There are entire counties who get nothing when they turn on their faucets. Nothing. No more.
Not to mention the ground is sinking.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-droug...
It's more accurate to say, municipal water authorities can no longer meet demand.
India is getting there [1]
Via: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do... (If you haven't read this, you really, really, really should. It's an accessible, level-headed analysis of California's water situation.)
So far, we've been responding to the crisis in a way that doesn't really allow people to make good trade-offs. For instance, I went to my parents house in a nice warm place, after a week in the fog, and my kids kind of wanted to play in the inflatable pool. My parents were bummed but asked us not to, because they're under mandates to cut back.
To feel better, we all went out for california raised beef burgers and gorged on walnuts. Several dozen inflatable pools of sheer deliciousness, all externalized.
Just kidding (sort of) about that last part, but this is the frustrating thing. Nobody is saying we can't use any water, we just can't use unlimited amounts of it. If someone goes vegan, avoids other water-heavy food sources, and doesn't wash his or her car, well, is it so bad that they might water a small patch of lawn or fill up the inflatable pool now and then?
This is what is so nice about markets, when people have to pay what something actually costs, they are unlikely to use as much of it.
Except, of course, you can now and then end up in a situation where someone rich buys "all" the water. One way to handle this is tiered rates, where it's cheap for the first bit, and perhaps very expensive after that.
http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=168
Looks like the first 4 units (1 unit = 748 gallons per month) is $5.45, so once you get the tap flowing (sunk cost), I'd say that drinking water is "free". Even showers are pretty cheap.
The problem is that it doesn't go up by much. After those first 4, it's only $7.31. Still pretty cheap for something that we are supposedly in desperate need of.
I suppose we could just crank up that second tier - in theory, that would keep showers, drinking water, and so forth affordable, while properly pricing the use of water to produce burgers, walnuts, swimming pools, lush gardens, golf courses, and clean cars. Now that I think of it, rich people already consume more of that sort of thing anyway...
Also, it is my understanding that there're already two different rates for water in California depending on whether you get in a tap in your house or you use it to water a field by the acre-foot. I'm guessing that legally it is something different than tiered rates, but it barely makes sense.
This post is known to the State of California to cause cancer.If it was regulated and you used your buddy connections to appropriate all the water usage rights then you still have your buddy connections once you have taken my water.
It's not about disallowing the other guy from doing stupid things and not being rich anymore, it's about not allowing someone to waste precious resources essential for human life, so as to not make it harder for others in need to have access (at accessible and fair prices) to said resources in the future.
I'm at the point now mentally where the entire monetary system should be reset to allow a natural relationship between real value and fiat currency to exist. If that means that a bunch of wealthy people are left with nothing, then so be it.
Not to say that water efficiency improvements in the agricultural space wouldn't be welcome, but rather that landscaping is arguably less important than even the relatively-unimportant foods, let alone the important ones.
If the tradeoff is unsustainable and as-we-currently-know-it-irreparable biosphere destruction and more expensive almonds and beef (through higher alfalfa prices), I'm really okay with that trade-off and I think if you dig into the situation you probably will be too. People aren't gonna starve because dead cow costs more--because beef is already nearing "too expensive" for Americans in situations of food insecurity as is.
Well, I'm convinced. I'll burn my house down this winter to keep warm, too.
If no one waters their lawn will you be happy? Is solving the problem your goal or is this just a thrilling political device? That would really suck.
Your black-and-white thinking--and the assumption that mine is as black-and-white as yours--kind of sucks, as does your cite-and-run dismissal. Can you please try to do better?
And thus, yes, it would make California's tech and other industries less productive, and less competitive with their counterparts elsewhere.
Not that I disagree with you; from firsthand experience, I know full well that there's plenty of room for improvement when it comes to water use on cattle ranches. However, that firsthand experience also suggests that alfalfa isn't the only food cows eat (the family ranch I helped out on through my childhood involved a lot more grazing than even grass hay, let alone alfalfa hay, and pretty much all the pastures I remember were watered by rainfall alone), and that cows aren't the only use for alfalfa (a lot of grazing livestock - horses, goats, etc. - also eat it in large quantities, though I'm sure cattle are the dominant consumers). If alfalfa's using a disproportionate amount of water, then I'd target alfalfa specifically instead of incorrectly antagonizing the ranches buying it.
[0]: http://ca.water.usgs.gov/water_use/2010-california-water-use...
This is doable. "California is the only western state that doesn’t really monitor or regulate how much groundwater farmers and residents are using."
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2014/06/02/drought-drives-drilli...