3 ms·

During the California drought, my mom put an hourglass in her shower, to help save water for the state. But in the Central Valley, they didn’t stop watering alm

by gen220 6y ago

During the California drought, my mom put an hourglass in her shower, to help save water for the state. But in the Central Valley, they didn’t stop watering almond trees. She stopped watering her shrubs, while farms were purchasing secondhand oil drilling equipment in a race to the bottom of the water table. It’s like our federal budget: when times our tough, we “tighten our belts” by cutting basic research or education funding from 5% to 2%, but won’t flinch at spending >50% of discretionary budget on “defense”.

fennecfoxen 6y ago
Almond trees last 20-25 years and take 4 years to bear fruit. Saving almond trees during a drought would be an excellent use of the Central Valley's water supplies. Short-lived water-intensive crops like rice and alfalfa, on the other hand, we could have done without. You would think that this would mean that the almond farmers would simply buy water from any rice farmers who had seniority in their water rights. Hahahahahahhahahaha, you fool! That would make sense, so it's illegal. Also, if an alfalfa farmer who did get water didn't use it all (in the name of conservation, perhaps) they'd lose access to that water forever.
- tdeck 6y ago
  Almond farmers are sucking water out of the Central Valley aquifers faster than it can be replaced, even in a rainy year. The problem is there's no limit on drilling and pumping. IIUC riparian rights are handled differently in the western US than they have been traditionally elsewhere, leading to a race to deplete the shared resource before it's all gone.
  - gen220 6y ago
    There’s a nice planet money episode about this: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/425392169 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/425392169
- gen220 6y ago
  It’s a good point, about almond trees. I’m not doubting that it made the “most” sense in the moment. I guess I’m more distressed by how we ended up specializing in such water intensive crops, in a valley with a severe and worsening, decades-long water shortage! Within a few decades, there won’t be water left to grow anything... I’m not generally interventionist, but I think the markets have failed us here (unless I’m severely misunderstanding things, please correct me). I‘m all for almonds and rice, but we really should be taxing the externalities. I’m pessimistic we’ll ever get to that equilibrium. But yeah. All this focusing on consumer water use is a distraction. We need to have an honest discussion about how the agriculture water system should be architected, so the state can continue to be productive for generations to come.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    Markets have failed you because (1) they are not active in a key part of the process. Specifically, the Central Valley water supply, which is a key input, is not operated by a market. It's operated as a government giveaway. and (2) because property rights (to aquifer water) do not exist and are not enforced. This is one of the Big Three Things that Kill Market Efficiency (the other two being barriers to entry and high transaction costs). If you want to intervene, intervene to restore market order. Convert water allocation rights into to property, allow them to be bought and sold, and give somebody title to the local groundwater, somehow. Make things cost the right amount of money. If that means almonds are too expensive to grow anymore, then that will happen. If that means almonds are worth it long term and they should get the water instead of the alfalfa in the short term, that will happen too.
    - gen220 6y ago
      I’m inclined to agree with you, but let me think through this out loud... If people could buy and sell water rights, those with property on an aquifer would get harvesting rights proportional to their land. They could sell it to the almond farmers, and ask for a price that’s more or less equal to the farmer’s expected profit, which cuts into the farmers’ margin. This is kind of analogous to selling crude oil to refineries (petroleum is like almonds!). I’d expect big companies to buy up land to secure water rights. Probably the same companies that own massive almond plantations, because vertical integration. I don’t think that this system would reverse aquifer depletion? Unless we artificially restrict the supply of water in the water rights contract?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by gen220 6y ago

fennecfoxen 6y ago

Almond trees last 20-25 years and take 4 years to bear fruit. Saving almond trees during a drought would be an excellent use of the Central Valley's water supplies. Short-lived water-intensive crops like rice and alfalfa, on the other hand, we could have done without. You would think that this would mean that the almond farmers would simply buy water from any rice farmers who had seniority in their water rights. Hahahahahahhahahaha, you fool! That would make sense, so it's illegal. Also, if an alfalfa farmer who did get water didn't use it all (in the name of conservation, perhaps) they'd lose access to that water forever.

tdeck 6y ago
Almond farmers are sucking water out of the Central Valley aquifers faster than it can be replaced, even in a rainy year. The problem is there's no limit on drilling and pumping. IIUC riparian rights are handled differently in the western US than they have been traditionally elsewhere, leading to a race to deplete the shared resource before it's all gone.
- gen220 6y ago
  There’s a nice planet money episode about this: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/425392169 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/425392169
gen220 6y ago
It’s a good point, about almond trees. I’m not doubting that it made the “most” sense in the moment. I guess I’m more distressed by how we ended up specializing in such water intensive crops, in a valley with a severe and worsening, decades-long water shortage! Within a few decades, there won’t be water left to grow anything... I’m not generally interventionist, but I think the markets have failed us here (unless I’m severely misunderstanding things, please correct me). I‘m all for almonds and rice, but we really should be taxing the externalities. I’m pessimistic we’ll ever get to that equilibrium. But yeah. All this focusing on consumer water use is a distraction. We need to have an honest discussion about how the agriculture water system should be architected, so the state can continue to be productive for generations to come.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  Markets have failed you because (1) they are not active in a key part of the process. Specifically, the Central Valley water supply, which is a key input, is not operated by a market. It's operated as a government giveaway. and (2) because property rights (to aquifer water) do not exist and are not enforced. This is one of the Big Three Things that Kill Market Efficiency (the other two being barriers to entry and high transaction costs). If you want to intervene, intervene to restore market order. Convert water allocation rights into to property, allow them to be bought and sold, and give somebody title to the local groundwater, somehow. Make things cost the right amount of money. If that means almonds are too expensive to grow anymore, then that will happen. If that means almonds are worth it long term and they should get the water instead of the alfalfa in the short term, that will happen too.
  - gen220 6y ago
    I’m inclined to agree with you, but let me think through this out loud... If people could buy and sell water rights, those with property on an aquifer would get harvesting rights proportional to their land. They could sell it to the almond farmers, and ask for a price that’s more or less equal to the farmer’s expected profit, which cuts into the farmers’ margin. This is kind of analogous to selling crude oil to refineries (petroleum is like almonds!). I’d expect big companies to buy up land to secure water rights. Probably the same companies that own massive almond plantations, because vertical integration. I don’t think that this system would reverse aquifer depletion? Unless we artificially restrict the supply of water in the water rights contract?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]