William Shatner’s $30 Billion Kickstarter Campaign to Save California

[tetris42]

North America has had a sub zpg birthrate for decades.

We have on one population related problem.

Damn, my mistake, you're right.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Oh cool, so poor people may not be able to drink as much water? That sounds humane.

There would obviously need to be some plan in place for those who can not afford it. You can't deny people basic drinking water.

Maybe a system where a bare necessity level of water is free, and everything above that is charged at the market rate?

Something that cuts down the waste (watering lawns, golf courses, alfalfa production, excessively long showers or multiple showers a day, etc. etc.) without making it financially impossible for people to get enough to live.

 

[pavementeater]

Here's what I would do (but it would probably be political suicide for any Californian politician who tried it).


4.) Let the free market determine the real price of a gallon of water

5.) Watch the problem solve itself as people change their priorities based on new costs.

If they did this in the California it would spread to every state in the Nation and other countries would then follow ....which would create a the largest bubble ever that would ultimately explode. I would hate to image what the end result of that would look like.
All 50 states need to do to start conserving water , even those states that are not normally effected by droughts.
A lot needs to be done but allowing a free market on water isn't one of them.

 

[DarkStar_WNY]

wait

who says California can have our water?

over my rotting corpse

I feel your pain, living on the shore of one of the Great Lakes I've read of more Southern states trying to be allowed to tap into out water supplies for decades

 

[hardcase]

Just in case the Shat didn't notice, Washington is in the middle of a drought, too.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

A lot needs to be done but allowing a free market on water isn't one of them.

I disagree.

Whenever you separate the cost of something from the use of something, you wind up with poor decisions being made on its use.

We see this with in healthcare as well, with costs exploding because people are insulated from them in their insurance, and just go wherever, without any cost consequences.

It winds up being like an all-you-can-eat buffet, where people just throw perfectly good food out and go for something else, because it isn't costing them anything.

When the person making the decisions of which thing to choose and how much of it to use without being responsible for its cost, resources wind up being inefficiently used.

This is bad in any market, but particularly so with a scarce resource.

This is basic economics.

 

[EchtoGammut]

I just moved from California to Washington... no way in hell am I letting them have my water. They can just stop growing almonds, pistachios, alfalfa and soybeans. If they did that, the whole water situation would be nil. Less than 2% of the states economy uses more than 80% of the water, it doesn't make economic sense to continue propping up an industry that can easily be provided by other states or countries.

 

[pavementeater]

There would obviously need to be some plan in place for those who can not afford it. You can't deny people basic drinking water.

Maybe a system where a bare necessity level of water is free, and everything above that is charged at the market rate?

Something that cuts down the waste (watering lawns, golf courses, alfalfa production, excessively long showers or multiple showers a day, etc. etc.) without making it financially impossible for people to get enough to live.

In California there are area's cities and towns that have commercial corps running their water systems... and many house holds are getting screwed big time. Some poor have had their water turned off because they could not afford to pay.

I wonder if the state could force a reboot on how local utilizes bill their customers. In San Francisco your water charge is actually pretty cheap /low but the city kills you on waste / sewer charges. So to make your bill lower all you have to do in SF is have a big ass garden. The city will charge you less for sewage output and your water bill will go down. What needs to be done is force cities to start actually charging more for the water and stop strong arming everyone on the sewage costs.

It would be nice if the state would force larger towns , counties and cities to start recycling all their municipally run parks , soccer , base ball , gold courses and gardens. Most cities here do not recycle their water for their public spaces.
Ca and other states need to enforce drip irrigation on all farms < where drip irrigation works > and also help create small water recycling plants where large farming areas Then force these farms to use recycled water for their crops.

 

[pavementeater]

I disagree.


This is basic economics.

When has basic economics ever solve an issue of this magnitude?
Don't get me wrong I'm all for free market but I think that some things need to be off limits to the free market.
BTW You maybe correct in your thinking but who knows....
People just need to wake up and start forcing their local and state Gov to start working on current issues and also future issues... we need to have a proactive / forward thinking government and not a self absorbed reactive gov. It seems as a Nation we've become so reactive it's caused us to be stagnate and when we have issues like drought or other natural disaster we just sit there and bang our heads against a brick wall.

