The CardBoard
Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm (/thread-9585.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Roberton3 - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 02:18 PM)ferrari link Wrote:I'm not personally upset with Stupac2.  Maybe Stupac1 but that's another post.  I said, to use one side's term, obviously implying at least two sides.  From that Stupac2 launched into a tirade against morons and idiots.  He says he doesn't understand my point.  Perhaps because he was inflamed by the term "land grab?"  I don't know but I think my point was pretty clear, as others have commented on:  government never gives up power and authority without fighting tooth and nail.  If someone is going to take issue with my post, fine, but take issue with this, not "land grab."  Now, let's just forget the whole thing and get back to traffic congestion.

Never is a very strong word.  The deregulation of railroads, trucking, airlines, parts of the electricity industry, etc., etc., etc., are all examples of government giving up power without "fighting tooth and nail."

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 02:12 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12510.msg124396#msg124396 date=1439584872]
A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.

You got it.  Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses.  It has worked very well in other areas where water is scarce and needs to be divided between urban and agricultural users (such as the Australian state of New South Wales). 

But I'm not optimistic, partly because the legal history makes that relatively difficult to do in California compared to some other places, and partly because water pricing would be a moderate compromise in a political environment dominated by the extremes (in this case, the "I should be able to use as much water as I want" folks that Stupac2 criticized and the "asceticism is a virtue" folks that Garvin criticized).
[/quote]

Requiring water meters on all Sacramento properties instead of just over half would be a nice start.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Roberton3 - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 02:31 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12510.msg124396#msg124396 date=1439584872]
A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.

You got it.  Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses.  It has worked very well in other areas where water is scarce and needs to be divided between urban and agricultural users (such as the Australian state of New South Wales). 

But I'm not optimistic, partly because the legal history makes that relatively difficult to do in California compared to some other places, and partly because water pricing would be a moderate compromise in a political environment dominated by the extremes (in this case, the "I should be able to use as much water as I want" folks that Stupac2 criticized and the "asceticism is a virtue" folks that Garvin criticized).
[/quote]

Requiring water meters on all Sacramento properties instead of just over half would be a nice start.
[/quote]

Yep.  Very hard to price something you can't measure.  And getting those meters in place will be easy compared to getting meters on the wells drawing from rapidly depleting aquifers.

Re: SoCal is hardly capable of holding onto the rain that falls - Rally - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 02:26 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124410#msg124410 date=1439587086]
I'm not personally upset with Stupac2.  Maybe Stupac1 but that's another post.  I said, to use one side's term, obviously implying at least two sides.  From that Stupac2 launched into a tirade against morons and idiots.  He says he doesn't understand my point.  Perhaps because he was inflamed by the term "land grab?"  I don't know but I think my point was pretty clear, as others have commented on:  government never gives up power and authority without fighting tooth and nail.  If someone is going to take issue with my post, fine, but take issue with this, not "land grab."  Now, let's just forget the whole thing and get back to traffic congestion.

Never is a very strong word.  The deregulation of railroads, trucking, airlines, parts of the electricity industry, etc., etc., etc., are all examples of government giving up power without "fighting tooth and nail."
[/quote]

Never is a strong word, but I qualified the word with "without fighting tooth and nail."  And my prejudice is to include the beaurocracy in the catchall  "pols."  I'm not sure I consider any of those industries completely deregulated, and my got tells me, admittedly with no research, that whatever easing did occur didn't happen without a fight.we may be one of the most free nations on earth but nearly every aspect of life is regulated, to one degree or another but some level of government.  Good or bad I think it is factual. 

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 02:38 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124416#msg124416 date=1439587897]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=12510.msg124396#msg124396 date=1439584872]
A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.

You got it.  Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses.  It has worked very well in other areas where water is scarce and needs to be divided between urban and agricultural users (such as the Australian state of New South Wales). 

