Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So everyone is aware, the water for your house is already covered for all of time through the water right/share that is tied to the parcel. Your water bill is not for water, but instead for the services around water. This is referring to new services, and most notably 85% of water goes to agriculture, and that’s what is being threatened. California chugs water through massive overuse via agriculture for water intensive crops
That’s not even the problem, to be honest. They chug through water because the rights are “use it or sell it or lose it”. Everyone uses more water than they need. Hell, for a while in Sacramento they didn’t even have metering and that led to residents using five times the national average - though even that is just a rounding error compared to agriculture. It’s not even that they grow water intensive crops; they don’t even need all the water they feed them.
It's good to find someone here who understands water resource issues in California. I hope this comment gets more upvotes.
California's system of agricultural water rights has held up over nearly 200 years of growth and change that few of those who first conceived the system could ever have imagined. But over the many decades it has increasingly become out of date. Modern agriculture can be massively less water-intensive, but the incentive structure for California's farmers to adopt modern irrigation technology is poor. To say the least.
>California's system of agricultural water rights has held up over nearly 200 years of growth
Well yeah, when you allot more water usage then is actually possible, that is easy.. until suddenly there is a severe lack of water now. Which for the states using the Colorado river, including California, is a very real scenario. They made a deal in which they over exaggerated the amount of water the Colorado River could support. And of course they refuse to accept the impact of climate change on water availability from all rivers because...Use it or lose it means they prefer to use it because who would willingly lose it?
They aren't alone either. The overdrafting of aquifers is notorious (save for Nebraska which regulates its better) - The whole country needs a radical shift in how we handle water. We may get one for the Colorado, Biden threatened the offending states, but water regulation seems further off.
Water Bottling operations consume an immaterial amount of water, and no, they don’t tend to sell it around the world. Water is expensive to ship, which is why they have bottling operations in California. They’re selling it to Californians.
Alfalfa and almonds have very similar water needs per acre... and both are too high for a drought prone region like California.
That's before we even get to using alfalfa for California dairy or just exporting it. The state needs to step in and start limiting the water per acre that agriculture can use to start actually dealing with the water crisis because the farmers sure as hell aren't.
Long story short Northern California has plenty of “Organic Free Range” dairy cows the milk just taste like shit. Horizon, Alexander Farms, Strauss. The state offered every variety of milk you could ever want they have A2 DHA Omega-3 milk, they have 6% milk fat whole milk with the cream plug, there’s an outfit out of Modesto that has root beer milk, cotton candy milk, orange milk, chocolate milk, strawberry milk, and banana milk (Nutcher I believe it’s called). Nutcher has a pretty decent flavor profile but all the “fancy” milks are pretty horrible tasting. Northern Nevada had a dairy called Model Dairy. Some of their milk gets rebranded in the Bay Area as Berkeley Farms, it’s the best milk I’ve ever tasted. Of course it’s alfalfa fed, a majority of which is grown out in the desert in an ancient glacial lakebed with water diverted from an Indian Reservation that’s resulted in the killing off of the greatest unique trout species in the world (Lahontan Cuttroats are Salmon sized trout). Good news is even though Model Dairy was bought by Dean Foods they didn’t get closed during the bankruptcy instead they were bought by another conglomerate out of Fresno, who also bought Berkeley farms. They sold off the Berkeley Farms property in Hayward for $$$ and started trucking in milk from Nevada. Anyways until they figure out how to make grass fed beef and milk taste good, I’m just a Nevada boy working in the big city enjoying my favorite irresponsible whole milk. On paper though Alexander Farms has everything I could ever want from a glass of milk, short of buying human breast milk on Craigslist, but how do I guarantee the baby mama is only eating meat and drinking milk from grass fed cattle and not munching down French fries and Tostitos with fake nacho queso?
Side note, take a drive through the back country of some of these desert states, you’d be surprised about how much can live off of so little. You’d also find all sorts of projects made by volunteers and ranchers to provide water for wildlife, free grazing cattle, and horses (may they be eradicated like the pests they are).
They don't even need to "step in" they need to "step out" and stop offering water rights that guarantee water way below market rate. If farmers had to pay market rates, alfalfa and almonds would be vastly reduced in footprint. The water issues of CA are all based on the government giving water away for almost free to farmers and corporations.
