4 ms·

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top t

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-gdp-by-industry/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...

kardianos 6y ago
Do you eat money?
- rednerrus 6y ago
  I get all my calories watching Doogie Howser reruns.
- ramraj07 6y ago
  We could all stand to eat fewer almonds though.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  California isn't big on dietary staple agricultural goods. The five biggest ag businesses are dairy, grapes, almonds, cattle, pistachios, and strawberries, none of which we really need to grow here. They're luxury foods generally. There's not that much that's grown here that couldn't be grown elsewhere.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Exactly. We could all eat drought resistant oats for each meal with a shot of essential vitamins and minerals. Very efficient and green!
    - dqv 6y ago
      There's no need to bring the argument to this level of absurdity. The parent made a valid point about those food items being luxuries. Less fun is not the same thing as no fun.
    - nitwit005 6y ago
      Truly, how would we survive if wine and almonds were a bit more expensive. An unlivable horror.
  - njarboe 6y ago
    The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds and that is why about 70% of the world almond production happens there. If we don't really need to grow them here, then one does not really need almonds at all. But what singular food item does the world really need?
    - bsder 6y ago
      > The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds Except for that whole pesky "lack of rain" thing--which was part of "climate" last I checked. That would seem to indicate that California's Central Valley really isn't the best climate for growing almonds.
    - georgeecollins 6y ago
      Rice
    - npsimons 6y ago
      > about 70% of the world almond production happens there 80% actually[0], and that only uses 8% of agricultural water in California. Given that dairy consumes 15% and only produces 1.4% of world yield (plus it can easily be done elsewhere), perhaps we should focus on that first. [0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
    - rufus_foreman 6y ago
      I don't think the issue is that people are growing almonds in California or even that growing almonds in California takes a large amount of water. The issue as I understand it is that water rights in California (and everywhere else) are a mess and that there are no incentives that would allow water rights that are being used for relatively unproductive uses to be transferred to people using them for more productive uses.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Money can be exchanged for food. Same thing, for practical purposes.
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    At the end of the day, someone has to produce it
- spaced-out 6y ago
  You would have a point if we were talking about farmers growing staples to feed the local community, but we're not. We're talking about farms that are growing luxury crops (such as grapes, pistachios, almonds) for export. It's perfectly reasonable to ask if this is wise to export water intensive luxury crops in a state that's experiencing shortages.
rsj_hn 6y ago
> However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. This is what economists sometimes call a stock-flow inconsistent argument. Water, like money, circulates, and to stick your finger on one part of that chain and insist that something is being used by X and thus not available for Y does more to obfuscate than enlighten. Some of the water "spent" on agriculture then evaporates into the air and ends up as snowfall where it is "spent again" on skiing, and then it melts and travels down a river and lands in hetch-hetchy where it is "spent" on someone in San Francisco taking a shower. Things like subsidies matter, government's role in diverting water from A to B matters. But just as more rains fall on rural areas than urban areas, you will see more water used to support agriculture than to support cities. That does not mean that anyone is taking away anyone's else water and using it up for some nefarious purpose.
- btilly 6y ago
  You may be overestimating the effects of circulation of water. It is true that water that evaporates is likely to someday fall somewhere as rain or snow. However agriculture is going to spread a lot of water during summer. At that point it evaporates very efficiency. But unfortunately during summer it is unlikely that anywhere in California will have the conditions for rain, so that water is going to fall in some other place. Normally Colorado, from which it is unlikely to go back into California. So from the point of California, water used in agriculture is gone. Not to be seen again any time soon.
  - rsj_hn 6y ago
    Well, yes, water doesn't respect state boundaries so I'm not claiming that California is a closed system, nor am I claiming the majority of water used in agriculture evaporates rather than going into the water table. But just as water evaporates in CA and lands on Colorado, so water evaporates in the pacific and lands on California, and we get ground water and river water back from Colorado. So are you claiming there is some systematic net movement of water out of California and into other states/countries? That would require presenting an entirely different set of facts than has been presented here.

