Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why do you add restrictions on water usage by discretionnary laws and never just put higher taxes on it?

The most useless usages of water would naturally disappear if water were sufficiently expensive. A glass of water at $0.30, a washing cycle at $8... so what? Watering some lawn for $30 a day? Ok lawnlords would finally get it.

You could say that at this price, agriculture wouldn't be possible. And, ehm, that's quite an accurate picture of the reality constraints: Given your drought, it's foolish to do so much local agriculture. You may need to do it offshore and import it, probably by ocean cargo. There's a point where petrol is "cheaper" than water, but only the rise of the water market will make the optimal optimizations.




The cost of water for residential use in California is already pretty ridiculous in many areas. As already mentioned many, many times, the problem is basically that there are multiple systems in place which subsidize water use in agriculture and it is, more or less, going to be a disaster for everyone else in the state.

About the only things I could do to reduce my own water use at this point would be to drain the pool (or maybe build a structure around it to reduce evaporation), replace the hot water heater, and reduce personal hygiene to nearly-unacceptable levels. The best part, though, is that none of that would reduce my water bill by a significant amount for at least six months (because most of the bill is a calculated charge for sewage treatment based on the previous year's water use), and the city will probably still find a way to justify power-washing the trolley station every other week.

Even better, though, is that most of the agriculture in California is certainly not local in any sense of the word (other than the sense that it happens here). The majority of the agriculture is for export, either to the rest of the U.S. or the rest of the world, because you can't import climate, but you can import water (or force everyone else to do so while the corporate farms suck up the groundwater) and labor.


> systems in place which subsidize water use in agriculture

Once this is said, lawmakers can complain all they want about depleted water resources. It sounds like "let's take water from citizens and give it to farms"...


Capitalism???? In America???? You've clearly not met our government. The Free Market is for poor people.


Actually I'm suggesting to raise taxes to increase water price. It's not totally capitalism and I wonder whether there's a name for that.

In my country:

- Left wing politics are about increasing taxes on the rich to redistribute to social systems,

- Right wing politics is about making things simpler for companies, including lower taxes,

- Capitalist ecologists (which I'm trying to find a better name for) are about transferring taxes onto rare/polluting resources to integrate the side effects of those resources. Example: If petrol provokes greenhouse gases, we should tax petrol enough so that people would use it in reasonable amounts only. Thanks to this new revenue stream for the government, we can lower the taxes on employment (which are above 50% here), because taxes on employment lower the demand for employment and that has been a stupid thing to do. Instead of taxing employment, let's get the same taxes from nasty resources like petrol.

It's all explained in detail in some books (in France, Jancovici is the leader for those), but I don't know whether there's an international name for that.


What do you do when petrol consumption diminishes to the point that it's no longer a good revenue source? At that point, government can do things (increase vehicle weight through higher safety standards, refuse to invest in public transportation) to safeguard their cash cow.


> What do you do when petrol consumption diminishes to the point that it's no longer a good revenue source?

... Survive?

I mean that's the goal of it, it's to decrease the consumption of this resource if it's considered harmful to the biodiversity (in the case of petrol) or wasted (in the case of water). At no point is the goal is to make the govt richer, that's why I said income tax should be reduced thereasmuch.


Right, but then you have to raise income taxes again once the revenue stream from petrol dries up.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: