Forget about asteroids; the coming drought will do us in!

[ERD50]

You should have kept reading and read the comments by the Almond Board of California:

"Do almonds use 10 percent of California’s total water supply? The short answer is no.

This myth, which we’ve heard a few times in the media, seems to trace back to a Slate article from last May. Its author generally engages in a thoughtful and nuanced discussion of California’s water use. He notes that almonds are an important economic contributor in the state and that all foods require water, including some that are far more water intensive than almonds."

Link to article:

No, Almonds Don’t Use 10 Percent of California’s Water | Almond Board of California

? The article I linked didn't claim any 10% usage (or I missed it). So why is any 'myth busting' required?

I wasn't trying to be super-specific regarding almonds versus other crops, it was just a general comment that CA grows a lot of water intensive crops (and I like almonds). That's a problem with a depleting water supply, regardless the specific crop.

But here's a presentation from Blaine Hanson, Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis - page 4 shows almonds to be among the top products, though 'pasture and alfalfa' are much higher (milk production?).

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf

I just saw this from NW-B's post:

Beer: 296 gal of water/gal of beer​

I bet I'm far more efficient than that. Even though I use RO (about 4-5G for 1G RO), I boil off 10%~20%, the grain absorbs another 20%, and there is some washing. I don't think barley is irrigated, it's a tough crop, but I'm not certain. Malting would use some water though. Hops - a few ounces per batch won't amount to much even if it is irrigated (again, I don't think it is - not sure).

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

The water consumption for beer includes the amount used to grow the grains, and not just in the beer making process.

Similarly, the amount of water to make coffee by brewing should be nearly 1 to 1, but they are counting the water needed for the coffee plants to produce the beans.

 

[MichaelB]

Why not? We could get almonds or almond substitutes from areas with more plentiful water. The low water areas could move to less water demanding crops.

It looks like about 75% of the CA almond crop is exported overseas. I think we'll manage, and I think the rest of the world can develop almond orchards somewhere, or use substitutes.

Your example shows why using price works for some commodities, such as almonds. My post wasn't about almonds, it was about water.

Water is far too important to every aspect of our modern society to trivialize it by assigning it a monetary value. Using that value to allocate water would only mis-allocate it in a different way.

 

[Ronstar]

The water consumption for beer includes the amount used to grow the grains, and not just in the beer making process.

Similarly, the amount of water to make coffee by brewing should be nearly 1 to 1, but they are counting the water needed for the coffee plants to produce the beans.

That beer amount definitely includes the amount to grow the grain and hop crops.(and it still seems high). Processing at my house is only 2 gals water to make 1 gal beer.

ETA - Plus maybe another gallon or 2 of cleaning water per gallon of beer brewed

 

[Texas Proud]

Your example shows why using price works for some commodities, such as almonds. My post wasn't about almonds, it was about water.

Water is far too important to every aspect of our modern society to trivialize it by assigning it a monetary value. Using that value to allocate water would only mis-allocate it in a different way.

How would assigning it a monetary value misallocate its use

From all I read and hear, the current system is misallocating the use right now... and it is becoming a more precious resource in many areas.... assigning it a monetary value is the best way to allocate it....

As one of my previous post said, that can be done it a way to minimize the pain across the population by having a sliding scale on the cost of water... make the high user marginal cost higher as they use more, they will now have an incentive to conserve.... now it makes sense to invest the money for a more modern irrigation system etc. etc....

 

[HFWR]

It's worth noting that the water doesn"t just "disappear", as it eventually returns to the water cycle. Especially with coffee and beer...

 

[NW-Bound]

And the shorter that recycling process the better, right?

A town in Australia proposed processing effluent, then remixing that recycled water back into the fresh water supply. The outcry of the citizenry caused them to abandon that plan. I guess the people were not that thirsty yet.

 

[Ronstar]

It's worth noting that the water doesn"t just "disappear", as it eventually returns to the water cycle. Especially with coffee and beer...

I remember hearing somewhere that when you drink water in New Orleans, 10 people drank it before you did.

 

[EastWest Gal]

This is a good article about the huge impact California's current love affair with almonds and it's impact on the water problem. My grandfather and great grandfather started growing almonds in Northern California in the 30s or 40s I think. It's too bad everyone is growing this crop now!

http://www.independent.com/news/2015/feb/02/drought-and-almond/

Overpopulation, over farming, overgrazing all play a role in desertification.