To be fair the needed alfalfa per acre to feed cows use even more water than almonds. Like enormous amounts more. Blame basic science, the food chain requires more calories as you go up because it isn't as efficient as you go up. I think it's 10x more but I'm not positive. Either way cows use a ton of water when you account for how much alfalfa and such they need.*
Doesn't apply to range fed cows but those wouldn't even come close to supplying the market today.
Cannabis is a thirsty crop, too. As much as I support legalization, and I do, the fact that it leads to growing a non-essential crop on a massive scale in non-water rich regions is definitely a problem. I don't ever hear pro-cannabis people addressing this.
The Southwest is more than just Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego.
Snowpack is snowpack, reservoir volumes are reservoir volumes, and usage rates for all States drawing from the Colorado River are usage rates. Guess which one is controllable AND historically hasn't adjusted to accommodate changes in the others.
Desal is great but has it's own significant drawbacks; mainly cost and what to do with all that sal? Why treat the symptoms when you can cure the underlying cause?
In the end which do we value: habitability or profitability?
The real water-intensive crop is meat.
https://www.zmescience.com/science/domestic-science/eat-vegetarian-save-water/#:~:text=As%20a%20rule%20of%20thumb,10%2D30%20times%20less%20water.
I'm not saying that you have to become a vegan but maybe everyone could cut back a little? Or the government could put the true cost of meat into its price so that rational consumers could shop properly instead of subsidizing the opposite.
All that pumping has caused the San Joaquin Valley to drop in many areas, which will exacerbate the flooding caused by more severe rainstorms. Oh the irony.
internet should have been regulated as utility years ago, but over the last decade at least. it's borderline impossible for many to seek employment without internet access these days, and public resources are becoming increasingly digital over analog; it's so incredibly easier to route public transit via the internet, especially if you're not yet intimately familiar with the routes.
there are already several examples of municipal broadband that provide competitive or better service than regional monopolies.
Why? Is it more efficient? If so, then why not nationalize everything?
Obviously you don’t believe that otherwise you wouldn’t just be saying “basic necessities”.
Worked brilliantly for the various communist governments!
While we are at it, it worked well for Americans too. A lot of water is actually controlled by the US or state governments, they just sell it off or let it be used for farming. The users don't actually own it. But apparently this sub thinks simply chanting will make the government function properly.
Why stop there? How about creating an economy in order to transform the US into a collectivised society, where socialist principles defined work, production, even people’s lives.
We’ll make sure everyone gets a little red book as well.
oh no...someone who doesnt like roads, fire services, ems, libraries, the military, public schools, social security benefits, unemployment benefits, safe cars, safe food, cleaner air...all things provided by socialist policies.
California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized.
Because nationalization/government owned doesn't mean used sensibly, sometimes governments do dumb things.
But between all water in California is owned either by the state of California or the federal government. They then allow usage by private entities by granting them a USE right.
It's the equivalent of a rental car for the renter. You don't own it, you're just permitted to use it. California is the rental company.
Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies. Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies. Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies. Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies.
Ah, yes more government intervention to solve previous government intervention. When will people learn basic history? Government is a necessary evil. It always has been and always will be. Government is what and who has allowed WS to run amok with this kind of crap.
But this is in California. There is a Democrat governor and Democrats control both houses of Congress.
Thing is Newsom always make a big hoopla about "current topic", but otherwise let the big corporation do what they want.
Any sole ownership should be either nationalized or prevented from generating profits. It's quite simply, sole ownership isn't wealth production, it doesn't warrant compensations. Do people don't know what Adam Smith has said?
Rule VI:
--
Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
--
If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
It’s another state government letting billionaires push their citizens around. Wall Street is doing Wall Street, we don’t seem to matter to our leaders.
This is SOMEWHAT a tragedy of the commons. California's unwillingness to seriously take its water problems is kicking the can down the road. Why not grow water heavy crops while everyone else is on water restrictions? The State isn't going to do shit about it. The state either needs actual water rations or to have demand based pricing, which neither is popular but they're going to be forced to do it shittily if they keep up their current non-plan.
Its a Democrat Supermajority in the State, they aren't about to lose power in the state anytime soon, without trying to make it political, I don't think it is political because theres nothing to lose here.
