[Rally]

[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.

[Rally]

[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.