|
Bizarro Watt posted:The LA Times just came out with an article on the downfall of San Bernardino: http://graphics.latimes.com/san-bernardino/ San Bernardino is California's Detroit. A big, blue-callor town built around car culture, Route 66, airports and railyards that has slowly withered away as industry left one by one with nothing to replace it. As the IE continues to boom, all the vacant land around SB is turning into stucco suburbia and $500k tract housing but the inner core of SB is dead, filled with the poor and destitute and I have no idea how they will ever recover again. The only way out I can see is if the rest of the IE is completely built out and developers start seeing SB as an opportunity for redevelopment. But for now, developers still have tons and tons of old dairy farms and open land to built their own towns and shopping centers and employment hubs so it's still cheaper to sprawl out than raze and rebuild.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Remember you poors don't pay as much taxes so you don't deserve as much water: The trouble, of course, is that a huge amount of archaic laws (chiefly senior water rights and "use it or lose it" rules) prevent an actual price-based market from hitting the clearing price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:To be fair in any sort of reasonable water market "I can pay for it, therefore I should have it" would be perfectly valid logic. The problem with this attitude is that we don't have enough water for everyone and if we just free marketed the solution then it will be poor people unable to afford water at all. So no I don't think "lets force the poor people to make cuts and just charge the rich and Ag more" is actually a good solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
I bet you could get them to cut water use if you said that they were donating a gallon of water to a poor family for every gallon they used.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The problem with this attitude is that we don't have enough water for everyone and if we just free marketed the solution then it will be poor people unable to afford water at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The solution to that is already long established as well, and it's to directly subsidize the first x gallons of water you use (where x is whatever basic needs are). Similar things happen with electric bills already. That was ruled illegal. http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article19194072.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
People in RSF have had avocado and other groves as long as I can remember so they can classify their huge lot as a farm. gently caress these people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
gently caress fines, people like that aren't intimidated by fines, no matter how high they get. I'm sure every one of those assholes in the quoted article would happily pay thousands of dollars of fines a month to continue guzzling water, all the while getting the bonus of being able to bitch about how unfair the world is to rich people. If you really want these people to conserve then give them an allotment and, when they pass it, shut their loving water off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:The solution to that is already long established as well, and it's to directly subsidize the first x gallons of water you use (where x is whatever basic needs are). Similar things happen with electric bills already. Ignoring the fact that many water districts are doing something similar to that already.... Water infrastructure doesn't exactly allow for market based allocations. It doesn't matter if I can afford X amount of water if the pipes to my farm/factory/house can't support delivery or if the river they draw from has no water. Similar problem with electricity actually, which is partially why few electrical markets are anything like a free market. Besides, treating water like candy starts to break down when you realize that water....doesn't have a manufacturer! If I'm withdrawing water from a well who should I exactly be paying fair market price? What about from a river? Who should I pay fair market value to for the rain delivered by the sky?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Pohl posted:That was ruled illegal. http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article19194072.html That's why the laws need to change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:residential users are being asked to cut back despite being 98% of the humans and 10% of the water use. Even if we had your proposed system, residential users would still be cutting back, since the price of water would be rising (which it is anyway, as delivery costs increase due to the drought).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ignoring the fact that many water districts are doing something similar to that already.... quote:Water infrastructure doesn't exactly allow for market based allocations. It doesn't matter if I can afford X amount of water if the pipes to my farm/factory/house can't support delivery or if the river they draw from has no water. Similar problem with electricity actually, which is partially why few electrical markets are anything like a free market. quote:Besides, treating water like candy starts to break down when you realize that water....doesn't have a manufacturer! The trouble is that this type of deal is currently forbidden - as soon as that farmer stops pouring it on the ground, he loses his water rights. It's like the difference between cash and a nontransferable gift card to a lovely chain restaurant. quote:Who should I pay fair market value to for the rain delivered by the sky? Initial allocation involves a ton of thorny political issues (you're basically declaring winners and losers), but once you actually have clear rights in play without perverse incentives that prohibit trading, trading actually works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Here's something fun to chew on, the top 10 Senior Rights Holders with 2010 consumption (as verified by the AP): 1. Pacific Gas & Electric - 4,903,962 acre-feet 2. Pacificorp - 3,836,044 acre-feet 3. Turklock Irrigation District - 1,922,039 acre-feet 4. San Fransisco Public Utility District - 1,192,563 acre-feet 5. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power - 991,870 acre-feet 6. Southern California Edison - 770,271 acre-feet 7. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District - 770,271 acre-feet (weird that they're the same, but the AP verified) 8. Joint Water Districts Board - 647,760 acre-feet 9. Yolo County FC & WC District - 588,783 acre-feet 10. Merced Irrigation District - 332,146 acre-feet PG&E is quoted as saying 90+% of their water withdrawals are non-consumptive (e.g. mostly for hydropower and a little for cooling). I imagine the same is true for SoCal Edison. Pacificorp is a forestry company, so its not clear if those are internal use (irrigating trees) or sold water. Those would mostly be Northern California rights so potentially north of the Sacramento watershed. SF & LA obviously use their water for drinking. And the rest are irrigation districts which also support the podunk towns in their area. ShadowHawk posted:Just reexamine the incentives for a moment. Some crops are selling for lower prices than the water it takes to produce them if farmers had to pay residential water costs. In some cases it would be very easy for such a farmer to agree to plant something else in exchange for his water going to a nearby municipality. Both parties would profit, water would be used more efficiently, and the right thing in general would happen. Ok there's a couple of issues here, first of course irrigation water is actually cheaper to deliver than residential water. It doesn't have to be treated or pressurized which both cost a lot. Second, you're still ignoring the physical realities, it doesn't matter if a farmer in the central valley wants to sell their water to EBMUD if EBMUD's one river intake facility is already operating at maximum. Or worst, if that farmer doesn't have Sacramento river water and can't just transfer the rights. The water infrastructure isn't as flexible as some assume. Finally, while some people have use-it-or-lose it, that's really only a big deal for users of Colorado river water and doesn't apply statewide. Most farmers on Sacramento water received 0% allocations this year, so the reality is they don't have water to sell. Senior rights holders can sell their water without risking their rights, so that's not the problem. The issue is we allocated far more water than we have, so everyone is going to see cuts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Water rights seniority is so ridiculuous.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
If threy really are ballers and are using water as conspicuous consumption, shouldn't they just embrace the fines and roll with it? They get to be gangsta ballers now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
quote:Yuhas lives in the ultra-wealthy enclave of Rancho Santa Fe, a bucolic Southern California hamlet of ranches, gated communities and country clubs that guzzles five times more water per capita than the statewide average. In April, after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) called for a 25 percent reduction in water use, consumption in Rancho Santa Fe went up by 9 percent. Jesus Christ. I live in Santa Barbara and as much as we poo poo on Montecito for being douchebags who use 4x the water we do, and as much as they also bitch and moan about how it's unfair they have to let the plants on their 50 acre estates die, they've reduced consumption by 45 percent in recent months. When you start out with huge usage numbers is should be *easier* to cut back on all the nonessentials. This reminds me of that 2010 study that showed that giving people information about how their electric use compared to their neighbors and asking them to waste less resulted in an overall 2% reduction -- but usage in many conservative households went UP. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:
That's because conservative usage was often below average (because a lot of them were poor) and they figured that it wouldn't hurt to be at the average.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's because conservative usage was often below average (because a lot of them were poor) and they figured that it wouldn't hurt to be at the average. Not sure where you get that; the NYT article about it says republicans were the larger users overall: quote:Political persuasion also plays a role in overall electricity consumption, the authors found. Registered Green Party members consume 9.6 percent less energy than Republicans; Democrats consume 3.9 percent less. The difference is even greater in summer months, with Greens consuming 11.1 percent less than Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Not sure where you get that; the NYT article about it says republicans were the larger users overall: quote:The economists speculate that some conservatives may react angrily at being told to save energy, while others may realize their energy use is lower than average and increase it to match perceived norms. Other tactics may be needed to get conservatives to conserve. It also doesn't really tell you much about distribution, but it is known that Green activists are much more likely to be wealthy than other groups. computer parts fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jun 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
 http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/06/13/drought-has-thieves-stealing-water-like-its-liquid-gold/ quote:Drought Has Thieves Stealing Water Like It’s Liquid Gold Or as RT puts it: http://rt.com/usa/267361-water-theft-drought-california/ quote:It’s not quite “Mad Max,” but ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Interesting article from Timothy Lee(who has written about this subject before) on what is almost certainly a doomed plan to create a political constituency in San Francisco for more development. It would be nice to see Sacramento try to do something about this problem on a statewide level, less pressure from NIMBY types than in SF itself presumably. But that doesn't seem too likely either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Sydin posted:gently caress fines, people like that aren't intimidated by fines, no matter how high they get. I'm sure every one of those assholes in the quoted article would happily pay thousands of dollars of fines a month to continue guzzling water, all the while getting the bonus of being able to bitch about how unfair the world is to rich people. If you really want these people to conserve then give them an allotment and, when they pass it, shut their loving water off. Flow restrictors, which physically reduce the available water to a pre-calculated allocation for the number of residents, are stage 2 of the plan, and have been announced. After you get a flow restrictor, you probably can't run a tap and the washing machine at the same time, far less irrigate anything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Flow restrictors, which physically reduce the available water to a pre-calculated allocation for the number of residents, are stage 2 of the plan, and have been announced. After you get a flow restrictor, you probably can't run a tap and the washing machine at the same time, far less irrigate anything. Where has announced whole-house flow restrictors? Places have announced flow restrictor requirements for faucet or showers, but I haven't seen whole-home announcements yet and a quick googling turned up nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Where has announced whole-house flow restrictors? Places have announced flow restrictor requirements for faucet or showers, but I haven't seen whole-home announcements yet and a quick googling turned up nothing. I've seen it in multiple news articles: here's one. https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/06/rancho-santa-fe-faces-harsher-water-cutbacks/ For more, go to Google News and search "flow restrictors". quote:Jessica Parks, management analyst and public information officer of the Santa Fe Irrigation District, they