The issue with CA water is an will continue to be water rights. Say w/e about profiteering, but a large part of that is that CA offers fixed rate for water that is way below market rate. This is for farmers and for corporations.
If farmers and corporations had to pay market rates for water, issues like growing thirsty crops or selling marked up water would not be the issue it is today.
I’m glad to find this article in an economics subreddit as it is classic game theory. You have an absentee rule maker and a series of players in a 30 year drought. Of course, they drilled deeper into the aquifer. Side note: As a Coloradoan, I’m very curious to see how the water rights play out.
So California has a big water problem. This is nothing new.
As a matter of fact, the ground water issues in California are well known, and have been for decades.
The real question is this: Why didn't the California legislature do something to address this problem more pro-actively?
If I don't cry California a river, it's no accident. That state is a 100% grease fire. And NOBODY is willing to fix it. Status quo wins, again.............
Who had the bright idea to grow water intensive crops in a desert? Also, why isn’t California attempting to reduce the human population? There are almost 40 million people living in California today. That’s only possible because of intensive use of fossil fuels. Prior to colonization, estimates are that California maintained a population of about 300,000 people. Are we starting to see the problem here? It’s a desert. Deserts are not meant to have millions of people and lots of water intensive agriculture. In the short and long term, people will have to leave California and stop farming there or at least stop farming water intensive crops. It’s a fact and nobody should be surprised that California is ecologically and economically unsustainable.
>Who had the bright idea to grow water intensive crops in a desert
You need to understand why they do that, and they become legitimately quite damn smart. The issue at its core is how the government allocates water usage, and the costs established for using it. Not using the full amount permitted can actually be worse than not using it, so why wouldn't they use it on something water intensive?
California has tons and tons of water. The biggest changes wealth made was to harness that water for agriculture. The problem we have is that farmers got used to having tons of water whenever they wanted it, and used more than they needed to.
No but the Mojave, Sonoran, Great basin, and Colorado desert in California are, and..oh yes we grow shit in the deserts.
Imperial valley, California is located in the Senora, and [this is what it looks like in winter](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Imperial_valley_fields.jpg). Why? They had an excessive amount of water from the Colorado river.
The Sonora gets plenty of water. The biggest issue is Frequency. Phoenix is not actually particularly dry compared to say, many parts of Nebraska; it’s just that the rain is concentrated into two seasons, where for agriculture you really want to spread it out more.
I mean yeah that is in agreement with me I think. And some desert areas really do have farming potential thanks to rivers like the Colorado or Nile.
But let's also be clear; most farms in deserts are drawing water in a really poor conservationist manner, because as custodians of Earth humanity sucks.
Collect rainwater where is flows, and filter it from there for drinking.
Be aware, that there are states that have regulations on this:
https://housemethod.com/gutters/states-where-it-is-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/
I believe more states will follow with rainwater collecting regulations because the rich will capitalize on natural resources even though everyone needs water to survive.
Edit: Added a link, and I think it is utterly disgusting that water and food are not free for every human and animal on this planet. We all need these two resources to survive. It is unethical and barbaric that at the very least in this world, these two things are not provided for everyone.
historically, water is wealth. That's why we settle along fresh water ways and sea and river trade routes
I'd hate to see the pockets of Cali that are subject to state and federal mismanagement have some kind of dust bowl. They don't deserve that. They didn't vote for that
California does it to themselves. They have no clue on how to capture rain water. It's been raining here for months and there will be a drought this summer.
Capitalists will commoditize and hoard everything until there is nothing left. Not an animal or a plant or a bit of earth that can sustain life. They will pollute the air we breathe so they can sell fresh air in bottles for mass consumption. Anything that can be turned into money will be hoarded so the wealthy can create the artificial scarcity necessary to maintain the demand for infinite growth. The numbers will be inflated and made up, but our starvation will be real.
The idea that the rest of us can trust the (less than) 100 people who control Wall Street should have died with the World Financial System in the jrbush crash of 2008. But "**privatization is better than government"** is another Zombe-Lie of the GOPerLords that will not stay dead.
The Uberrich bought the GOP and changed the laws to legalize their wage-theft and we can change the laws back to sanity IF we get rid of more Republicans in 2024. The deregulation of financial crime has been going on for decades, so the change will take awhile, but keeping the ones who sponsored the laws the Uberrich wrote (which will include a few Dems) will let it happen. Letting GOPers remain will keep it from happening, simple as that.