 

[TwistedAegis]

However, the politicians are setting out the welcome mat for more illegal immigrants, with more welfare, free health care, driver licenses, etc. They also keep approving new large housing developments (where’s that water coming from)? And continue to dump millions of gallons into the pacific to save a small bait fish.

Household use of water, in absolute value, is about the same as it was in the 80s, with 15M more people in the state. Conservation has done quite a bit; but in the end, that's still only about 15% of water usage in the state. We can still cut back more, but as others have pointed out, agriculture is the 800lb gorilla in the room.

California is its own worst enemy. By subsidizing agriculture with reduced water cost, it lead to big factory farms that grow the most water intensive crops and vegetables in an arid climate. If water cost actually reflected the supply and demand in a free market, this severe water shortage problem wouldn't have occurred. Farmers would have grown more suitable crops for dry climate and people would naturally be less willing to build open pools and have water intensive green grass lawns.

The fact is, 80% of the water used in California is for agriculture. California grows 50% of the nations fruits and vegetables.

100 billion gallons of water a year is used to grow alfalfa and hay that is exported to China and other countries. This is where I'd draw the line. Feed America first, that's what California should do. The restrictions they're placing on residents is a drop in the bucket in comparison.

All this, particularly the exporting of agriculture using water we can't afford to use.

The real solution, which no one wants to hear, is to deport all the illegal aliens (estimated population 12.5 MILLION people, so if you get even 75%, that's a huge number),

Its not rocket science.

It's not, but, read above, this has nothing to do with the problem. Even with all those people, Californians use the same amount of water for personal use they did in the 80s.

I disagree.

Whenever you separate the cost of something from the use of something, you wind up with poor decisions being made on its use.
This is basic economics.

I do agree with this, how to get some market fundamentals in there. The problem is, once you open the market up to speculation, you have the huge players, the investment banks, etc, putting in a huge amount of churn to simply make a quarterly profit and not a care for people actually, you know, needing water as a basic necessity for life.

You analogized healthcare; similar, I think there should be some baseline subsidized amount that should suffice for most. Then you want more than that? You pay more.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Here's what I would do (but it would probably be political suicide for any Californian politician who tried it).

1.) Revoke all legacy water rights.

2.) Move to metered water billing for ALL households, farms, businesses and government installations.

3.) Introduce a cap and trade style system for the water that can be used.

4.) Let the free market determine the real price of a gallon of water

5.) Watch the problem solve itself as people change their priorities based on new costs.

Agree on 1 & 2, disagree 3-5

Water is a precious resource, granted one that is renewable however the rate at which it renews is variable. There needs to be some sort of eminent domain rules though that overturn any water rights laws/agreements though, I mean I'm sorry your great grandfather negotiated that but he's fucking dead now.

However, figure out a need for water, and then start having tiered rates of usage that increase at dramatic rates could see a definite change. You might start to see the emergence of the small farm family owned farms again as huge megafarms would always use more then their allowance and be paying acre for acre more for water than a smaller farmer would. But then what's too large? What's to say a family owned farm can't be 1000 acres especially if it's been in the family for generations.

The thing is with this is more people tend to point fingers rather than thinking they should be one to conserve. Hell in this thread we've gone from alfalfa farmers,to sucking the delta dry, to illegal immigrants. It's always someone else's fault and never your own.

 

[ianken]

Washington state here: we have almost no snow pack. Fuck off Bill. You live in a desert. Deal with it.

 

[TwistedAegis]

At least from what I've seen, a significant number of people are taking it seriously and trying to cut back. Letting lawns go. "If it's yellow, let it mellow". Being more efficient washing dishes. Our usage in SF, in a condo, is already ridiculously low.

The main issue is, even if every household in the state cut back by 50%, which isn't realistic, it wouldn't solve the problem - it has to be solved at the legislative/state level due to the huge amount of legacy claims to water by farmers. But property rights are always touchy, and rightly so, because that goes to the core of our system and beliefs. Sure, it makes sense to pull water rights with the swipe of the governor's pen today, but what precedent does it set, what could that make it easier for in the future that might not make as much sense?

