6 ms·

Its pretty sad; California's legislators have ignored this issue for the last 50 years.

by bifrost 5y ago

whateveracct 5y ago
$$$
- chmod600 5y ago
  Is it really the money? I'm willing to believe that it is. But I'm also willing to believe that farmers are a politically popular group. Who wants to be the politician who drives farmers out of business?
  - whateveracct 5y ago
    okay okay $$$ and power
ipnon 5y ago
Agriculture is a small part of California's economy in terms of population, but in terms of land agriculture is the dominant industry in perhaps more than half of the counties. This means that for many members of the California state assembly, farmers are their most important voting block. This leads to the agricultural industry having a disproportionate political influence relative to its raw GDP.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  As always, legislative districts and FPTP are the worst.
- masonic 5y ago
  Very few members of the party in power come from rural districts.
  - acdha 5y ago
    Now, yes. Ignoring the fact that the Democrats are not a single ideological block, they also haven’t held control of the entire state for most of the last 50 years the original poster was talking about. Agriculture is a politically powerful industry and water usage hasn’t been enough of a crisis to override normal political influences for that long. I remember the drought in the 90s where they were basically telling you to let your lawn die and it was still basically presented as “we can’t ask farmers to use much less unless we buy them out”.
    - will4274 5y ago
      Of the last 22 years, Democrats have had control of all three branches of California's government for 14 of them, including all of the last 10. Besides those 14 years, no party has ever had unanimous control of California.
      - acdha 5y ago
        Note my comment about the party not being uniform: they have never had something like the ideological purges which the GOP has conducted so even if you have a Democratic majority there’s been considerably less support for telling farmers that they need to dramatically change their entire business.
        bifrost 5y ago
        I'm not sure thats true, the D side of California is going pretty hard towards the "far left" aka "progressive" side of things. Its impossible to get elected in the major cities without being a progressive or DSA member. I'm pretty sure that Farming isn't on the DSA radar.
        acdha 5y ago
        I was describing the historical situation and even now I think that's overstating things considerably — San Francisco and LA aren't exactly a stranglehold on state power and even there the policies actually enacted are nowhere near as lefty as conservative media would have you believe. Water shortages are going to make reforms happen at some point but _everyone_ knows it'll be a political knife-fight. Betting on, say, desalination plants might actually be easier from the perspective of not getting mired down in the snarl that are water rights contracts.

Its pretty sad; California's legislators have ignored this issue for the last 50 years.

whateveracct 5y ago

$$$

chmod600 5y ago
Is it really the money? I'm willing to believe that it is. But I'm also willing to believe that farmers are a politically popular group. Who wants to be the politician who drives farmers out of business?
- whateveracct 5y ago
  okay okay $$$ and power

ipnon 5y ago

Agriculture is a small part of California's economy in terms of population, but in terms of land agriculture is the dominant industry in perhaps more than half of the counties. This means that for many members of the California state assembly, farmers are their most important voting block. This leads to the agricultural industry having a disproportionate political influence relative to its raw GDP.

Ericson2314 5y ago
As always, legislative districts and FPTP are the worst.
masonic 5y ago
Very few members of the party in power come from rural districts.
- acdha 5y ago
  Now, yes. Ignoring the fact that the Democrats are not a single ideological block, they also haven’t held control of the entire state for most of the last 50 years the original poster was talking about. Agriculture is a politically powerful industry and water usage hasn’t been enough of a crisis to override normal political influences for that long. I remember the drought in the 90s where they were basically telling you to let your lawn die and it was still basically presented as “we can’t ask farmers to use much less unless we buy them out”.
  - will4274 5y ago
    Of the last 22 years, Democrats have had control of all three branches of California's government for 14 of them, including all of the last 10. Besides those 14 years, no party has ever had unanimous control of California.
    - acdha 5y ago
      Note my comment about the party not being uniform: they have never had something like the ideological purges which the GOP has conducted so even if you have a Democratic majority there’s been considerably less support for telling farmers that they need to dramatically change their entire business.
      - bifrost 5y ago
        I'm not sure thats true, the D side of California is going pretty hard towards the "far left" aka "progressive" side of things. Its impossible to get elected in the major cities without being a progressive or DSA member. I'm pretty sure that Farming isn't on the DSA radar.
        acdha 5y ago
        I was describing the historical situation and even now I think that's overstating things considerably — San Francisco and LA aren't exactly a stranglehold on state power and even there the policies actually enacted are nowhere near as lefty as conservative media would have you believe. Water shortages are going to make reforms happen at some point but _everyone_ knows it'll be a political knife-fight. Betting on, say, desalination plants might actually be easier from the perspective of not getting mired down in the snarl that are water rights contracts.