kardianos 6y ago

Do you eat money?

rednerrus 6y ago
I get all my calories watching Doogie Howser reruns.
ramraj07 6y ago
We could all stand to eat fewer almonds though.
mullingitover 6y ago
California isn't big on dietary staple agricultural goods. The five biggest ag businesses are dairy, grapes, almonds, cattle, pistachios, and strawberries, none of which we really need to grow here. They're luxury foods generally. There's not that much that's grown here that couldn't be grown elsewhere.
- refurb 6y ago
  Exactly. We could all eat drought resistant oats for each meal with a shot of essential vitamins and minerals. Very efficient and green!
  - dqv 6y ago
    There's no need to bring the argument to this level of absurdity. The parent made a valid point about those food items being luxuries. Less fun is not the same thing as no fun.
  - nitwit005 6y ago
    Truly, how would we survive if wine and almonds were a bit more expensive. An unlivable horror.
- njarboe 6y ago
  The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds and that is why about 70% of the world almond production happens there. If we don't really need to grow them here, then one does not really need almonds at all. But what singular food item does the world really need?
  - bsder 6y ago
    > The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds Except for that whole pesky "lack of rain" thing--which was part of "climate" last I checked. That would seem to indicate that California's Central Valley really isn't the best climate for growing almonds.
  - georgeecollins 6y ago
    Rice
  - npsimons 6y ago
    > about 70% of the world almond production happens there 80% actually[0], and that only uses 8% of agricultural water in California. Given that dairy consumes 15% and only produces 1.4% of world yield (plus it can easily be done elsewhere), perhaps we should focus on that first. [0] - https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths https://www.truthordrought.com/almond-milk-myths
  - rufus_foreman 6y ago
    I don't think the issue is that people are growing almonds in California or even that growing almonds in California takes a large amount of water. The issue as I understand it is that water rights in California (and everywhere else) are a mess and that there are no incentives that would allow water rights that are being used for relatively unproductive uses to be transferred to people using them for more productive uses.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Money can be exchanged for food. Same thing, for practical purposes.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  At the end of the day, someone has to produce it
spaced-out 6y ago
You would have a point if we were talking about farmers growing staples to feed the local community, but we're not. We're talking about farms that are growing luxury crops (such as grapes, pistachios, almonds) for export. It's perfectly reasonable to ask if this is wise to export water intensive luxury crops in a state that's experiencing shortages.

rsj_hn 6y ago

> However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. This is what economists sometimes call a stock-flow inconsistent argument. Water, like money, circulates, and to stick your finger on one part of that chain and insist that something is being used by X and thus not available for Y does more to obfuscate than enlighten. Some of the water "spent" on agriculture then evaporates into the air and ends up as snowfall where it is "spent again" on skiing, and then it melts and travels down a river and lands in hetch-hetchy where it is "spent" on someone in San Francisco taking a shower. Things like subsidies matter, government's role in diverting water from A to B matters. But just as more rains fall on rural areas than urban areas, you will see more water used to support agriculture than to support cities. That does not mean that anyone is taking away anyone's else water and using it up for some nefarious purpose.

btilly 6y ago
You may be overestimating the effects of circulation of water. It is true that water that evaporates is likely to someday fall somewhere as rain or snow. However agriculture is going to spread a lot of water during summer. At that point it evaporates very efficiency. But unfortunately during summer it is unlikely that anywhere in California will have the conditions for rain, so that water is going to fall in some other place. Normally Colorado, from which it is unlikely to go back into California. So from the point of California, water used in agriculture is gone. Not to be seen again any time soon.
- rsj_hn 6y ago
  Well, yes, water doesn't respect state boundaries so I'm not claiming that California is a closed system, nor am I claiming the majority of water used in agriculture evaporates rather than going into the water table. But just as water evaporates in CA and lands on Colorado, so water evaporates in the pacific and lands on California, and we get ground water and river water back from Colorado. So are you claiming there is some systematic net movement of water out of California and into other states/countries? That would require presenting an entirely different set of facts than has been presented here.