4 ms·

I may be missing some context here (didn't read the wp article you're linking). But evaluating farms based on the "economic activity" they produce just sounds a

• PavlovsCat 11y ago
  Not just that.. I didn't fully read it myself, and it ends with this: > In recent decades, farmers and cities have both made strides in reducing their water use. Already, the agricultural industry has embraced techniques like drip irrigation. Farmers are using about the same amount of water as they did in 1960s, but they have doubled the amount of money they get. > The argument for focusing urban conservation may come down to practical concerns. It takes time and investment to make farms more efficient, and the state has already put money into encouraging farmers to buy efficiency upgrades. During drought emergencies, water use can be curtailed faster by simply telling people not to water their lawns. > Besides, the cities are growing. Unless wasteful practices (like grass lawns) can be untaught now, urban users will start to consume more and more of the state’s water. Egg on my face, and apologies to anyone mislead by my being sloppy, that wasn't my intention.
• Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Not really. In terms of dollars they produce quite a bit of value, because they produce premium fresh vegetables at times when they're out of season elsewhere, but you say you don't want to do that. In terms of actual keep-people-from-starving-to-death calories, California doesn't produce a whole lot (that would be the Midwest and the Canadian prairie provinces). No one is going to die if fresh organic artichokes become unavailable.