 

[sfsuphysics]

Household use of water, in absolute value, is about the same as it was in the 80s, with 15M more people in the state. Conservation has done quite a bit; but in the end, that's still only about 15% of water usage in the state. We can still cut back more, but as others have pointed out, agriculture is the 800lb gorilla in the room.

Yes but while you could deal with that 800lbs gorilla, how much of that residential water usage is for enjoyment not usage for consumption? Everything from green lawns, to pools, to washing your car every week.

Thing is agriculture has cut back, there are people going out of business as a result of high water prices, if your water bill doubles how much does that really hurt you? If a farmer's water bill doubles that could put him under, or if they don't get water they essentially go bankrupt. Some farmers are doing a crop switch too, however that's usually most useful for those who don't have "permanent" crops like tree fruit/nuts, if you have orchards you're pretty much fucked.

 

[GotNoRice]

Some people in this thread are pretty ignorant when it comes to some basic facts and concepts.

"California is a Desert"

No, it's not.

The only part of California that can legitimatly be called a fucking "desert" is the south-eastern section, which comprises the very western portion of the Sonoran Desert. Many portions of the state normally receive quite a large amount of rain, with some northern sections of the state being almost indistinguishable from places like Oregon.

On this map, the Sonoran Desert off to the South-East is very clearly seen. Note how those areas are isolated to the southern and mostly eastern portions of the state.

Now let's take a look at the actual population of California. Oh wait, let's look at that, hardly anyone lives in the fucking desert. Imagine that.

Even for those who choose to cling to their hyperbole and false statements, at least acknowledge that the state is composed of more than just it's southern half. I don't think most even understand how separate the northern and southern sections of the state are. Driving from Northern California to Southern California is like driving from Boston to Washington DC. Aside from the Movie Industry, Southern California is pretty much just a shithole that is becoming more like Mexico every day. Northern California on the other hand, contains just about everything relevant that has happened in the State in the last 20+ years (Silicon Valley, etc). Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I live what is practically walking distance from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta where millions of gallons of fresh water flow out into the ocean every single damned day. For some strange reason, I really don't feel like I need water piped in from anywhere else

 

[TwistedAegis]

Yes but while you could deal with that 800lbs gorilla, how much of that residential water usage is for enjoyment not usage for consumption? Everything from green lawns, to pools, to washing your car every week.

Thing is agriculture has cut back, there are people going out of business as a result of high water prices, if your water bill doubles how much does that really hurt you? If a farmer's water bill doubles that could put him under, or if they don't get water they essentially go bankrupt. Some farmers are doing a crop switch too, however that's usually most useful for those who don't have "permanent" crops like tree fruit/nuts, if you have orchards you're pretty much fucked.

Depends on where you are, I guess. As an SF user, 2 people in an apartment, we're right at that 45 gallon mark which, TBH, we're still cutting down on but it gets pretty slim. 4 minute showers, not flushing unless it's #2, etc. Don't have a lawn, we have succulents and air plants, not really using much there.

But in Sac or LA, where the average personal use is 300-500 gallons, then yeah, there can and should be significant cut back. I know this is "passing the buck" but I think it's a pretty reasonable one when we're already at 1/6 of that level pre-cutting back.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Even for those who choose to cling to their hyperbole and false statements, at least acknowledge that the state is composed of more than just it's southern half.

Yeah, California is a massive state with nearly every ecosystem out there. It's hard to make any blanket statement about the state, but hard without over-complicating every comment.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Household use of water, in absolute value, is about the same as it was in the 80s, with 15M more people in the state. Conservation has done quite a bit; but in the end, that's still only about 15% of water usage in the state. We can still cut back more, but as others have pointed out, agriculture is the 800lb gorilla in the room.

Follow up to this too, yeah the direct usage might have remained the same but the indirect usage sure as hell hasn't. If you go by whatever numbers are floating around like a head of lettuce takes 3 gallons of water or what not, then every single increase in person means an increase in food consumption that's directly related to the population numbers.

