there's no sprints here, no hackathons, absolutely nothing that can be done because the only solutions require global consensus and we still can't even all agree that wars are bad and gay marriage is good.

So no, save your money and put it into hookers and blow or whatever makes you happy, as long as you can, because we're about to go off a very steep cliff and there's nothing the very smartest people on earth could do about it at this point.

Like Project Drawdown? https://drawdown.org/

Really like that website, thanks! It's hard to find sober, practical content on climate change (with the exception of the IPCC itself).

When did the switch from activism to grifters occur?

IMO a “switch” from one to the other is the wrong way to look at it. There are plenty of people who legitimately care about the environment for the environment’s sake, like myself and probably anybody else on this website. What you should be looking for are the secondary and tertiary effects of climate legislation with a mind toward ideologies besides your own which would benefit from those effects.

As always, correlation is not causation, but check out the inflection point for environmental interest among “American English” publications at the time of the first civil rights act in 1964: https://i.imgur.com/kP8ugvH.png

Since we’ve been picking on California in this thread this is also a good time to remember 1964 as the year California passed a state ballot proposition with the explicit intent of nullifying a state-level fair housing act passed one year earlier in 1963: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_California_Proposition_14

Obviously California is a huge state with a huge number of conflicting ideologies, but I think it’s important to be mindful of ways one’s good intentions may be misdirected and misused.

We can solve it. The Great Depression measurably delayed the impact of climate change, and with advances in fusion and solar technology carbon capture is rapidly becoming a reality.

That we so far haven't bothered trying because it would cost rich people some money is unconscionable, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. The science of environmental repair will need a broad base of support, but it is our best hope to still be able to exist as a species.

Are you suggesting another Great Depression would be good because it would forestall the effects of climate change?

That seems to be the proposal, yes. Rather than possible future problems, let’s cause them now!

That's not how water capture works.

Also, mass shootings are guns.

I hope you understand that a flood is not captures water

> We're still "exporting water" to China in the form of alfalfa [2] in addition to other water intensive crops like almonds.

That BBC article is off by a factor of about 20000. Most of the water (99.995%) used to grow alfalfa ends up in the in the California atmosphere, not in China. For almonds most of the water (99.97%) ends up in the California atmosphere.

I wonder if it would be possible to grow these crops in some sort of enclosed place so that all that water could be captured and reused? Based on the export numbers for alfalfa to China, I get that you'd need about 800 km^2 of greenhouses.

That's a lot of area, about equal to the total area of all agricultural greenhouses in Spain, Italy, and France.

Recent and related:

Big water cutbacks ordered amid Colorado River shortage - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31748079 - June 2022 (197 comments)

The Multistate Battle over the Colorado River - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31388697 - May 2022 (29 comments)

U.S. takes unprecedented steps to replenish Colorado River's Lake Powell - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31316464 - May 2022 (419 comments)

Arizona’s dry future begins as Colorado River shrinks - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31139376 - April 2022 (110 comments)

See also:

An unsolved math problem on the Colorado River - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30858256 - March 2022 (61 comments)

40M People Rely on the Colorado River. It’s Drying Up Fast - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28331063 - Aug 2021 (56 comments)

Colorado River drops to record low levels, slashing Arizona’s water supply - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28212402 - Aug 2021 (65 comments)

First-ever water cuts declared for Colorado River in historic drought - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28210079 - Aug 2021 (2 comments)

The Colorado River is shrinking - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27908691 - July 2021 (251 comments)

US West prepares for possible first water shortage declaration - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26859293 - April 2021 (56 comments)

Climate change is drying up the Colorado River - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22397704 - Feb 2020 (13 comments)

‘Climate change is water change’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12323124 - Aug 2016 (49 comments)

Inside the Power Plant Fueling America’s Drought - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9725815 - June 2015 (56 comments)

The Disappearing Colorado River - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9583838 - May 2015 (35 comments)

The Day We Set the Colorado River Free - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7960226 - June 2014 (30 comments)

If anyone needed a refresher map of the CO river like I did. I always forget it's responsible for California's wobbly butt.

map --> http://media.web.britannica.com/eb-media/60/89860-050-AEBBE5...