But I'm not optimistic, partly because the legal history makes that relatively difficult to do in California compared to some other places, and partly because water pricing would be a moderate compromise in a political environment dominated by the extremes (in this case, the "I should be able to use as much water as I want" folks that Stupac2 criticized and the "asceticism is a virtue" folks that Garvin criticized).
[/quote]

Requiring water meters on all Sacramento properties instead of just over half would be a nice start.
[/quote]

Yep.  Very hard to price something you can't measure.  And getting those meters in place will be easy compared to getting meters on the wells drawing from rapidly depleting aquifers.
[/quote]

Agreed.  The pholiosophical and political arguments in this state will run until the next drought after this one and beyond.  People have paid for water rights.  Should they be compensated when the State takes it away from them?  A friend of mine owned a well in Fallbrook.  The local water district wanted it.  After some years of negotiation they bought it, netting him a nice capital gain.  What about rain water?  If I install a cactchment on my property and it fills with rain water, should I have to pay to use it?  If access to clean drinking water is a right, why should I have to pay for it?  What if I'm poor?  If I can have free healthcare, why not free water?  Both are in limited supply, both cost money to deliver.  What is the difference?  If I invest, say, 10 million dollars in a rice farm, and another $10 million to secure water rights, am I entitled to compensation if the State takes away my water, ruining my crop and making my land worthless?  No one on this board will live long enough to see the resolution to all the questions.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - BostonCard - 08-14-2015

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/emergencies/qa/emergencies_qa5/en/

The WHO estimates that the minimum per capita water requirement of 7.5 L (call it two gallons) "a day will meet the requirements of most people under most conditions."

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2015/pr040715_rgcpd_febconservation.pdf

California's per capita water consumption in February for personal use was 76 gallons per day; that's just under 40 times the minimum that the WHO estimates people need to survive.  So, there is room between people need to use less water, and water is a right.  One could easily guarantee a certain minimum amount of water per capita "for free", satisfying those who say that water is a right, and charging for more than that, satisfying those people who argue that creating a market for water is the best way to ensure that water is conserved.

But even then, personal consumption accounts for only 3 billion gallons per day statewide; statewide consumption for all uses is about 12 times as much (38 billion).


BC

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 04:25 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/emergencies/qa/emergencies_qa5/en/

The WHO estimates that the minimum per capita water requirement of 7.5 L (call it two gallons) "a day will meet the requirements of most people under most conditions."

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2015/pr040715_rgcpd_febconservation.pdf

California's per capita water consumption in February for personal use was 76 gallons per day; that's just under 40 times the minimum that the WHO estimates people need to survive.  So, there is room between people need to use less water, and water is a right.  One could easily guarantee a certain minimum amount of water per capita "for free", satisfying those who say that water is a right, and charging for more than that, satisfying those people who argue that creating a market for water is the best way to ensure that water is conserved.

But even then, personal consumption accounts for only 3 billion gallons per day statewide; statewide consumption for all uses is about 12 times as much (38 billion).


BC

Right on all counts.  But WHO doesn't account for daily showers, teeth brushing, toilets that use 1.6 gals to flush a few ounces of waste, daily dishwashing, washing the car (not to mention the driveway, sidewalk and gutter) letting the tap run until the temp is just right, boiling pasta in 6 qt of water (foolish) and dumping the water down the drain, dumping all cooking water, for that matter, down the drain, etc. 

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - CornFed - 08-14-2015

"But even then, personal consumption accounts for only 3 billion gallons per day statewide; statewide consumption for all uses is about 12 times as much (38 billion)."

Does that 38 billion gallons include the half of our total water supply that we flush into the Bay to achieve environmental objectives?

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - BostonCard - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 06:49 PM)CornFed link Wrote:"But even then, personal consumption accounts for only 3 billion gallons per day statewide; statewide consumption for all uses is about 12 times as much (38 billion)."

Does that 38 billion gallons include the half of our total water supply that we flush into the Bay to achieve environmental objectives?

No, total runoff in California is 70 million acre-feet in an average year.  That's 62 billion gallons per day, of which we use 38 biilion.  Thus unused runoff is about 24 billion gallons per day, or about 40% of the total in a normal year.  This runoff keeps the streams and rivers open.

BC

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 08:21 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=12510.msg124461#msg124461 date=1439603351]
"But even then, personal consumption accounts for only 3 billion gallons per day statewide; statewide consumption for all uses is about 12 times as much (38 billion)."

Does that 38 billion gallons include the half of our total water supply that we flush into the Bay to achieve environmental objectives?

