5 ms·
Groundwater use by cities is more economically productive than it's use by agriculture. The former should be privileged in the inevitable allocation conflicts.
by g8oz 8y ago
Groundwater use by cities is more economically productive than it's use by agriculture. The former should be privileged in the inevitable allocation conflicts.
- gonzo 8y agoNot everyone likes Soylent.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoIf I may elaborate, cheap (subsidized?) access to water in agriculture is what makes food products as cheap as they are today. Any water scarcity applied to agriculture will affect the cities through higher food prices.
- munk-a 8y agoIt will end up affecting different foods differently. Nuts, meats and other complex proteins are likely to be among the most price affected.
- mattnewton 8y agoDoesn’t that imply we’re hiding some of the costs for nuts and meat today?
- munk-a 8y agoThe US government subsidizes almost all agriculture in some way, water subsidies help nut & meat production the most from what I've read, but often times states will offer tax rebates for the agricultural use of land and just in the last fifty years or so has agricultural run off been regarded as a cost that should be paid by the farmer instead of an unbalanced externality.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoNot all "groundwater use by cities is more economically productive than it's use by agriculture". People use hoses to wash cars and sidewalks. How about an auction system, with a cash subsidy to allow the poor to buy enough for hydration and basic hygiene?
- Retric 8y agoNot really. Farms can't afford to pay municipal rates which people washing their cars do. If you look at the cost of a car wash paying even say 0.1 cent per gallon would make a minimal difference, but no farm could afford to pay 0.1 cent per gallon. Any system that forces farmers to compete with other users of water means the farmers lose.
- mattashii 8y agoYou can think of a system in which farms are just not built in places with potential water scarcity, but built to use renewable water sources for their plant growth. My point: If you build a company in a location which is unviable in the long term, should you be subsidized as to not move to a more viable location? I think such subsidies are unviable in any but the short term, and are counterproductive for every other party involved.
- emiliobumachar 8y agoVery good point. However, I still think an auction system would create less distortion than case-by-case measures to de-prioritize agriculture in allocation conflicts.
- btbuildem 8y agoIf you price farmers out of the water market, they will produce less food. Can you imagine what happens when we start having large scale food shortages?
- sufiyan 8y agoYou just don't know about sustainable agriculture and drip irrigation. So, your comment isn't well informed. We won't have a good shortage. The smart farmers will figure a way out.
- adrianmonk 8y agoHow do you know whether they know about drip irrigation?
- Sabinus 8y agoAnd if they produce less food, prices will rise and they'll have more money to buy more water or Lord forbid make some investments in water sustainability.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]