[CornFed]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=12510.msg124522#msg124522 date=1439667381]
And what would you deem high-value usage?

That's what the prices are for, to remove opining from the equation.
[/quote]

As you can imagine, given my quote from Milton Friedman on my page, this comment gets infinite up votes from me!!

[CornFed]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=12510.msg124522#msg124522 date=1439667381]
And what would you deem high-value usage?

That's what the prices are for, to remove opining from the equation.
[/quote]

As you can imagine, given my quote from Milton Friedman on my page, this comment gets infinite up votes from me!!

[Rally]

I don't understand the comments that it is illegal to have tiered water pricing.  Here, we are served by the Coachella Valley Water District.  There has been tiered pricing for quite a few years, same as electric and gas.  With the new requirements they have added fines to those who do not meet water reduction requirements.  For our HOA missing the target last month would have meant a fine in excess of $15,000, so our lawns are now brown.  I am ashamed to admit it, but our neighboring community (same walls, same gates, etc.) is a PUD, wherein each owner owns their own lot and pays their own water bill.  (We pay only for interior use.). All of their lawns are lush and green.  I asked one if he didn't feel a little funny with all that green.  He said, "I like green grass and can afford the fine.  To hell with them."  He is one of 500, and I am ashamed of each of them, even though many are/were good friends.

[Rally]

I don't understand the comments that it is illegal to have tiered water pricing.  Here, we are served by the Coachella Valley Water District.  There has been tiered pricing for quite a few years, same as electric and gas.  With the new requirements they have added fines to those who do not meet water reduction requirements.  For our HOA missing the target last month would have meant a fine in excess of $15,000, so our lawns are now brown.  I am ashamed to admit it, but our neighboring community (same walls, same gates, etc.) is a PUD, wherein each owner owns their own lot and pays their own water bill.  (We pay only for interior use.). All of their lawns are lush and green.  I asked one if he didn't feel a little funny with all that green.  He said, "I like green grass and can afford the fine.  To hell with them."  He is one of 500, and I am ashamed of each of them, even though many are/were good friends.

[pauloalto]

I don't understand the comments that it is illegal to have tiered water pricing.  Here, we are served by the Coachella Valley Water District.  There has been tiered pricing for quite a few years, same as electric and gas.  With the new requirements they have added fines to those who do not meet water reduction requirements.  For our HOA missing the target last month would have meant a fine in excess of $15,000, so our lawns are now brown.  I am ashamed to admit it, but our neighboring community (same walls, same gates, etc.) is a PUD, wherein each owner owns their own lot and pays their own water bill.  (We pay only for interior use.). All of their lawns are lush and green.  I asked one if he didn't feel a little funny with all that green.  He said, "I like green grass and can afford the fine.  To hell with them."  He is one of 500, and I am ashamed of each of them, even though many are/were good friends.

Yep, about 2/3 of California water providers use tiered pricing, but a recent April 21 court decision ruled this is unconstitutional (against Roseville). This applies only to municipal water providers. Cities using tiered pricing now have to try another legal tack or change their billing. Fines are probably legal.

[pauloalto]

I don't understand the comments that it is illegal to have tiered water pricing.  Here, we are served by the Coachella Valley Water District.  There has been tiered pricing for quite a few years, same as electric and gas.  With the new requirements they have added fines to those who do not meet water reduction requirements.  For our HOA missing the target last month would have meant a fine in excess of $15,000, so our lawns are now brown.  I am ashamed to admit it, but our neighboring community (same walls, same gates, etc.) is a PUD, wherein each owner owns their own lot and pays their own water bill.  (We pay only for interior use.). All of their lawns are lush and green.  I asked one if he didn't feel a little funny with all that green.  He said, "I like green grass and can afford the fine.  To hell with them."  He is one of 500, and I am ashamed of each of them, even though many are/were good friends.