imposed mandatory allocations with severe cost penalties for exceeding those allocations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I've seen it in multiple news articles: here's one. https://thecoastnews.com/blog/2015/06/rancho-santa-fe-faces-harsher-water-cutbacks/ For more, go to Google News and search "flow restrictors". Oh ok, that applies to flagrant violators, I was thinking more along the lines of something that would be mandated for entire water districts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Oh ok, that applies to flagrant violators, I was thinking more along the lines of something that would be mandated for entire water districts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Flow restrictors are sledgehammers; applying them district-wide penalizes people who conserve as harshly as people who violate regulations. If you're 25% under (or whatever the district's rule is) your previous usage and you aren't conspicuously wasting water (e.g. washing your car with a hose), you're doing what the Governor asked for. Which is why I was surprised when I thought that was what was going on. However, as put by this one water district manager: quote:“In order for us to avoid the penalties, we need to change our behavior to mirror what we do in the wintertime,” explained Mr. Lewis. “I know a lot of people say it’s difficult, but in order for us to meet this 32 percent goal that’s what we’re going to have to do. That’s our greatest opportunity.” I'll be interested if they actually start using them on violators, people will really conserve or if they'll just pay to buy their insane water needs elsewhere instead of conserving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'll be interested if they actually start using them on violators, people will really conserve or if they'll just pay to buy their insane water needs elsewhere instead of conserving. It will probably lead to conservation even among people who could afford to go out and buy tons of water, because reduced flow from residential plumbing is a huge quality of life hit. Just because you can go buy tons of bottled water doesn't change your drop in shower pressure or the fact that you can't run the dishwasher and brush your teeth at the same time. That's the kind of stuff that irks high middle-upper income folks, more so than fines ever would.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Sydin posted:It will probably lead to conservation even among people who could afford to go out and buy tons of water, because reduced flow from residential plumbing is a huge quality of life hit. Just because you can go buy tons of bottled water doesn't change your drop in shower pressure or the fact that you can't run the dishwasher and brush your teeth at the same time. That's the kind of stuff that irks high middle-upper income folks, more so than fines ever would. Or you can just install a tank and pressurizer and get trucked water delivery. Like they already are: quote:A year ago, Oprah’s annual bill from the Montecito Water District was just shy of $125,000. This year, it is less than half. Like many in this wealthy enclave, Oprah has cut back on her consumption of district water. That said, her property has its own wells and a small lake and, according to neighbors, there are the trucks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or you can just install a tank and pressurizer and get trucked water delivery. Like they already are: Or they apparently do that, yeah.  Boy are there some entitled shitheads in this state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Or they apparently do that, yeah. See for instance, the rich FYGM Chinese parents from places like Fremont or Cupertino  -ing about how the potential return of affirmative action would mean that babby's rightful space at Cal would instead go to some undeserving black or brown-skinned untermensch from the ghetto a year and half ago or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:long sought to convince local officials that his polo field, which is part of his 20 acre estate, is entitled to a discounted agricultural water rate. Goddamn you just can't make this poo poo up, can you?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious at this point that this drought isn't going to end until Arthur C. Korn returns to the Yorba Linda Water District. (Interesting fact, I had to google the guy's name as I wasn't sure if he was still on the water district board or not, and found this page on Transparent California that gave his pension/benefits amount, as well as that of any other public California employee. It was surprisingly modest for a water district big-wig. So at least that's one place where California is being relatively cost-conscious.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
e_angst posted:It's pretty obvious at this point that this drought isn't going to end until Arthur C. Korn returns to the Yorba Linda Water District. The tyranny of Michael J. Beverage may never end. So much pain caused by such a mustache.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:See for instance, the rich FYGM Chinese parents from places like Fremont or Cupertino I like how some parents took their kids out of public school since helicopter asian parents managed to cut funding for useless classes like drama
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
e_angst posted:It's pretty obvious at this point that this drought isn't going to end until Arthur C. Korn returns to the Yorba Linda Water District. Water districts aren't at all cost conscious, it's just that their lavish spending isn't on pensions but rather inappropriate expense reports while the people running it are in office. The Santa Clara Water district, for example, has the nickname The Golden Spigot for how much its officers abuse their expense accounts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Insane rich fucks mad about water rationing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
One thing I've noticed about the throw-money-at-the-problem people is that they're never quoted saying "Look, I put in a greywater system and efficient sprinklers, what do you want?" or anything like that. A mansion's greywater system wouldn't irrigate a mansion's grounds, but it would help. These people aren't investing in reducing their water use while maintaining their lawns; they're just demanding that their water use go unchanged, and investing in that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
The most amazing quote: quote:“You could put 20 houses on my property, and they’d have families of at least four. In my house, there is only two of us,” Butler said. So “they’d be using a hell of a lot more water than we’re using.” Those houses would have "at least four" is some kind of given because  Whatever. We were foolish to not realize what a favor this person was doing us, keeping all resources dedicated to lush undeveloped land instead of being wasted being actually used by people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 18:57 |
|
|
Craptacular! posted:The most amazing quote:
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 17:28
|
|