7 ms·

>In my opinion we have absolutely no business growing these crops in a desert, You might as well just say people shouldn't be living in most of the western US

>In my opinion we have absolutely no business growing these crops in a desert, You might as well just say people shouldn't be living in most of the western US then since a majority of it receives very little rainfall. It's very easy to call these people out when you're not directly affected. Yes just strip them of their major sources of income. No issue there.... You need a better plan than just telling the Governor to shut up and be ok with losing money.

JshWright 5y ago
Why should we subsidize the cost of them making money?
- nradov 5y ago
  Most of those crops aren't directly subsidized. The problem is water rights which are legally tied to real estate. So there's no way to force farmers to pay market rates for water.
  - JshWright 5y ago
    The externalized costs are absolutely being subsidized.
eloff 5y ago
They should grow drought resistant crops that use less water, because what they're doing now isn't sustainable and will end soon. Maybe wheat, maybe some livestock grazing, maybe nothing at all in some parts.
dylan604 5y ago
So that's your opinion, and it's a perfectly valid opinion. We also need a better plan on how to use the water sooner rather than later, so we need to tell the Governor to get off his damn ass and do something productive rather than wasting water for his own damn benefit. If you can't see how that's just not conflict of interest, then we really can't have a proper conversation.
rtkwe 5y ago
You can live out there with little water impact if you don't insist on importing the kind of green water intensive landscaping that the rest of the country wants. People living there is relatively ok from a water point of view (though from a power usage perspective we really should be building very different homes in that area too) it's doing farming in some of the drier parts of the US that seems wasteful when we know water is an issue there.
- WkndTriathlete 5y ago
  Nitpick: in the wet areas of the country it's not that we want green landscaping, it's that it is almost impossible to not have green landscaping because of how much rain we get. Lay down a layer of rock landscaping over landscaping fabric around a home in suburban Minnesota without maintaining it (e.g. by aggressively applying weed preventer and weeding it) and in 3-5 years it will be covered with native prairie grasses and weeds growing between and around the rock.
  - rtkwe 5y ago
    What I mean is the grass monoculture, trees, shrubs and flowers that for the ur-lawn in the US most of the us that requires a lot of extra watering to maintain.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      >grass monoculture, trees, shrubs and flowers that for the ur-lawn in the US most of the us that requires a lot of extra watering to maintain It does not. I lived in the midwest for the majority of my life and never once had to water my lawn to keep everything green and alive.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  > You can live out there with little water impact. it's doing farming in some of the drier parts of the US that seems wasteful when we know water is an issue there. Ok then they'll use it up and the problem will solve itself. I don't agree that you can live there and have the infrastructure to support jobs, food etc. with "very little impact"
simiones 5y ago
The farming will stop, one way or another. That much is certain, since the river is drying up. Whether it will stop in time to prevent other issues is the question.

JshWright 5y ago

Why should we subsidize the cost of them making money?

nradov 5y ago
Most of those crops aren't directly subsidized. The problem is water rights which are legally tied to real estate. So there's no way to force farmers to pay market rates for water.
- JshWright 5y ago
  The externalized costs are absolutely being subsidized.

eloff 5y ago

They should grow drought resistant crops that use less water, because what they're doing now isn't sustainable and will end soon. Maybe wheat, maybe some livestock grazing, maybe nothing at all in some parts.

dylan604 5y ago

So that's your opinion, and it's a perfectly valid opinion. We also need a better plan on how to use the water sooner rather than later, so we need to tell the Governor to get off his damn ass and do something productive rather than wasting water for his own damn benefit. If you can't see how that's just not conflict of interest, then we really can't have a proper conversation.

rtkwe 5y ago

You can live out there with little water impact if you don't insist on importing the kind of green water intensive landscaping that the rest of the country wants. People living there is relatively ok from a water point of view (though from a power usage perspective we really should be building very different homes in that area too) it's doing farming in some of the drier parts of the US that seems wasteful when we know water is an issue there.

WkndTriathlete 5y ago
Nitpick: in the wet areas of the country it's not that we want green landscaping, it's that it is almost impossible to not have green landscaping because of how much rain we get. Lay down a layer of rock landscaping over landscaping fabric around a home in suburban Minnesota without maintaining it (e.g. by aggressively applying weed preventer and weeding it) and in 3-5 years it will be covered with native prairie grasses and weeds growing between and around the rock.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  What I mean is the grass monoculture, trees, shrubs and flowers that for the ur-lawn in the US most of the us that requires a lot of extra watering to maintain.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    >grass monoculture, trees, shrubs and flowers that for the ur-lawn in the US most of the us that requires a lot of extra watering to maintain It does not. I lived in the midwest for the majority of my life and never once had to water my lawn to keep everything green and alive.
CountDrewku 5y ago
> You can live out there with little water impact. it's doing farming in some of the drier parts of the US that seems wasteful when we know water is an issue there. Ok then they'll use it up and the problem will solve itself. I don't agree that you can live there and have the infrastructure to support jobs, food etc. with "very little impact"

simiones 5y ago

The farming will stop, one way or another. That much is certain, since the river is drying up. Whether it will stop in time to prevent other issues is the question.