Yep, about 2/3 of California water providers use tiered pricing, but a recent April 21 court decision ruled this is unconstitutional (against Roseville). This applies only to municipal water providers. Cities using tiered pricing now have to try another legal tack or change their billing. Fines are probably legal.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124530#msg124530 date=1439677964]
I don't understand the comments that it is illegal to have tiered water pricing.  Here, we are served by the Coachella Valley Water District.  There has been tiered pricing for quite a few years, same as electric and gas.  With the new requirements they have added fines to those who do not meet water reduction requirements.  For our HOA missing the target last month would have meant a fine in excess of $15,000, so our lawns are now brown.  I am ashamed to admit it, but our neighboring community (same walls, same gates, etc.) is a PUD, wherein each owner owns their own lot and pays their own water bill.  (We pay only for interior use.). All of their lawns are lush and green.  I asked one if he didn't feel a little funny with all that green.  He said, "I like green grass and can afford the fine.  To hell with them."  He is one of 500, and I am ashamed of each of them, even though many are/were good friends.

Yep, about 2/3 of California water providers use tiered pricing, but a recent April 21 court decision ruled this is unconstitutional (against Roseville). This applies only to municipal water providers. Cities using tiered pricing now have to try another legal tack or change their billing. Fines are probably legal.
[/quote]

What is a municipal water provider?  My impression, not researched, is that the water districts in the Valley (there are several) are independent agencies.  Tiered pricing is the only hope to bring order to the market.  Fines against neighbors such as mine should be increased until a breaking point is reached.  In the meanwhile their fines should go to alleviate rates for those (most of us) less fortunate.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124530#msg124530 date=1439677964]
I don't understand the comments that it is illegal to have tiered water pricing.  Here, we are served by the Coachella Valley Water District.  There has been tiered pricing for quite a few years, same as electric and gas.  With the new requirements they have added fines to those who do not meet water reduction requirements.  For our HOA missing the target last month would have meant a fine in excess of $15,000, so our lawns are now brown.  I am ashamed to admit it, but our neighboring community (same walls, same gates, etc.) is a PUD, wherein each owner owns their own lot and pays their own water bill.  (We pay only for interior use.). All of their lawns are lush and green.  I asked one if he didn't feel a little funny with all that green.  He said, "I like green grass and can afford the fine.  To hell with them."  He is one of 500, and I am ashamed of each of them, even though many are/were good friends.

Yep, about 2/3 of California water providers use tiered pricing, but a recent April 21 court decision ruled this is unconstitutional (against Roseville). This applies only to municipal water providers. Cities using tiered pricing now have to try another legal tack or change their billing. Fines are probably legal.
[/quote]

What is a municipal water provider?  My impression, not researched, is that the water districts in the Valley (there are several) are independent agencies.  Tiered pricing is the only hope to bring order to the market.  Fines against neighbors such as mine should be increased until a breaking point is reached.  In the meanwhile their fines should go to alleviate rates for those (most of us) less fortunate.

[pauloalto]

What is a municipal water provider?  My impression, not researched, is that the water districts in the Valley (there are several) are independent agencies.  Tiered pricing is the only hope to bring order to the market.  Fines against neighbors such as mine should be increased until a breaking point is reached.  In the meanwhile their fines should go to alleviate rates for those (most of us) less fortunate.

Ferrari,

Proposition 218 applies to "special districts" and the Coachella Valley Water District is one.

The idea behind the proposition was that to allow government districts to make a profit (charge more than the cost) on services was to raise taxes in effect without a vote. It plugged a loophole in proposition 13.

[pauloalto]

What is a municipal water provider?  My impression, not researched, is that the water districts in the Valley (there are several) are independent agencies.  Tiered pricing is the only hope to bring order to the market.  Fines against neighbors such as mine should be increased until a breaking point is reached.  In the meanwhile their fines should go to alleviate rates for those (most of us) less fortunate.

Ferrari,

Proposition 218 applies to "special districts" and the Coachella Valley Water District is one.