No, total runoff in California is 70 million acre-feet in an average year.  That's 62 billion gallons per day, of which we use 38 biilion.  Thus unused runoff is about 24 billion gallons per day, or about 40% of the total in a normal year.  This runoff keeps the streams and rivers open.

BC
[/quote]

During these less than normal years, what percentage of the annual runoff has gone to streams and rivers and Delta Smelt ?  Has the percentages increased?

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - CrazedZooChimp - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 06:49 PM)CornFed link Wrote:"But even then, personal consumption accounts for only 3 billion gallons per day statewide; statewide consumption for all uses is about 12 times as much (38 billion)."

Does that 38 billion gallons include the half of our total water supply that we flush into the Bay to achieve environmental objectives?

I'd also wonder if it includes all the water that is pumped from ground water wells by farmers (and maybe people and industrial users) and not just supplied by reservoir.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - pauloalto - 08-14-2015

(08-14-2015, 01:41 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:A price mechanism would (I presume) be the better system for managing water in California. Nevertheless it seems kind of strange to think that a lot of rain should automatically change California's water policy outlook. That's the type of short-term-driven behavior that got the Western U.S. into this mess in the first place.

You're probably right, WIM, tiered pricing would help, but it would be unconstitutional. A 1996 California initiative banned cities from charging more for services than they cost.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - CTcard - 08-15-2015

(08-14-2015, 11:34 PM)anmalanman link Wrote:You're probably right, WIM, tiered pricing would help, but it would be unconstitutional. A 1996 California initiative banned cities from charging more for services than they cost.

This is Prop 218, yes?

Isn't that just a state law - is it really a constitutional ammendment?

And my fuzzy memory is that originally there was some question whether metered water usage was covered or just flat water fees based upon the property itself. Was that ever resolved?

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - socalstanfan1 - 08-15-2015

Just one contribution to add to this very Cardboard-ish debate on water policy (I say that in the most positive way; what other Sports board witnesses these kinds of extended debates).

While many, at this moment, decry the government regulation of water in California, it's worth remembering that the farming industry, as it is currently set up, and nearly every major city in the state, would not exist without a heavy investment by governments at various levels to create the water works in the first place.  The battle over the control of water in the West has been going on since the West was settled and while some might say government always gets in the way and should be minimized as much as possible, its very unlikely that agricultural businesses would have invested the billions of dollars to create the various dams and aqueducts and storage facilities that have facilitated the development of the Central Valley and simultaneously provided water for the brobdingnagian urban centers of California.

I'm not advocating turning back the clock and reverting to California as it was in the 1800s. Just arguing for a bit of historical perspective, that the communities we live in, and the industries that drive the economy of the state, have benefitted from government investment in the state water system (including federal government investment that led to the construction of Shasta dam and the California Water Project, and legislation like the Newlands Reclamation Act that pumped millions of dollars into land projects in the West.) The struggle over how to manage, distribute, and pay for water is endemic to the politics of the Western U.S. (except for the more damp Northwest), and will continue long after we all are gone.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - 81alum - 08-15-2015

(08-15-2015, 06:01 AM)socalstanfan1 link Wrote:Just one contribution to add to this very Cardboard-ish debate on water policy (I say that in the most positive way; what other Sports board witnesses these kinds of extended debates).

While many, at this moment, decry the government regulation of water in California, it's worth remembering that the farming industry, as it is currently set up, and nearly every major city in the state, would not exist without a heavy investment by governments at various levels to create the water works in the first place.  The battle over the control of water in the West has been going on since the West was settled and while some might say government always gets in the way and should be minimized as much as possible, its very unlikely that agricultural businesses would have invested the billions of dollars to create the various dams and aqueducts and storage facilities that have facilitated the development of the Central Valley and simultaneously provided water for the of exceedingly large proportions urban centers of California.

I'm not advocating turning back the clock and reverting to California as it was in the 1800s. Just arguing for a bit of historical perspective, that the communities we live in, and the industries that drive the economy of the state, have benefitted from government investment in the state water system (including federal government investment that led to the construction of Shasta dam and the California Water Project, and legislation like the Newlands Reclamation Act that pumped millions of dollars into land projects in the West.) The struggle over how to manage, distribute, and pay for water is endemic to the politics of the Western U.S. (except for the more damp Northwest), and will continue long after we all are gone.
Very well said and quite diplomatically written. 