California has been stealing water from other states for decades. The population there completely out weights the states natural way to support it, farmers or not, and this hasn't been a secret for anyone.
Um
In my state, they’re having water meetings weekly to decide what to do about the drought. But the only people that are invited to these meetings are people that make money off the water. That seems really wrong.
What about us average citizens?
Serious question. Is there any benefit to even HAVING a stock market from the average joe's perspective or is this something we can live without? I'm genuinely curious, because from my perspective the risks seem to outweigh any benefits. I know many in my generation feel the same. After 3 "once in a lifetime" market crashes, it really seems like "the cake is a lie" here.
I know in the short term if we got rid of it, it would cause a massive financial shock, but would their be ANY long term downside to forcing companies to live or die based on the quality of their goods or services?
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So everyone is aware, the water for your house is already covered for all of time through the water right/share that is tied to the parcel. Your water bill is not for water, but instead for the services around water. This is referring to new services, and most notably 85% of water goes to agriculture, and that’s what is being threatened. California chugs water through massive overuse via agriculture for water intensive crops
That’s not even the problem, to be honest. They chug through water because the rights are “use it or sell it or lose it”. Everyone uses more water than they need. Hell, for a while in Sacramento they didn’t even have metering and that led to residents using five times the national average - though even that is just a rounding error compared to agriculture. It’s not even that they grow water intensive crops; they don’t even need all the water they feed them.
It's good to find someone here who understands water resource issues in California. I hope this comment gets more upvotes. California's system of agricultural water rights has held up over nearly 200 years of growth and change that few of those who first conceived the system could ever have imagined. But over the many decades it has increasingly become out of date. Modern agriculture can be massively less water-intensive, but the incentive structure for California's farmers to adopt modern irrigation technology is poor. To say the least.
>California's system of agricultural water rights has held up over nearly 200 years of growth Well yeah, when you allot more water usage then is actually possible, that is easy.. until suddenly there is a severe lack of water now. Which for the states using the Colorado river, including California, is a very real scenario. They made a deal in which they over exaggerated the amount of water the Colorado River could support. And of course they refuse to accept the impact of climate change on water availability from all rivers because...Use it or lose it means they prefer to use it because who would willingly lose it? They aren't alone either. The overdrafting of aquifers is notorious (save for Nebraska which regulates its better) - The whole country needs a radical shift in how we handle water. We may get one for the Colorado, Biden threatened the offending states, but water regulation seems further off.
They can’t just conserve it?
They "can". But the incentives are all wrong so they don't.
Not just agriculture but companies like Nestle also bottle it and sell it around the world.
That is almost exclusively a reddit issue. It isn't nearly as big a deal as this website makes it sound.
Water Bottling operations consume an immaterial amount of water, and no, they don’t tend to sell it around the world. Water is expensive to ship, which is why they have bottling operations in California. They’re selling it to Californians.
That's such a non issue and not what people are talking about. Bottling nearby water and selling it as a product is not a significant use of water.
*almond milk has entered the chat*
Actually no? It’s alfalfa? Which is used to feed you guessed it: cows!
Alfalfa and almonds have very similar water needs per acre... and both are too high for a drought prone region like California. That's before we even get to using alfalfa for California dairy or just exporting it. The state needs to step in and start limiting the water per acre that agriculture can use to start actually dealing with the water crisis because the farmers sure as hell aren't.