Also I'd be curious to see how much farm yields have increased over that same time span, could not quickly find an answer to that though. Would be interesting since farm land has been getting smaller too.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Depends on where you are, I guess. As an SF user, 2 people in an apartment, we're right at that 45 gallon mark which, TBH, we're still cutting down on but it gets pretty slim. 4 minute showers, not flushing unless it's #2, etc. Don't have a lawn, we have succulents and air plants, not really using much there.

But in Sac or LA, where the average personal use is 300-500 gallons, then yeah, there can and should be significant cut back. I know this is "passing the buck" but I think it's a pretty reasonable one when we're already at 1/6 of that level pre-cutting back.

Yes, and there's a reason why SF is one of the lowest water users per capita in the state. There's not large properties, so that means if they do have lawns they aren't going to be very large, and while I don't live in an apartment my back yard is fairly green but that's because it's mostly "weeds", in the winter the clover comes in, as it starts getting warmer I get some other green shit growing, every now and then I yank the tall grasses so they don't get too dominant. I do have a couple fruit trees that I rarely water (and then I often use second hand water). Is it as pretty as a nice manicured lawn? Nah... but it also means I don't have to put as much effort into it too

 

[TwistedAegis]

But since CA is supplying the nation, a head of lettuce shipped to AZ uses the same amount of water (if not more, via transportation) than if it went to someone living in CA. I don't see that necessarily as "indirect" within the state.

That being said, it's a good point. Goods, services, etc, to provide more people likely uses more water. Still, looking at the numbers breakdown, that still isn't going to get us to goal without bringing people near 3rd-world water usage levels and still allowing agriculture, in certain areas, certainly not all, to allocate water inefficiently (see: alfalfa).

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Some people in this thread are pretty ignorant when it comes to some basic facts and concepts.

"California is a Desert"

No, it's not.

The only part of California that can legitimatly be called a fucking "desert" is the south-eastern section, which comprises the very western portion of the Sonoran Desert. Many portions of the state normally receive quite a large amount of rain, with some northern sections of the state being almost indistinguishable from places like Oregon.

On this map, the Sonoran Desert off to the South-East is very clearly seen. Note how those areas are isolated to the southern and mostly eastern portions of the state.

Now let's take a look at the actual population of California. Oh wait, let's look at that, hardly anyone lives in the fucking desert. Imagine that.

Even for those who choose to cling to their hyperbole and false statements, at least acknowledge that the state is composed of more than just it's southern half. I don't think most even understand how separate the northern and southern sections of the state are. Driving from Northern California to Southern California is like driving from Boston to Washington DC. Aside from the Movie Industry, Southern California is pretty much just a shithole that is becoming more like Mexico every day. Northern California on the other hand, contains just about everything relevant that has happened in the State in the last 20+ years (Silicon Valley, etc). Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I live what is practically walking distance from the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta where millions of gallons of fresh water flow out into the ocean every single damned day. For some strange reason, I really don't feel like I need water piped in from anywhere else

Fair enough.

I think a lot of people have seen the aerial photos from Palm Springs with lush lawns juxtaposed with desert.

Palm Springs IS in the desert, but it is by no means representative of the state as a whole.

It's not surprising that many people are confused considering this is a large portion of what the press has reported on.

That being said, the vast amounts of water used for gardens and golf courses are still a real problem when you have a drought, even if they aren't in the desert.

Some summers we have watering bans in the greater Boston area that kick in when the Quabbin reservoir gets below a certain level.

It is astonishing to me that something didn't automatically kick in in California during this massive drought, and that it has taken this long to start curbing wasteful garden use.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Fair enough.

I think a lot of people have seen the aerial photos from Palm Springs with lush lawns juxtaposed with desert.

Palm Springs IS in the desert, but it is by no means representative of the state as a whole.

It's not surprising that many people are confused considering this is a large portion of what the press has reported on.

That being said, the vast amounts of water used for gardens and golf courses are still a real problem when you have a drought, even if they aren't in the desert.

Some summers we have watering bans in the greater Boston area that kick in when the Quabbin reservoir gets below a certain level.

It is astonishing to me that something didn't automatically kick in in California during this massive drought, and that it has taken this long to start curbing wasteful garden use.

