4 ms·

I am specifically not talking about the Central Valley. The Central Valley is not a desert, nor is it irrigated using water from the Colorado river (AFAIK). Pl

by sehr 10y ago

I am specifically not talking about the Central Valley. The Central Valley is not a desert, nor is it irrigated using water from the Colorado river (AFAIK). Please research this topic before responding again. Edit: spinach? I'm also talking potatoes, carrots, lettuce, onions, broccoli and cauliflower. I wish we were only at risk of losing spinach.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The Central Valley is not a desert, Quite a bit of the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley (which is the southern limb of the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley is the northern limb) is, in fact, desert.
- sehr 10y ago
  Oops! My mistake, I usually try to forget Bakersfield exists.
douche 10y ago
All of these things can be grown elsewhere, where massive, intensive irrigation isn't a necessity. Potatoes, onions and carrots can be stored for many months after harvest, even without refrigeration, and cauliflower and broccoli hold up well to freezing. Lettuce is of very questionable nutritional value to begin with... but it can be grown with minimal effort and great productivity in greenhouses.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > All of these things can be grown elsewhere, where massive, intensive irrigation isn't a necessity. If they could without displacing some other more valuable crop, at lower total cost than what they have been with irrigation in the Central Valley, they already would be. Losing production in the Central Valley reduces overall supply and increases prices, whether it moves some production elsewhere (displacing existing land uses) or not.
  - douche 10y ago
    If artificially low water costs (not to mention widespread use of illegal, sub-market rate labor) are deflating the costs, then that impacts the calculus to some degree, would you agree?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      No, it doesn't change the fact that losing Central Valley production will reduce supply and increase consumer prices. To extent that either of the factors mentioned is an actual subsidy (the labor one doesn't seem to be -- nor is it necessarily a differentiator from alternative production areas -- but the water one might be), that may mean that the reduced public cost of the subsidy may to some extent offset the increased sticker price of the no-longer-subsidized goods

by sehr 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The Central Valley is not a desert, Quite a bit of the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley (which is the southern limb of the Central Valley, the Sacramento Valley is the northern limb) is, in fact, desert.

sehr 10y ago
Oops! My mistake, I usually try to forget Bakersfield exists.

douche 10y ago

All of these things can be grown elsewhere, where massive, intensive irrigation isn't a necessity. Potatoes, onions and carrots can be stored for many months after harvest, even without refrigeration, and cauliflower and broccoli hold up well to freezing. Lettuce is of very questionable nutritional value to begin with... but it can be grown with minimal effort and great productivity in greenhouses.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> All of these things can be grown elsewhere, where massive, intensive irrigation isn't a necessity. If they could without displacing some other more valuable crop, at lower total cost than what they have been with irrigation in the Central Valley, they already would be. Losing production in the Central Valley reduces overall supply and increases prices, whether it moves some production elsewhere (displacing existing land uses) or not.
- douche 10y ago
  If artificially low water costs (not to mention widespread use of illegal, sub-market rate labor) are deflating the costs, then that impacts the calculus to some degree, would you agree?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    No, it doesn't change the fact that losing Central Valley production will reduce supply and increase consumer prices. To extent that either of the factors mentioned is an actual subsidy (the labor one doesn't seem to be -- nor is it necessarily a differentiator from alternative production areas -- but the water one might be), that may mean that the reduced public cost of the subsidy may to some extent offset the increased sticker price of the no-longer-subsidized goods