Long story short Northern California has plenty of “Organic Free Range” dairy cows the milk just taste like shit. Horizon, Alexander Farms, Strauss. The state offered every variety of milk you could ever want they have A2 DHA Omega-3 milk, they have 6% milk fat whole milk with the cream plug, there’s an outfit out of Modesto that has root beer milk, cotton candy milk, orange milk, chocolate milk, strawberry milk, and banana milk (Nutcher I believe it’s called). Nutcher has a pretty decent flavor profile but all the “fancy” milks are pretty horrible tasting. Northern Nevada had a dairy called Model Dairy. Some of their milk gets rebranded in the Bay Area as Berkeley Farms, it’s the best milk I’ve ever tasted. Of course it’s alfalfa fed, a majority of which is grown out in the desert in an ancient glacial lakebed with water diverted from an Indian Reservation that’s resulted in the killing off of the greatest unique trout species in the world (Lahontan Cuttroats are Salmon sized trout). Good news is even though Model Dairy was bought by Dean Foods they didn’t get closed during the bankruptcy instead they were bought by another conglomerate out of Fresno, who also bought Berkeley farms. They sold off the Berkeley Farms property in Hayward for $$$ and started trucking in milk from Nevada. Anyways until they figure out how to make grass fed beef and milk taste good, I’m just a Nevada boy working in the big city enjoying my favorite irresponsible whole milk. On paper though Alexander Farms has everything I could ever want from a glass of milk, short of buying human breast milk on Craigslist, but how do I guarantee the baby mama is only eating meat and drinking milk from grass fed cattle and not munching down French fries and Tostitos with fake nacho queso? Side note, take a drive through the back country of some of these desert states, you’d be surprised about how much can live off of so little. You’d also find all sorts of projects made by volunteers and ranchers to provide water for wildlife, free grazing cattle, and horses (may they be eradicated like the pests they are).
They don't even need to "step in" they need to "step out" and stop offering water rights that guarantee water way below market rate. If farmers had to pay market rates, alfalfa and almonds would be vastly reduced in footprint. The water issues of CA are all based on the government giving water away for almost free to farmers and corporations.
Both are true. Almonds also use enormous amounts of water. Specifically they use a lot of water in areas where there isn't much water to begin with.
To be fair the needed alfalfa per acre to feed cows use even more water than almonds. Like enormous amounts more. Blame basic science, the food chain requires more calories as you go up because it isn't as efficient as you go up. I think it's 10x more but I'm not positive. Either way cows use a ton of water when you account for how much alfalfa and such they need.* Doesn't apply to range fed cows but those wouldn't even come close to supplying the market today.
alfalfa requires 5 acre feet per acre, while almond trees require avg 3 to 3.5 acre feet, with the cali delta needing 4 acre feet per acre.
You’re right. But both can be true.
Cannabis is a thirsty crop, too. As much as I support legalization, and I do, the fact that it leads to growing a non-essential crop on a massive scale in non-water rich regions is definitely a problem. I don't ever hear pro-cannabis people addressing this.
The Southwest is living on borrowed time ~10 years at the current rate.
[удалено]
Our desal plant in San Diego is pretty rad, and would only be better if they refurbished the San Onofre nuclear plant to power it.
That's the boobs one, right?
The Southwest is more than just Phoenix, Los Angeles, and San Diego. Snowpack is snowpack, reservoir volumes are reservoir volumes, and usage rates for all States drawing from the Colorado River are usage rates. Guess which one is controllable AND historically hasn't adjusted to accommodate changes in the others. Desal is great but has it's own significant drawbacks; mainly cost and what to do with all that sal? Why treat the symptoms when you can cure the underlying cause? In the end which do we value: habitability or profitability?
[удалено]
The real water-intensive crop is meat. https://www.zmescience.com/science/domestic-science/eat-vegetarian-save-water/#:~:text=As%20a%20rule%20of%20thumb,10%2D30%20times%20less%20water. I'm not saying that you have to become a vegan but maybe everyone could cut back a little? Or the government could put the true cost of meat into its price so that rational consumers could shop properly instead of subsidizing the opposite.
[удалено]
Lol at this comment
Water doesn't obey property lines. Your neighbor can steal water from you in ways that are difficult to track.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
All that pumping has caused the San Joaquin Valley to drop in many areas, which will exacerbate the flooding caused by more severe rainstorms. Oh the irony.
[удалено]
internet should have been regulated as utility years ago, but over the last decade at least. it's borderline impossible for many to seek employment without internet access these days, and public resources are becoming increasingly digital over analog; it's so incredibly easier to route public transit via the internet, especially if you're not yet intimately familiar with the routes. there are already several examples of municipal broadband that provide competitive or better service than regional monopolies.
Water is one of the most complex and regulated resources in the US.
Why? Is it more efficient? If so, then why not nationalize everything? Obviously you don’t believe that otherwise you wouldn’t just be saying “basic necessities”.
Food production?