here's an idea(FWIW) so I will put it out here. Why don't you just "link" Missippi/Missouri to the West. Seriously its been done to death in my own semi-arid, parched City of Chennai(pop 11,235,018) where-in they successfully linked Krishna(perennial river) that originates in central India, flows through the entire central Indian plains before flowing into the sea in the central Indian coast. The Krishna River project was successfully completed in 2014 and the city of Chennai has no longer water shortages. If it can be done in India, what's stopping the consortium of the western states(CA/NV/AZ/NM) working together with MS/MO to implement this. As an aside, the guy who solves this "water crisis", at scale within the next 5 years IS going to make bank. I am not seeing any one else from the Billionaire club doing this. unfortunately. sigh!.

"link" would end up meaning steal it all for CA agriculture.

You would need to either pump all of that water over the rockies, or tunnel it through the rockies - neither sound particularly possible.

Of all the places to use market forces, this one is it. Users of the water should bid. The price will round to zero for consumers, but ag will have to make decisions they should have made long ago.

There are very very strong advocates who insist that huge colossal vast grants of water rights made a century ago cannot ever be redresses except by buying these natural holders out.

Personally I find this abominable & maximally distateful. Governments like all institutions make mistakes. In my view, correctuon must be possible, and not just by paying absurd prices to cancel promises that mever could be kept. The idea that law is only valid if it never changes, always follows theough on every promise without change, seems deeply deeply fallen to me.

I hate that it's come to this but these water rights holders literally cant get the vast vast vast entitlements they've held any more. There's a lot of important critical agriculture that needs some access, perhaps as you say at some market rate. These old entitlements though? They've bankrupted the water system. Awful situation which it took hitting a literal rock bottom to disrupt. Governments have been unable to respond in any way because of ancient decisions & now it's broke. Lets not prevent governance again, please.

Just maybe we need a big infrastructure project to push water around the country from where it’s not needed to where it is? Throw in some desal.

People here love pointing at agriculture. Messing with farmers only has so much appeal. The US built dams and the highway system in times that were objectively worse than today. The vast majority of US GDP relies on that highway system and would have no alternative without it. Trains can’t make up for it alone.

For those with a nebula subscription, there's an hour-and-a-half documentary on the Colorado River here: https://nebula.app/thecoloradoproblem

The insidious thing about rivers, is that the flow through places. Seems to create a perfect storm of detachment of cause and effect, and deniability for anyone's responsibly to act.

Yeah it’s the prisoner’s dilemma… everyone is worried that if they don’t take what they can get, they’ll be left with nothing while everyone else prospers off of their loss

It’s not really that at all.

There is a broad sector of people making their living off of inappropriately inexpensive water and governments unwilling to bankrupt a sizable fraction of them.

Fits the pattern of "I don't want to give up what I can get and watch others prosper from my loss"

Systems of ownable water rights to rivers is centuries old. This is a solved problem.

There's very much a system of water rights already in place on the Colorado river. The problem isn't solved.

I responded to the problem of "detachment of cause and effect, and deniability for anyone's responsibly to act".

I think it's clear who is responsible for what water in the current system.

That who owns what and with very uneven conditions is a disaster is to me a separate problem. But I might be splitting hairs here.

> I think it's clear who is responsible for what water in the current system.

River water rights are not always 'clear'. It's a common problem.

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

The problem of having legal institutions in place to regulate river usage is solved.

The problem of having those legal institutions do so in a reasonable manner is not, but will be soon enough as large public water shortages will really motivate the electorate to force the issue.

System of nobles owning land and serfs on that land was centuries old. Does it fit today's needs? Was it possible to divert 100% of a massive river centuries ago?

Was it needed for electricity generation? Did climate change rapidly?

The southwest water rights situation is a clear case where eminent domain is required. The current situation leads to predictable disaster, eminent domain the water with a steady free market price scheme introduction. If necessary, Ban the production of high water crops in the short term to shore up supply.

Agreed. If users can’t act responsibly, and they haven’t been for years, then effectively nationalise the river. Cheaper to pay farmers to not grow high water use crops, cease meat growing like cattle, and leave the ground fallow for a decade at least.