The idea behind the proposition was that to allow government districts to make a profit (charge more than the cost) on services was to raise taxes in effect without a vote. It plugged a loophole in proposition 13.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124535#msg124535 date=1439680975]
What is a municipal water provider?  My impression, not researched, is that the water districts in the Valley (there are several) are independent agencies.  Tiered pricing is the only hope to bring order to the market.  Fines against neighbors such as mine should be increased until a breaking point is reached.  In the meanwhile their fines should go to alleviate rates for those (most of us) less fortunate.

Ferrari,

Proposition 218 applies to "special districts" and the Coachella Valley Water District is one.

The idea behind the proposition was that to allow government districts to make a profit (charge more than the cost) on services was to raise taxes in effect without a vote. It plugged a loophole in proposition 13.
[/quote]

Does that mean tiered pricing here is going away?  My costs (on my tax bill) for water infrastructure, sewer, fire & police, etc go up every year.  I don't remember voting for any of that.

[Rally]

[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12510.msg124535#msg124535 date=1439680975]
What is a municipal water provider?  My impression, not researched, is that the water districts in the Valley (there are several) are independent agencies.  Tiered pricing is the only hope to bring order to the market.  Fines against neighbors such as mine should be increased until a breaking point is reached.  In the meanwhile their fines should go to alleviate rates for those (most of us) less fortunate.

Ferrari,

Proposition 218 applies to "special districts" and the Coachella Valley Water District is one.

The idea behind the proposition was that to allow government districts to make a profit (charge more than the cost) on services was to raise taxes in effect without a vote. It plugged a loophole in proposition 13.
[/quote]

Does that mean tiered pricing here is going away?  My costs (on my tax bill) for water infrastructure, sewer, fire & police, etc go up every year.  I don't remember voting for any of that.

[pauloalto]

If their costs go up, they are allowed to raise prices. As for the rest, I have no idea. I only know what I find on the Google. (How true is that!)

[pauloalto]

If their costs go up, they are allowed to raise prices. As for the rest, I have no idea. I only know what I find on the Google. (How true is that!)

[Rally]

If their costs go up, they are allowed to raise prices. As for the rest, I have no idea. I only know what I find on the Google. (How true is that!)

I WILL REPLY TO THIS TOMORROW AFTER I HAVE DONE RESEARCH IN THE library.

[Rally]

If their costs go up, they are allowed to raise prices. As for the rest, I have no idea. I only know what I find on the Google. (How true is that!)

I WILL REPLY TO THIS TOMORROW AFTER I HAVE DONE RESEARCH IN THE library.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
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.
[/quote]

The logical way to figuring this out would be to allow each individual farmer to make the appropriate determination of which crop brings them the most high value once they take into account the price of their land, the quality of their soil, the price of the water they need to irrigate it, their risk tolerance, and of course, the yield and sale price of their crop when selling it.  It may turn out that once the price of water is taken into account that farmers in California might decide that this is not the best place to grow rice.  With a decline in supply, the price of rice might go up, prompting farmers in areas of the country (or the world) who don't have a water shortage to plant more of it.  Or maybe it will prompt some company to develop a strain of rice that is more drought resistant (see, for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/drought-resi...7084130).  Or maybe Californian farmers will determine that the cost of water is still low enough that growing rice makes sense because of the high yields and market price they get.

I am hardly an unfettered market kind of guy, but markets generally work pretty well for commodities, including water.  I'll be the first to acknowledge socalstanfan's points about the importance of federal and state investments in water.  Those were necessary, and continue to be necessary.  As I said, I'm not an unfettered markets kind of guy.  But as for determining the optimal allocation and use of water, that can be determined pretty well using market pricing.

For all its complexity, this is a tractable problem.  Some combination of conservation, improved allocation, and new sources should be able to support California's population, even if the current drought continues.  Water can be reused; even sewage water can be made more pure than that coming out of a mountain spring; treating and reusing bath and dish water, collecting rainwater is even easier.  Desalination is an option (albeit an energy intensive one).