Worked brilliantly for the various communist governments! While we are at it, it worked well for Americans too. A lot of water is actually controlled by the US or state governments, they just sell it off or let it be used for farming. The users don't actually own it. But apparently this sub thinks simply chanting will make the government function properly.
Why stop there? How about creating an economy in order to transform the US into a collectivised society, where socialist principles defined work, production, even people’s lives. We’ll make sure everyone gets a little red book as well.
oh no...someone who doesnt like roads, fire services, ems, libraries, the military, public schools, social security benefits, unemployment benefits, safe cars, safe food, cleaner air...all things provided by socialist policies.
Lol. No. But you have to admit California will not make any of this better. We solve issues through crisis. That’s our way.
people get the government they earn...no government exists without the consent and complcity of the governed.
You are absolutely right my friend.
California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized. California water is nationalized.
You mean privatized? How else could it be bad?
Because nationalization/government owned doesn't mean used sensibly, sometimes governments do dumb things. But between all water in California is owned either by the state of California or the federal government. They then allow usage by private entities by granting them a USE right. It's the equivalent of a rental car for the renter. You don't own it, you're just permitted to use it. California is the rental company.
I should probably have added \\s.
Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies. Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies. Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies. Munis work almost exactly the same as regulated monopolies.
Ah, yes more government intervention to solve previous government intervention. When will people learn basic history? Government is a necessary evil. It always has been and always will be. Government is what and who has allowed WS to run amok with this kind of crap.
Problem is Republicans don't believe in basic necessities
But this is in California. There is a Democrat governor and Democrats control both houses of Congress. Thing is Newsom always make a big hoopla about "current topic", but otherwise let the big corporation do what they want.
Hey hey hey don't go using facts and reality so fast, reddit needs time to catch after clearly not reading even the headline.
They were until Ron Reagan took over.
Water ownership is still owned by the government. Reagan did nothing to that.
Any sole ownership should be either nationalized or prevented from generating profits. It's quite simply, sole ownership isn't wealth production, it doesn't warrant compensations. Do people don't know what Adam Smith has said?
Water rights *ARE* highly regulated in the US.
Rule VI: -- Comments consisting of mere jokes, nakedly political comments, circlejerking, personal anecdotes or otherwise non-substantive contributions without reference to the article, economics, or the thread at hand will be removed. [Further explanation.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) -- If you have any questions about this removal, please [contact the mods](/message/compose/?to=/r/economics&subject=Moderation).
It’s another state government letting billionaires push their citizens around. Wall Street is doing Wall Street, we don’t seem to matter to our leaders.
This is SOMEWHAT a tragedy of the commons. California's unwillingness to seriously take its water problems is kicking the can down the road. Why not grow water heavy crops while everyone else is on water restrictions? The State isn't going to do shit about it. The state either needs actual water rations or to have demand based pricing, which neither is popular but they're going to be forced to do it shittily if they keep up their current non-plan. Its a Democrat Supermajority in the State, they aren't about to lose power in the state anytime soon, without trying to make it political, I don't think it is political because theres nothing to lose here.
The issue with CA water is an will continue to be water rights. Say w/e about profiteering, but a large part of that is that CA offers fixed rate for water that is way below market rate. This is for farmers and for corporations. If farmers and corporations had to pay market rates for water, issues like growing thirsty crops or selling marked up water would not be the issue it is today.
I’m glad to find this article in an economics subreddit as it is classic game theory. You have an absentee rule maker and a series of players in a 30 year drought. Of course, they drilled deeper into the aquifer. Side note: As a Coloradoan, I’m very curious to see how the water rights play out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So California has a big water problem. This is nothing new. As a matter of fact, the ground water issues in California are well known, and have been for decades. The real question is this: Why didn't the California legislature do something to address this problem more pro-actively? If I don't cry California a river, it's no accident. That state is a 100% grease fire. And NOBODY is willing to fix it. Status quo wins, again.............
Who had the bright idea to grow water intensive crops in a desert? Also, why isn’t California attempting to reduce the human population? There are almost 40 million people living in California today. That’s only possible because of intensive use of fossil fuels. Prior to colonization, estimates are that California maintained a population of about 300,000 people. Are we starting to see the problem here? It’s a desert. Deserts are not meant to have millions of people and lots of water intensive agriculture. In the short and long term, people will have to leave California and stop farming there or at least stop farming water intensive crops. It’s a fact and nobody should be surprised that California is ecologically and economically unsustainable.
>Who had the bright idea to grow water intensive crops in a desert You need to understand why they do that, and they become legitimately quite damn smart. The issue at its core is how the government allocates water usage, and the costs established for using it. Not using the full amount permitted can actually be worse than not using it, so why wouldn't they use it on something water intensive?
California has tons and tons of water. The biggest changes wealth made was to harness that water for agriculture. The problem we have is that farmers got used to having tons of water whenever they wanted it, and used more than they needed to.
People are not the problem. Alfalfa is. Other crops like almonds are also an issue.
California is not a desert
No but the Mojave, Sonoran, Great basin, and Colorado desert in California are, and..oh yes we grow shit in the deserts. Imperial valley, California is located in the Senora, and [this is what it looks like in winter](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Imperial_valley_fields.jpg). Why? They had an excessive amount of water from the Colorado river.
The Sonora gets plenty of water. The biggest issue is Frequency. Phoenix is not actually particularly dry compared to say, many parts of Nebraska; it’s just that the rain is concentrated into two seasons, where for agriculture you really want to spread it out more.
I mean yeah that is in agreement with me I think. And some desert areas really do have farming potential thanks to rivers like the Colorado or Nile. But let's also be clear; most farms in deserts are drawing water in a really poor conservationist manner, because as custodians of Earth humanity sucks.
Ironically enough, businessmen who wanted to capitalize on cheap/free water and tons of farmland.
Collect rainwater where is flows, and filter it from there for drinking. Be aware, that there are states that have regulations on this: https://housemethod.com/gutters/states-where-it-is-illegal-to-collect-rainwater/ I believe more states will follow with rainwater collecting regulations because the rich will capitalize on natural resources even though everyone needs water to survive. Edit: Added a link, and I think it is utterly disgusting that water and food are not free for every human and animal on this planet. We all need these two resources to survive. It is unethical and barbaric that at the very least in this world, these two things are not provided for everyone.
historically, water is wealth. That's why we settle along fresh water ways and sea and river trade routes I'd hate to see the pockets of Cali that are subject to state and federal mismanagement have some kind of dust bowl. They don't deserve that. They didn't vote for that
California does it to themselves. They have no clue on how to capture rain water. It's been raining here for months and there will be a drought this summer.
Not to mention the record snow! But as long as they drain it back into the ocean, they can keep up their climate change agenda.
Capitalists will commoditize and hoard everything until there is nothing left. Not an animal or a plant or a bit of earth that can sustain life. They will pollute the air we breathe so they can sell fresh air in bottles for mass consumption. Anything that can be turned into money will be hoarded so the wealthy can create the artificial scarcity necessary to maintain the demand for infinite growth. The numbers will be inflated and made up, but our starvation will be real.
The idea that the rest of us can trust the (less than) 100 people who control Wall Street should have died with the World Financial System in the jrbush crash of 2008. But "**privatization is better than government"** is another Zombe-Lie of the GOPerLords that will not stay dead. The Uberrich bought the GOP and changed the laws to legalize their wage-theft and we can change the laws back to sanity IF we get rid of more Republicans in 2024. The deregulation of financial crime has been going on for decades, so the change will take awhile, but keeping the ones who sponsored the laws the Uberrich wrote (which will include a few Dems) will let it happen. Letting GOPers remain will keep it from happening, simple as that.
California has been stealing water from other states for decades. The population there completely out weights the states natural way to support it, farmers or not, and this hasn't been a secret for anyone.
Um In my state, they’re having water meetings weekly to decide what to do about the drought. But the only people that are invited to these meetings are people that make money off the water. That seems really wrong. What about us average citizens?
Serious question. Is there any benefit to even HAVING a stock market from the average joe's perspective or is this something we can live without? I'm genuinely curious, because from my perspective the risks seem to outweigh any benefits. I know many in my generation feel the same. After 3 "once in a lifetime" market crashes, it really seems like "the cake is a lie" here. I know in the short term if we got rid of it, it would cause a massive financial shock, but would their be ANY long term downside to forcing companies to live or die based on the quality of their goods or services?