By the way, under Brown's recent water restrictions pressure was put on local water agencies to enact tiered rate structures.  The courts have struck such efforts down:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-water-rates-case-20150405-story.html

The water agencies, the court said, are not allowed to charge more for water than it cost them to provide.  Why not?  Because of restrictions on taxes enacted by the anti-tax movement in Proposition 218.  Of course, those water agencies are not paying for the real costs of the water--they are getting it heavily subsidized mostly from the Feds who built most of the dams and much of the distribution system.  I doubt it was the intention of the conservative free-market types who backed Prop 218 to undermine a market based solution years later, but that is what happened.  Our initiative system is filled with similar irrational and unintended consequences.

What makes it even more ludicrous is that water in California is extremely expensive to supply and has been subsidized heavily by the government for a century--most especially since Hoover Dam--that great public works project begun not by Roosevelt but by that free-market advocate and Stanford alum Herbert Hoover in 1931.  Nearly all our water storage and water transfer systems since then were publicly constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation, Army Corps of Engineers, and the state.  I would highly recommend the late Mark Reisner's book Cadillac Desert for anyone who wishes to understand the history of water in the American West.  It is really not far fetched to say that the great bulk of the population of California and Nevada is a product of socialistic government water programs.  Los Angeles and Las Vegas exist in cities of greater than 10k people only because they have had access to abundant supplies relatively cheap water--water that has been cheap to them through government water agencies that developed it and supplied it.  If they had paid the full costs of their water, they would not have grown into the brobdingnagian cities that exist today.

http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-Revised/dp/0140178244

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - pauloalto - 08-15-2015

(08-15-2015, 05:18 AM)CTcard link Wrote:This is Prop 218, yes?

Isn't that just a state law - is it really a constitutional ammendment?

And my fuzzy memory is that originally there was some question whether metered water usage was covered or just flat water fees based upon the property itself. Was that ever resolved?

My Wikipedia says prop 218 was a constitutional amendment.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Rally - 08-15-2015

(08-15-2015, 08:34 AM)anmalanman link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12510.msg124488#msg124488 date=1439641138]
This is Prop 218, yes?

Isn't that just a state law - is it really a constitutional ammendment?

And my fuzzy memory is that originally there was some question whether metered water usage was covered or just flat water fees based upon the property itself. Was that ever resolved?

My Wikipedia says prop 218 was a constitutional amendment.
[/quote]

I think it is set up so that all successfully passed props become amendments.  How else do you get a constitution 4,972 pages long?

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - CompSci87 - 08-15-2015

(08-15-2015, 09:29 AM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=anmalanman link=topic=12510.msg124503#msg124503 date=1439652896]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=12510.msg124488#msg124488 date=1439641138]
This is Prop 218, yes?

Isn't that just a state law - is it really a constitutional ammendment?

And my fuzzy memory is that originally there was some question whether metered water usage was covered or just flat water fees based upon the property itself. Was that ever resolved?

My Wikipedia says prop 218 was a constitutional amendment.
[/quote]

I think it is set up so that all successfully passed props become amendments.  How else do you get a constitution 4,972 pages long?
[/quote]

No, if you read the ballot pamphlets, some propositions are listed as statutes and others as constitutional amendments.

Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - Kathy - 08-15-2015

(08-14-2015, 02:12 PM)Roberton3 link Wrote:Better pricing would greatly reduce some of the wasteful uses of water (e.g., growing relatively low-value, water-intensive crops such as alfalfa and rice), and wouldn't significantly cut into high-value uses.

And what would you deem high-value usage? Alfalfa is a high-protein legume utilized by cattle that humans, in turn, utilize as food (beef and milk). Rice is one of the most important food staples in the world. What uses would you advocate to replace alfalfa and rice production? Granted, both crops use a lot of water (although there is interest in midsummer deficit irrigation methods for alfalfa with the trade-off of a lower yield), but I wouldn't classify either crop as low-value or their cultivation as wasteful.


Re: Going to be a rainy football season on The Farm - washingtonismoney - 08-15-2015

(08-15-2015, 12:36 PM)Kathy link Wrote:And what would you deem high-value usage?

That's what the prices are for, to remove opining from the equation.