The more of us that have fewer or no children, the better off the world will be.

The drought only brings California's water problems into everyone's consciousness because it's in the news.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[ERD50]

The water consumption for beer includes the amount used to grow the grains, and not just in the beer making process.

Similarly, the amount of water to make coffee by brewing should be nearly 1 to 1, but they are counting the water needed for the coffee plants to produce the beans.

Does that include natural rainwater?

It was hard to get specifics, but I found this:

North Dakota Barley Profile

North Dakota ranks first in the US for barley production, producing 31% of the total US barley crop ...

The majority of North Dakota barley acres are spring planted starting in early to mid April. Only 0.2 % ... of planted barley is irrigated in North Dakota. Approximately 86 % of the 1999 crop was malting barley varieties and 13 % was feed varieties.

A gallon of beer would take roughly two pounds of barley, about 1/25th of an ~ 50# bushel. So 296x water/beer seems very high.

-ERD50

 

[Andre1969]

Nuts

Almond: 1919 gal of water/lb
Walnut: 1112 gal/lb

​

Wow...might be time to take a chainsaw to all the walnut trees growing up wild on my property!

 

[photoguy]

You should have kept reading and read the comments by the Almond Board of California:

"Do almonds use 10 percent of California’s total water supply? The short answer is no.

The accounting for the answer seems very unclear to me and hinges on whether "environmental water" is included (to increase the denominator by 100%). Following their link in article leads to this description:

Environmental water use falls into four categories: water in rivers protected as "wild and scenic” under federal and state laws, water required for maintaining habitat within streams, water that supports wetlands within wildlife preserves, and water needed to maintain water quality for agricultural and urban use. Most water allocated to the environment does not affect other water uses. More than half of California’s environmental water use occurs in rivers along the state’s north coast. These waters are largely isolated from major agricultural and urban areas and cannot be used for other purposes. In the rest of California where water is shared by all three sectors, environmental use is not dominant (33%, compared to 53% agricultural and 14% urban).

This suggests to me that the almond growers are understating water use for the purpose of allocation.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
Your example shows why using price works for some commodities, such as almonds. My post wasn't about almonds, it was about water.

Water is far too important to every aspect of our modern society to trivialize it by assigning it a monetary value. Using that value to allocate water would only mis-allocate it in a different way.

How would assigning it a monetary value misallocate its use

From all I read and hear, the current system is misallocating the use right now... and it is becoming a more precious resource in many areas.... assigning it a monetary value is the best way to allocate it....

As one of my previous post said, that can be done it a way to minimize the pain across the population by having a sliding scale on the cost of water... make the high user marginal cost higher as they use more, they will now have an incentive to conserve.... now it makes sense to invest the money for a more modern irrigation system etc. etc....

I'm also confused as to why pricing wouldn't work to allocate water?

Assigning a monetary value is to keep it from being trivialized, not the other way 'round (tragedy of the commons).

And almonds are a crop that use lots of water, soooo - my post was about water...

I'm not up on the specifics of water costs in CA, but in general a progressive (tiered) rate is typically a pretty good way to spur conservation of a limited resource.

What are you suggesting? I'm lost.

-ERD50

 

[photoguy]

Your example shows why using price works for some commodities, such as almonds. My post wasn't about almonds, it was about water.

Water is far too important to every aspect of our modern society to trivialize it by assigning it a monetary value. Using that value to allocate water would only mis-allocate it in a different way.

I looked back at my water bill for San Jose and I was charged a quantity rate of $2.64 per 748 gallons of water. At our rate of usage it came out to $10/month. I have a hard time seeing how pricing changes would impact residential use given that it is so cheap.

I suspect if farmers and residents had to pay the same amount for water, this would basically result in residents having unlimited water with agriculture being strictly constrained. Although I'm not generally in favor of pricing controls, I also think all the water spent on residential lawns is a complete waste.

 

[MichaelB]

Price is a mechanism that works well to optimize the allocation of goods and services among consumers and producers. It is most effective (ability to optimize) when the goods and services have substitutes and alternatives, both for consumers as well as producers, and when it can be freely traded or exchanged.