You know, pictures like this one, of the Annenberg Estate...

 

[FearTheCow]

A large portion of Southern CA is scrub land and other low water type environments, so while not a desert, it still takes a lot of water to supply Southern CA.

If you want some facts GotNoRice, look up where Southern CA gets most of its water supply from, there is a real good reason a lot of it comes from quite a ways away from population centers. Now while southern and northern California are quite different, southern CA is more heavily populated and is the biggest water drain, which is why the conversation is centered on that area.

Couple other random thoughts, solar power wouldn't be able to power a desalination plant, the energy costs are huge and it would take a large solar farm to power the plant. Even if CA is using the same amount of water as 20 years ago, getting rid of 12+ million illegals is going to save a good chunk of water, so stop trying to distract that illegals are part of the problem by saying you use the same amount of water as years ago.

 

[sliverjazz]

Once the government is in the porverbial 'in your pants' with such an intimate thing as water that cleanses you and keeps you alive we are all on a scary path.

 

[GotNoRice]

It is astonishing to me that something didn't automatically kick in in California during this massive drought, and that it has taken this long to start curbing wasteful garden use.

It is somewhat surprising, especially in the drier areas. As recently as last fall though they were still predicting that we were going to get hit with another "El Niño". The last "El Niño" we had, back in the late 90's, was so gnarly that almost all of our local rivers, canals, and storm run-offs were on the verge of overflowing. If we had another one of those like they had been predicting, it would have almost certainly been the end of the doubt and done a lot to fill up just about every reservoir out there.

You know, pictures like this one, of the Annenberg Estate...

You mean that rich people sometimes do things with their money that others might not approve of?

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

solar power wouldn't be able to power a desalination plant, the energy costs are huge and it would take a large solar farm to power the plant.

Well, that's why solar desalination plants don't use solar cells. They use the sun to directly distill the water.

Like this:

This makes them ideal for hot climates, like - say - southern California.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Well, that's why solar desalination plants don't use solar cells. They use the sun to directly distill the water.

Like this:

This makes them ideal for hot climates, like - say - southern California.

Or like this:

There are many different designs.

 

[pavementeater]

Follow up to this too, yeah the direct usage might have remained the same but the indirect usage sure as hell hasn't. If you go by whatever numbers are floating around like a head of lettuce takes 3 gallons of water or what not, then every single increase in person means an increase in food consumption that's directly related to the population numbers.

Also I'd be curious to see how much farm yields have increased over that same time span, could not quickly find an answer to that though. Would be interesting since farm land has been getting smaller too.

Few years back there was a blog post from UC Agriculture Dept. on water cost in regards to San Diego and Avocados grown down south... It's just one sector of farming here in the state ... http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=7186
The recently was an article written that does talk about past and current water consumption and farming yields for the state, but for the life of me I can't remember if it was Davis or UC who put out the study and where the link to is .

 

[pavementeater]

It is somewhat surprising, especially in the drier areas. As recently as last fall though they were still predicting that we were going to get hit with another "El Niño". The last "El Niño" we had, back in the late 90's, was so gnarly that almost all of our local rivers, canals, and storm run-offs were on the verge of overflowing. If we had another one of those like they had been predicting, it would have almost certainly been the end of the doubt and done a lot to fill up just about every reservoir out there.



You mean that rich people sometimes do things with their money that others might not approve of?

The problem with drought , unlike drought of the past, isn't the lack of rain fall but the unseasonable hot and warm weather the state has been experiencing.... It's the damn evaporation rate of natural water that's killing us.

 

[TwistedAegis]

Even if CA is using the same amount of water as 20 years ago, getting rid of 12+ million illegals is going to save a good chunk of water, so stop trying to distract that illegals are part of the problem by saying you use the same amount of water as years ago.

California's population isn't 25% illegal immigrants, just stop it. That number is the estimate throughout the entire United States. Even at half that, 12% of the 15% is a 2% change. Sure, it's movement, but that isn't the crux of the issue nor is it even a top 5 "solution" to the water issue.

Not sure how a drought is now somehow an illegal immigration issue. I somehow doubt they live in huge SoCal estates with lush green lawns and fountains, takin' up all our water.