In case, like me, you had to look up "Eminent Domain":

> Eminent domain refers to the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. The Fifth Amendment provides that the government may only exercise this power if they provide just compensation to the property owners.

they arent really water rights, they are fictitious entitlements to more rainfall than exists.

A contract promising something that breaks laws of phisics would be considered invalid. These rights should be too.

That's not really how it works. No one has the right to pull more water from a river than exists in the river. You have a seniority system where the most senior gets to use as much water as they need, and then the second most senior does, and then so on. At a certain point the water runs out no one gets water at that point.

California just gratuitously rejected a desalination plant: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/us/california-water-desaliniz..., too: the state is not serious about water. It rejected that plant and won't charge one price for water regardless of user; agricultural uses are subsidized. Get a free market in water and we'll see what happens.

One thing to note is that the "free market price" for water would probably result in far MORE irrigated lawns than currently exist in CA.

Farmers pay nothing for water (they have water rights), and vastly exceed residential use. So if you shifted all water consumption to pay-per-gallon, you'd make it very easy for suburban families to pay chump change to irrigate .2 acre yards.

Not saying it's good or bad, but it would happen.

If only some of that Yellowstone Lake (7700 feet) runoff could be channeled south instead of east. Aqueducts?

Edit: A plan was cooked up in 1919, but nothing came of it. https://magicvalley.com/news/local/hidden-history-yellowston...

A century later: 2021 discussion: https://wyofile.com/wyo-looks-to-store-divert-more-water-as-...

Came across this video today, it's an interesting look at how the lake level has dropped over the years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCBG_aVkv4s

It's a dam, just hold back water. Oh, and figure out how to efficiently turn ocean water into fresh water. It ain't hard. Unless you want to draw this out for 100+ years like every other crisis.

The solution is straightforward. Shut down agribusiness (don't call it farming--it's industrial scale) along the Colorado and you will have plenty of water for people and the ability to refill the reservoirs.

Take a look at 'just' almonds. Almonds are a "non-native" plant that came from the Mediterranean.

Some 1.6 million acres of almond trees in California. That produces just about 2.8 billion pounds of almonds. It takes around 1900 GALLONS of water to grow one pound of almonds. That works out to about 16 million acre feet of water per year. More than is used by people in Los Angeles.

When you take into account all the new things that they keep making out of almonds, everything from "milk" (I prefer the term nut juice) to cleaning supplies (specifically the shells are used in soaps, cutting back on water intense farm products during a 2 decade draught, rather than continuing to expand, makes sense

Almond milk isn't even healthy I don't understand. At least soy milk has some protein in it.

These 7 industrial farm operations are draining Arizona's aquifers, and no one knows exactly how much they're taking: https://www.azcentral.com/in-depth/news/local/arizona-enviro...

The gif of the drone over the pistachio farm is so depressing. It looks like a generated world with how uniform and repeated it is. So strange

How much is left? What happens when they run out?

Arizona has been recharging it's reserves since the 90's. https://www.droughtfacts.com/risks.aspx#:~:text=The%20answer....

IIRC they're being extremely inefficient with the water because they don't pay for it. Fix that and the problem solves itself.

Exactly. Once again the free market to the rescue.

Price the water based on supply and demand and watch how much more efficient farmers get.

> Exactly. Once again the free market to the rescue. Price the water based on supply and demand and watch how much more efficient farmers get.

Ah, yes, have the government change the price and the free market will take care of everything. We need regulation and enforcement, not just a movement in decimal point and fine print for a few parties.

Right now the price is zero because the government is giving it away for free.

The price is zero because the rights holders own the water rights.

Water rights are a good example of how, in practice, property rights are entirely artificial. The system of water rights needs reform.

Who gave the water rights? Or better stated - who owned them originally?

Not given. Taken.

You clearly don't understand farming - it only works when water is free.

If you make them pay 0.1% of what residential customers pay, farms will go bancrupt. Because the volumes of water required are so enormous. You could improbe efficiency 2x or 3x, but ir won't matter financially

Thatswhy water desalination doesnt work for farming

Almonds are a classic example of an extremely water-hungry crop, with 1lb of almonds taking 1600 gallons of water to grow. My water bill, in SF, is $0.0123/gal.