Water is not a good or service, it’s a resource. There are no producers, only consumers. It has no alternative, without water life cannot exist. There is no price that can capture the marginal utility of water for a citrus grower, equate it to a car wash, landscaping need, and human sustenance. If that weren’t enough, water does not only affect and sustain humans, all other life depends on it as well.

Water is certainly a scarce resource, and it needs to be allocated with care. Economic value is just one criterion, though, and many other factors need to be considered. It is too easy to say "price", because that, in fact, might lead to reduced use by some current consumers, but with no assurance that 1) overall use would decline, 2) the reallocated use represents an improvement for the State of California.

Edit to add - this does not mean users should not be charged. Using and consuming water requires an infrastructure, building and improving it costs money and can benefit and improve overall use. My point is using price as the allocation method.

 

[ls99]

The water shortage is just nature's way of pointing out: too many people in California.

 

[ERD50]

Price is a mechanism that works well to optimize the allocation of goods and services among consumers and producers. It is most effective (ability to optimize) when the goods and services have substitutes and alternatives, both for consumers as well as producers, and when it can be freely traded or exchanged.

Water is not a good or service, it’s a resource. There are no producers, only consumers. It has no alternative, without water life cannot exist. ...

I can't agree with most of this at all (or at least the application of it to the water shortage). I think you are really using selective tunnel-vision, and I don't know why.

Oil is a resource. And when the price goes up, people conserve, and look to alternatives.

It has no alternative, without water life cannot exist. ...

Obviously, we will use water to support life

There certainly are alternatives to growing water-hungry crops like rice in areas with water shortages. Like the oil conservation above, those alternatives are not always absolute literal, direct alternatives to pouring a liquid in your gas tank - for example, working from home more often or car-pooling more often are alternatives. Maybe CA would move to less water-intensive crops if the price of water was higher? Those crops can be produced in other areas, no one will starve.


So what method would you suggest to conserve water in CA, if not price? Ask 'pretty please' to use less water? Have some bureaucracy with a huge potential for graft and influence from special interests decide who gets what? Something else?

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Price is a mechanism that works well to optimize the allocation of goods and services among consumers and producers. It is most effective (ability to optimize) when the goods and services have substitutes and alternatives, both for consumers as well as producers, and when it can be freely traded or exchanged.

Water is not a good or service, it’s a resource. There are no producers, only consumers. It has no alternative, without water life cannot exist. There is no price that can capture the marginal utility of water for a citrus grower, equate it to a car wash, landscaping need, and human sustenance. If that weren’t enough, water does not only affect and sustain humans, all other life depends on it as well.

Water is certainly a scarce resource, and it needs to be allocated with care. Economic value is just one criterion, though, and many other factors need to be considered. It is too easy to say "price", because that, in fact, might lead to reduced use by some current consumers, but with no assurance that 1) overall use would decline, 2) the reallocated use represents an improvement for the State of California.

Edit to add - this does not mean users should not be charged. Using and consuming water requires an infrastructure, building and improving it costs money and can benefit and improve overall use. My point is using price as the allocation method.

Saw ERD's response.... but wanted to add....

I did not say that price should be the only criterion... if that were the case then all water would be priced the same (as in ERD's post).... I am saying that the price/use ratio should be changed in order to change the behavior of users....

If it takes 1600 gallons of water to produce one nut, then maybe that nut should not be produced in a place with low water... maybe if the cost of water to produce it was raised to a true market level then the price of that nut will go sky high and people will buy other kinds of nuts or even something else....

When you make a resource cost so little that the user has no incentive to invest money into saving it then you have bad outcomes... look what happened to this lake.... Aral Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .... it was one of the 4 largest lakes in the world... but not anymore....

 

[rodi]

I looked back at my water bill for San Jose and I was charged a quantity rate of $2.64 per 748 gallons of water. At our rate of usage it came out to $10/month. I have a hard time seeing how pricing changes would impact residential use given that it is so cheap.

You were getting a bargain.

I looked at our most recent San Diego water bill. We have tiers. For the first tier - which is the first 8. HCF, it's $3.8875. The next tier is $4.3540/HCF.

We used 22 HCF in the last 2 month billing cycle. That is for our home and our rental unit (same water meter). So 6 people (including tenants), large lot, no pool, not much lawn, mostly trees, veggies, and groundcover.