 

[Revdarian]

Naw don't stop him, i sorta agree that California would be better off without all that illegal immigration, starting with all those pesky descendants from English men, also get rid of the descendants of Irish, Welsh, and all in all, anyone non Native American, they should all just "git out!"

 

[kbrickley]

Naw don't stop him, i sorta agree that California would be better off without all that illegal immigration, starting with all those pesky descendants from English men, also get rid of the descendants of Irish, Welsh, and all in all, anyone non Native American, they should all just "git out!"

That would solve most of the problems with the USA ... if we deported everyone who isn't descended from someone who resided here prior to 1492 the USA would have more space, power, and resources than they knew what to do with ... the People's Republic of Europe might get a little crowded though

 

[Biznatch]

California's population isn't 25% illegal immigrants, just stop it. That number is the estimate throughout the entire United States. Even at half that, 12% of the 15% is a 2% change. Sure, it's movement, but that isn't the crux of the issue nor is it even a top 5 "solution" to the water issue.

Not sure how a drought is now somehow an illegal immigration issue. I somehow doubt they live in huge SoCal estates with lush green lawns and fountains, takin' up all our water.

No, the cram as many people in small housing as possible, and are gone most of the day working.... Plus they are doing jobs that no one else in california (and other states) are willing to do. Seriously, mur'cans are too fucking lazy to do that shit...

So yes lets deport them since they are using all our water... We should also deport all the polar bears, kangaroos and camels as that will have about the same affect on water usage as deporting immigrants....

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

No, the cram as many people in small housing as possible, and are gone most of the day working.... Plus they are doing jobs that no one else in california (and other states) are willing to do. Seriously, mur'cans are too fucking lazy to do that shit...

So yes lets deport them since they are using all our water... We should also deport all the polar bears, kangaroos and camels as that will have about the same affect on water usage as deporting immigrants....

Well, if reduced water availability kills off more farms, you will likely see fewer migrant workers as well, so these things may go hand in hand

 

[Biznatch]

Well, if reduced water availability kills off more farms, you will likely see fewer migrant workers as well, so these things may go hand in hand

Yup, then they'll claim that the reduction in water was FROM the immigrants leaving, and use that to further push that agenda.

 

[Leonardo Leonardo]

Naw don't stop him, i sorta agree that California would be better off without all that illegal immigration, starting with all those pesky descendants from English men, also get rid of the descendants of Irish, Welsh, and all in all, anyone non Native American, they should all just "git out!"

Illegal immigration would imply there to be a set of immigration laws and/or unified governing body at the time, which there wasn't.

That would solve most of the problems with the USA ... if we deported everyone who isn't descended from someone who resided here prior to 1492 the USA would have more space, power, and resources than they knew what to do with ... the People's Republic of Europe might get a little crowded though

I am baffled by how someone could write a comment this stupid and ignorant.

 

[kbrickley]

I am baffled by how someone could write a comment this stupid and ignorant.

I was being facetious ... which part did you not like ... that all of us are illegal immigrants (if you want to go far enough back) ... or the comment about our socialistic brothers across the pond

 

[DocSavage]

Illegal immigration would imply there to be a set of immigration laws and/or unified governing body at the time, which there wasn't.

There were plenty of treaties that the Settlers/U.S. made with the Native Americans and then broke. There is pretty much a zero percent chance that we legally took all of this land from the natives by their laws.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I was being facetious ... which part did you not like ... that all of us are illegal immigrants (if you want to go far enough back) ... or the comment about our socialistic brothers across the pond

Immigrants, yes. Illegal, no.

Early immigrants to the U.S. came to a land where there were no established migration laws.

When my great grandparents took the boat over from Ireland, they entered through Ellis island legally.

 

[Revdarian]

Illegal immigration would imply there to be a set of immigration laws and/or unified governing body at the time, which there wasn't.

So, you are trying to say with a straight face that everyone came to the continent by invitation? or are you trying to say that there was noone here?, or better yet, you are trying to imply that the laws of the Native Americans don't count because they were "just savages"?

Man, you should read a bit more about actual history...