If Israel, built on a desert can adequately supply water to its citizens, then California can too.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
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.
[/quote]

The logical way to figuring this out would be to allow each individual farmer to make the appropriate determination of which crop brings them the most high value once they take into account the price of their land, the quality of their soil, the price of the water they need to irrigate it, their risk tolerance, and of course, the yield and sale price of their crop when selling it.  It may turn out that once the price of water is taken into account that farmers in California might decide that this is not the best place to grow rice.  With a decline in supply, the price of rice might go up, prompting farmers in areas of the country (or the world) who don't have a water shortage to plant more of it.  Or maybe it will prompt some company to develop a strain of rice that is more drought resistant (see, for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/drought-resi...7084130).  Or maybe Californian farmers will determine that the cost of water is still low enough that growing rice makes sense because of the high yields and market price they get.

I am hardly an unfettered market kind of guy, but markets generally work pretty well for commodities, including water.  I'll be the first to acknowledge socalstanfan's points about the importance of federal and state investments in water.  Those were necessary, and continue to be necessary.  As I said, I'm not an unfettered markets kind of guy.  But as for determining the optimal allocation and use of water, that can be determined pretty well using market pricing.

For all its complexity, this is a tractable problem.  Some combination of conservation, improved allocation, and new sources should be able to support California's population, even if the current drought continues.  Water can be reused; even sewage water can be made more pure than that coming out of a mountain spring; treating and reusing bath and dish water, collecting rainwater is even easier.  Desalination is an option (albeit an energy intensive one).

If Israel, built on a desert can adequately supply water to its citizens, then California can too.

BC

[socalstanfan1]

I find myself in agreement with BC (and others on this thread): the market certainly has an important role to play in determining the best allocation of water.  My main point in the earlier post  was simply to point out that, before we jump to a simplistic bashing about the incompetence of government, we should at least acknowledge the role that government has played in making the California we live in possible, largely through investment in various irrigation, water movement, and storage.  Undoubtedly, the bureaucracies that have developed over the past 150 years or so to deal with water in the Western U.S. have a tendency to inefficiency and could use a lot of streamlining and reducing. The fact that the bureaucracies exist at all levels of government (Federal, State, and County/Municipal) simply makes the bureaucratic web more complex. 

But water will always be a hot political issue in California, simply because it really is in short supply in the most populous parts of the state (even in non-drought years), and that population can only be sustained through large-scale movement of water.  Add in the demands of farmers (who play such a crucial role in the economy), and a cultural milieu in which some groups prioritize environmental issues and others swimming pools and green lawns, then water will inevitably remain a hot political issue, even with the introduction of greater market reforms.  (I also assume that if we all had to pay the true cost of water, factoring in the cost of creating and maintaining the water systems that crisscross the state, we might find far more people moving out of the state than moving in.)

[socalstanfan1]

I find myself in agreement with BC (and others on this thread): the market certainly has an important role to play in determining the best allocation of water.  My main point in the earlier post  was simply to point out that, before we jump to a simplistic bashing about the incompetence of government, we should at least acknowledge the role that government has played in making the California we live in possible, largely through investment in various irrigation, water movement, and storage.  Undoubtedly, the bureaucracies that have developed over the past 150 years or so to deal with water in the Western U.S. have a tendency to inefficiency and could use a lot of streamlining and reducing. The fact that the bureaucracies exist at all levels of government (Federal, State, and County/Municipal) simply makes the bureaucratic web more complex. 

But water will always be a hot political issue in California, simply because it really is in short supply in the most populous parts of the state (even in non-drought years), and that population can only be sustained through large-scale movement of water.  Add in the demands of farmers (who play such a crucial role in the economy), and a cultural milieu in which some groups prioritize environmental issues and others swimming pools and green lawns, then water will inevitably remain a hot political issue, even with the introduction of greater market reforms.  (I also assume that if we all had to pay the true cost of water, factoring in the cost of creating and maintaining the water systems that crisscross the state, we might find far more people moving out of the state than moving in.)