There are higher tiers - but we never get out of tier 2. The prices for tier 3 and tier 4 are as follows:
Tier 1 8.00 HCF @ 3.8963
Tier 2 16.00 HCF @ 4.3638
Tier 3 12.00 HCF @ 6.2342
Tier 4 7.00 HCF @ 8.7657

The drought is a real issue. Arguing over almond trees vs pools and lawns is missing the point. We're looking at significant restrictions and neighbors snitching on neighbors.

 

[ERD50]

Atlanta was in the news a few years ago for water shortages.

Anyone know if they put in place an long term conservation measures, or did they just get some rain and the media went on to other things?

-ERD50

 

[photoguy]

There are higher tiers - but we never get out of tier 2. The prices for tier 3 and tier 4 are as follows:
Tier 1 8.00 HCF @ 3.8963
Tier 2 16.00 HCF @ 4.3638
Tier 3 12.00 HCF @ 6.2342
Tier 4 7.00 HCF @ 8.7657

That's really interesting. I doubled checked with San Jose since my number was about 1 year out of date and it looks like the current residential rates are:

0-3 CCF $3.20
4-18 CCF $3.56
>18 CCF $3.91

OR

flat $3.56 per CCF

where CCF = 100 cu feet (=748 gallons). The specific rate plan depends on the meter type (not sure why this is the case).

So San Jose is far more tolerant of heavy water users. And the highest category is basically the cheapest in San Diego.

 

[NW-Bound]

Does that include natural rainwater?

Yes, it does. Else, the cost of coffee would be way up there.

Coffee is grown mostly in the tropical regions where it rains buckets, or is very hot and humid. Quite often, it is grown in hilly areas where irrigation would be impossible, and very little else could be grown.

Wow...might be time to take a chainsaw to all the walnut trees growing up wild on my property!

No, not if they grow wild and live on just natural rainfall. You are east of the Mississipi. What would you know about the drought anyway?

Price is a mechanism that works well to optimize the allocation of goods and services among consumers and producers. It is most effective (ability to optimize) when the goods and services have substitutes and alternatives, both for consumers as well as producers, and when it can be freely traded or exchanged.

Water is not a good or service, it’s a resource. There are no producers, only consumers. It has no alternative, without water life cannot exist...

Edit to add - this does not mean users should not be charged. Using and consuming water requires an infrastructure, building and improving it costs money and can benefit and improve overall use...

True. Hence, when residential water usage is charged, they typically have tiers where the first X cubic feet cost less, because it represents the necessity for life. The extra is assumed used for fancy lush landscape and swimming pools, and is charged at a higher rate.

The tougher problem is in deciding between residential usage vs. agricultural needs. In AZ, there was a debate about water usage by cotton farmers. Many say that cotton is a commodity that is better imported from foreign countries more suitable to grow it. So, lettuce and tomatoes should be grown domestically, but dry goods easily transportable may be better grown elsewhere.

The problem is as EastWestGal pointed out, there are long-time farmers who claim grandfathered rights. I think CA is honoring some of that. When they cut the water for irrigation, the late comers are cut first.

Driving down I-5 between SF and LA, I saw so many orchards being left to dry. It was so sad. I remember back in the late 70s, driving the same interstate, I saw nothing but desert. It is reverting back to that.

 

[clifp]

A friend posted this on Facebook from the LA Times.

I have to say I was surprised how little water lettuce and tomatoes use, but chickpeas, man they should ban them. Actually I think the market forces would work to help encourage farmers to grow the most sensible crops.

 

[Texas Proud]

A friend posted this on Facebook from the LA Times.

I have to say I was surprised how little water lettuce and tomatoes use, but chickpeas, man they should ban them. Actually I think the market forces would work to help encourage farmers to grow the most sensible crops.

WOW!!!!! This just shocks the heck out of me... So when I eat a 12 ounce steak I am have 'used' 1,275 gallons of water.. I just cannot believe it is that much....

But, the cow has to eat and drink for what... 18 months or so.... I guess it can be that....

 

[Walt34]

But, the cow has to eat and drink for what... 18 months or so.... I guess it can be that....

I'm not sure, but I think they also count the water used to raise the crops that the cow ate to drive the number up to a more impressive level.