Now, 1600gal × 0.0123$/gal × 0.001 is about 2 cents.

If farms were forced to pay my water rates, a pound of almonds would be $19.68 more expensive - but they would be paying at worst 10% of what I pay, because they wouldn't need potable water or urban plumbing.

I am going to ask that you provide sources for your claim, because it seems ridiculous.

Your math is right, but conclusion is wrong - wholesale almonds go for $1 - $1.5 per pound, and farmer gets a fraction of that.

Yourl are talking about the privlce going up 10x.

Even if its 10%, you are more than doubling the price at farm gate.

The price seems to be somewhere between $2.5 to $3/lb now:

https://www.selinawamucii.com/insights/prices/united-states-...

In any case, doubling the price of almonds is exactly the kind of change I'd expect to see if water was charged fairly. It's one of the worst offenders - if farmers have built their business models around free water during a historic set of droughts, their business models are fundamentally unsustainable and it's the government's duty to fix the pricing sooner rather than later.

now I admit I am not an expert. Does anyone know what percentage of water goes right back into the water table?

It's not helping the source so it's not really important

Probably near zero. My understanding is the useful kind of aquifer are the result of the shallow ones being closed off via geologic activity.

Wouldn't other alternative that is as reasonable to kick out people in FIFO principle until the water use is in balance. Or just not supply them. Then they will leave on their own.

Ok, now what are the downstream effects?

> Ok, now what are the downstream effects?

Is this an intentional or unintentional pun?

More water

Yep. Buy the cranberry farms. Residential water usage is a drop in the bucket.

What about food? For people to eat?

You buy the food from places where the water isn't subsidized. There's plenty of them. Food scaring is a deplorable tactic of the water hogs.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140123-co...

Try moving the farms to states with water.

Alternatively, if you truly believe in the free market, start charging agribusinesses the same rate as residents for water use.

We don't want your shitty alfalfa in our states either. California and the Southwest aren't the only places with water problems. You lot have just depleted yours faster than everywhere else. It'll take decades to build your aquifers back up to nice levels. All of those planned foundries everyone on this site has been excited about in Arizona? Not enough water. Ever hear of Flint, Michigan? Water infrastructure is expensive, and people in this country are allergic to taxes. The Ogalalla aquifer is being depleted, and most people depending on it probably don't know it exists or how to say it. Salt Lake City is drying up, and the little water left there is all that's standing between a few million people and arsenic dust and other toxic, tiny shit. More people to move, and more houses lost early to the changing environment.

California is burning, sinking, drying up, and unaffordable. Your rivers are becoming creeks. Lakes dry up. Reservoirs drain to thirsty farms and cities. Water is bottled and sold from California to places with plenty of it. Alfalfa, almonds, and unauthorized weed farms are drinking up most of your water that isn't immediately drained into the ocean. Desalination plants aren't being built in time and have their attendant costs and ecological considerations. Snowmelt is reduced as snowcaps disappear due to global warming. Aquifers are drained after a century of drilling and wells and byzantine water rights and legal doctrines not updated much in a century. The aquifers are so drained that the ground is sinking above the empty cavities of the depleted aquifers. Wild salmon in California will most likely die out. The seas are rising and threatening to swallow up "The Valley" and introduce once-freshwater ecosystems to saltwater. Single-family zoning covers the majority of California. Millions of economic and climate refugees are going to be playing ping pong across the US trying to find that affordable, safe, pleasant life in another state in the American pipe dream, thereby straining the barely-there infrastructure of low tax, reduced government red states and causing local spikes in prices and forcing poor people further and further out. Good luck. . . There's so much work to be done, and I feel tired thinking about it. But, it needs to be done.

Well said! When you say "our states" where do you mean?

When this discussion about the water deprived southwest comes up, I have seen the suggestion crop up repeatedly to halt agriculture in California, Utah, and Arizona that require a lot of water, and the followup is usually to suggest shifting those agricultural practices and crops north and east. I don't think growing almonds in Mississippi or Alabama will help much. It's just be exporting the problems elsewhere.

There are billions of acres of cropland on planet earth we could use to grow food.

Food is no good without water.

Won't that just worsen famine caused by Russia?

Act. It's so simple.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com