[SkittyDog]

You should read "Cadillac Desert", if you live in the American Southwestern state--California, Arizona, and Nevada in particular. It has significant implications for the future survivability of large-scale civilization in the region.

Mark Reisner originally wrote the book in the early 1990s, and his predictions have turned out to be quite accurate over the last three decades.

If you want to make informed decisions, as a voter and a resident, this is probably the single most important thing you need to get educated about.

[kortilla]

It’s hyperbolic trash though. What is happening to the Colorado river has been predicted as a possibility since the dams were built.

It has absolutely no implications for the survivability of large scale civilizations in the area because the vast majority of the water goes to farming. Residential and office usage is willing to pay far more than farmers and uses significantly less.

The flow rate of the Colorado river could drop by another 70% and still support everyone living here (socal, az, nv). The instance things get a little dire, farmer rights will be stripped away by the voters, they’ll pay market rate like everyone else, and the problem will be solved overnight.

[SkittyDog]

> It’s hyperbolic trash though.

This is rude, and unnecessary. If your own counter-argument is actually sound, why are you bothering to label Reisner's as trash? It doesn't make you more believable--it mostly just undermines your credibility, because you apparently don't trust the soundness of your arguments to stand on their own.

Have you read the HN comment guidelines? I'll quote something that you might want to consider:

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

Right now, I have zero interest in engaging with you, because of the unpleasantly combatitive way you've chosen to approach the topic. What would even be the point of trying to have a discussion with someone who believes it's OK to speak to strangers like this?

Consider rewriting your comment, and maybe we can talk about the actual merits of Reisner... As it is now, good luck, and I hope you learn a better way to interact with the world.

[solardev]

Water rights aren't going away without a fight. It's not something voters really understand. In the west, it's a super complex topic. There's a reason politicians go to "hey, don't water your lawn this year! No water at restaurants unless you ask for it!" mode whenever there's an issue now. That sort of worthless virtue signaling is the only thing they can really accomplish vs big water/ag. And the Republicans will weaponize rural water rights as just another thing to use against the libs.

Even if you can redo water rights (which won't happen), what happens when farmers lose their water? People aren't going to be stoked about not having easy access to beef, almonds, etc. And the farm subsidies would have to massively go up even more, which Republicans will fight tooth and nail for while pretending to defend the small farmer.

What isn't hyperbole is that cyclical mega droughts is part of our new norm and this is going to become an issue every year, alongside wildfires. None of it will be solved overnight, and it will probably get much much worse in our lifetimes. Welcome to the future lol.

[leoedin]

When it's between having almonds or the taps drying up, people will absolutely redefine water rights. Ultimately democracy is a numbers game, and there's far, far more people living in cities than there are farmers.

The speed of the response to Covid (initially...) was a good demonstration of how fast society can react when threatened with imminent danger. We went from "liberal democracies will never limit freedom of movement" to a broadly consensual "nobody can leave their house" in 2 weeks. How fast do you think the citizens of LA will change their mind about almond farming when their taps dry up?

[patrick451]

What we learned during covid is that propaganda has jaw dropping power and that a large fraction of the population is vulnerable to it. The citizens of LA will change their minds about almonds when the media tells them to.

[solardev]

The citizens of LA will blindly follow whichever tyrant is closest to their values, media or not. The media is far weaker than it's been in decades, and cults of personality amplified by marketing way more powerful.

[solardev]

But democracy isn't really about numbers, just power and propaganda. It's never been one person one vote. The urban rural divide has been going on for decades if not centuries, and still the rural areas have disproportionate power and the cities almost none (at the federal level). Various systems from the electoral college to campaign finance to the bilateral congress to the courts serve to purposely dilute the individual electoral power of each citizen,transferring power to political dynasties instead... to the point that what we have is way closer to a corrupt oligarchy than any meaningful sort of democracy.

Ultimately the citizens of LA don't have any meaningful political power outside of Sacramento. Water is a multi state thing and the urban dwellers have loud voices but no meaningful representation. They can yell all they want, but most of the country by area doesn't care about them. By population they should win every issue, but they haven't for decades because we don't actually have a democracy.

[google234123]

You don't even have to directly deal with water rights. The state could easily make it completely impractical to farm with onerous regulation and taxes - something liberal states love to do in general.

[SkittyDog]

The "state" is not a unitary actor that somehow magically intuits and implements the desires of a majority of voters. All state policy, but especially legislation, is a massive hodge-podge of independent actors motivated by all sorts of factors, and very often in direct opposition to each other's interests. All those actors are just as selfish, ignorant, stupid, greedy, angry, racist, corrupt, and venal as the rest of the human race.

The state's legislative apparatus will always do (and ONLY do) that which is achieved by the outcome of all the competing interests and their efforts at lobbying, contributing, marketing, persuading, bribing, intimidating, etc, etc. Occasionally there may be room for the individual conscience of a principled actor. But most often the ethics of individuals don't mean anything in the face of the economic, political, and cultural forces that shape state policy.

Even with direct ballot intiatives, we've just shifted the target of all those lobbying efforts from the statehouse to your house. The mass of voters might be less immediately corrupt and power-hungry than professional politicians in the legislature, but we're also more ignorant, stupid, distracted, and impatient than the pros.. And since ballot initiatives because a thing, we've managed to create about as many serious problems as we've been able to solve.

There is no such thing as "easily" when it comes to making laws--unless you're a dictator with a firm grip on power.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

I'll give you another piece of 'hyperbolic trash':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Knife

;-)

[arbitrary_name]

Provide some evidence. Reisner's work is extensively researched and is well respected, generally.

You have just showed up with your own hyperbole, and nothing to back it up.