Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Pricing water in California
The era of cheap water in arid California is ending, and none too soon. Droughts come and go, but the population of California and the states up-Colorado keeps going up. Habits of consumption need to change, and a gradual ratcheting of prices is a much better approach than direct regulation or a rationing regime, either of which has a great potential for corruption. The question is, will the politicians have the stamina to raise prices consistently enough to reduce the demand for water over the long term?
5 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Apr 15, 08:10:00 PM:
I believe Agriculture still uses the lion's share of water in California for irrigation. I expect that if things get bad enough the state of California will simply steal the farmers' water rights. That will have repercussions for us all as a significant percentage of American fruits and vegetables come from irrigated California fields. In Colorado they have purchased water rights from farmers, making the farmers rich and that goes down with the Public almost as well as executive bonuses. Colorado has floated schemes to get Nebraska's water on and off for years. So far they have been unsuccessful.
By , at
Thu Apr 16, 09:15:00 AM:
"Habits of consumption need to change..."
That won't matter as long as the government is allowing millions of people to "migrate" here. The native population of California was at zero population growth decades ago. If we had 17 million citizens like we used to, there would be zero problems with the current water supply. Remember that the next time someone says that the people who complain about illegal aliens are "all racists". We just knew where all of this was going a long, long time ago.
By , at
Fri Apr 17, 06:18:00 AM:
Another great comment buried by Tigerhawks greater content!
Feeblemind - My father used to say that the water supply problem in the west could be solved by not growing rice in an arid region. Just as there is a demand for homeowners to let their lawns turn brown, their should be a sensible shift toward crops that use less water. Saving 10% of 40% is going to do more good than saving 10% of 20%
By , at
Fri Apr 17, 09:58:00 AM:
True, without a doubt, that much of america's agriculture comes from California.
But it SHOULD come from other states not suffering drought.
Reflecting the true cost of water and not distorting market movement to best-location-best-price is a conservative principle that I like.
By , at
Fri Apr 17, 03:11:00 PM:
Re Tyree: I recognize your point about growing rice in the desert. The crux of the problem as I see it in California is water rights. There still is plenty of water, but if you own the right to the water, it is YOURS and you can do what you want with it. You can grow rice with it, or you can sell or lease your right. So if you are the government looking at a farmer using his water to raise rice and you want the practice to stop, you have two choices. You can buy or lease the right, or you can steal the right, and I think that is ultimately going to happen because of the population growth. The political pressure will be too great to allow farmers to irrigate and the water will gradually be taken (stolen). I just don't see California paying for water rights, that's why I think they will simply take the rights (though I hope I am wrong about that). As for growing the crops in other areas of the country, there aren't many areas in the continental USA where you can grow fruits and vegetables in the winter. The southern half of Fla and south Texas are the only places I can think of and I don't know if the acreage and water is available in those areas to take up what will be lost in CA. That would leave imports as the only other alternative for out-of-season produce.