[Rally]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=12510.msg124522#msg124522 date=1439667381]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
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.
[/quote]

The logical way to figuring this out would be to allow each individual farmer to make the appropriate determination of which crop brings them the most high value once they take into account the price of their land, the quality of their soil, the price of the water they need to irrigate it, their risk tolerance, and of course, the yield and sale price of their crop when selling it.  It may turn out that once the price of water is taken into account that farmers in California might decide that this is not the best place to grow rice.  With a decline in supply, the price of rice might go up, prompting farmers in areas of the country (or the world) who don't have a water shortage to plant more of it.  Or maybe it will prompt some company to develop a strain of rice that is more drought resistant (see, for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/drought-resi...7084130).  Or maybe Californian farmers will determine that the cost of water is still low enough that growing rice makes sense because of the high yields and market price they get.

I am hardly an unfettered market kind of guy, but markets generally work pretty well for commodities, including water.  I'll be the first to acknowledge socalstanfan's points about the importance of federal and state investments in water.  Those were necessary, and continue to be necessary.  As I said, I'm not an unfettered markets kind of guy.  But as for determining the optimal allocation and use of water, that can be determined pretty well using market pricing.

For all its complexity, this is a tractable problem.  Some combination of conservation, improved allocation, and new sources should be able to support California's population, even if the current drought continues.  Water can be reused; even sewage water can be made more pure than that coming out of a mountain spring; treating and reusing bath and dish water, collecting rainwater is even easier.  Desalination is an option (albeit an energy intensive one).

If Israel, built on a desert can adequately supply water to its citizens, then California can too.

BC
[/quote]

Farmers are making those crop decisions now and have been from the beginning.  Most farmers still have some water, as a trip along 5 or 101 shows.  Some fields are fallow, some crops are being replaced, many orchards are being watered at the expense of annual crops.  In Southern California, many citrus and grape farmers decided years ago to move from oranges and grapes to a more profitable crop.  The fact that that crop happened to be houses only exacerbated the problem.

[Rally]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=12510.msg124522#msg124522 date=1439667381]
[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12510.msg124409#msg124409 date=1439586767]
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.
[/quote]

The logical way to figuring this out would be to allow each individual farmer to make the appropriate determination of which crop brings them the most high value once they take into account the price of their land, the quality of their soil, the price of the water they need to irrigate it, their risk tolerance, and of course, the yield and sale price of their crop when selling it.  It may turn out that once the price of water is taken into account that farmers in California might decide that this is not the best place to grow rice.  With a decline in supply, the price of rice might go up, prompting farmers in areas of the country (or the world) who don't have a water shortage to plant more of it.  Or maybe it will prompt some company to develop a strain of rice that is more drought resistant (see, for example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/drought-resi...7084130).  Or maybe Californian farmers will determine that the cost of water is still low enough that growing rice makes sense because of the high yields and market price they get.

I am hardly an unfettered market kind of guy, but markets generally work pretty well for commodities, including water.  I'll be the first to acknowledge socalstanfan's points about the importance of federal and state investments in water.  Those were necessary, and continue to be necessary.  As I said, I'm not an unfettered markets kind of guy.  But as for determining the optimal allocation and use of water, that can be determined pretty well using market pricing.

For all its complexity, this is a tractable problem.  Some combination of conservation, improved allocation, and new sources should be able to support California's population, even if the current drought continues.  Water can be reused; even sewage water can be made more pure than that coming out of a mountain spring; treating and reusing bath and dish water, collecting rainwater is even easier.  Desalination is an option (albeit an energy intensive one).

If Israel, built on a desert can adequately supply water to its citizens, then California can too.

BC
[/quote]

Farmers are making those crop decisions now and have been from the beginning.  Most farmers still have some water, as a trip along 5 or 101 shows.  Some fields are fallow, some crops are being replaced, many orchards are being watered at the expense of annual crops.  In Southern California, many citrus and grape farmers decided years ago to move from oranges and grapes to a more profitable crop.  The fact that that crop happened to be houses only exacerbated the problem.