22 ms·

California should stop the conversion of water into money.... I still don't get how a farmer can get water for basically free, then grow high need crops like al

California should stop the conversion of water into money.... I still don't get how a farmer can get water for basically free, then grow high need crops like almonds, and then sell those out of state and internationally. I don't see the difference between a farmer pumping rare water out of state vs rare almonds out of state.

ipnon 5y ago
Externalities is the word: the real costs that aren't included in the price. Every gallon of water pumped is a gallon less that can be used for drinking, bathing or other agriculture, but the price for water remains low and fixed. This means there is no economic signal for the water market to respond to in times when water is scarce. If we included the cost of externalities in the price of water, water would only be used for the most useful tasks. First keeping away everyone's thirst, then keeping everyone bathed and sanitary, then watering our staple crops, and then finally we can keep the golf courses green and water slides running. But when changes in scarcity do not affect changes in price, the golf courses stay green while the drinking taps start going dry. There is enough water for everything we need, if not for everything we want.
- wwweston 5y ago
  There's also a plausible case that even some water-hungry agricultural production may be sustainable with more water-efficient techniques... but someone operating under water right frameworks where use isn't metered has no immediate incentive to adapt to them. It really seems like the framework of water usage in the west needs some serious reconsideration.
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    I assume most of these farmers are also getting massive government subsidies, so you possibly wouldn't have to get into the nasty legal tangle of the water rights, just remove subsidies from anyone doing anything they shouldn't be doing, that can include: spraying the wrong pesticides, wasting too much water, not using techniques that store carbon vs release carbon/methane, avoiding monocultures etc. There is an argument for subsidizing farmers, but it also effectively makes them part of the government and somehow those two things are kept very politically seperate.
    - ipnon 5y ago
      On the federal level, the agricultural industry receives Covid relief stimulus sized subsidies every four or five years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_farm_bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_farm_bill
Spivak 5y ago
Something about this seems off. If there were a bunch of hungry buyers for almonds in-state at some given price then why would a farmer even bother with the shipping cost? And also exporting goods is necessary for a healthy economy. If an area exports more money than goods and services then it gets poorer.
- username90 5y ago
  You are exporting your water from California. Wouldn't people be happier if they had lots of water for their home use and instead of those minor agricultural exports? Seems like a huge misallocation of resources to me.
desine 5y ago
I don’t necessarily disagree, but prioritize water bottlers like Arrowhead above agriculture. I’d also like to see more money put into ocean desalination (solar powered, to cover another great natural resource we have).
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > prioritize water bottlers like Arrowhead above agriculture NO. The way to deliver water to humans is in permanent pipes, not in disposable plastic bottles.
  - desine 5y ago
    That’s exactly my point. Prioritize changing their price.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > I’d also like to see more money put into ocean desalination (solar powered, to cover another great natural resource we have). De-salination produces enormous amounts of saltwater brine that are usually dumped back into the ocean... which in turn threatens marine life: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46863146 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46863146 De-salination should be a last-ditch attempt, not something that should be done regularly!
  - agonmon 5y ago
    Don't dump it back then. Should be easy to regulate, each liter of water produced should have a certain number of grams of salt to account for. Personally I would like to see that salt turned into structures: https://gizmodo.com/buildings-you-can-lick-9-spectacular-structures-made-o-5992613 https://gizmodo.com/buildings-you-can-lick-9-spectacular-str...
    - wiml 5y ago
      I wonder how much more costly it is to produce solid salt bricks instead of brine? I like the idea of a New Las Vegas made out of salt.
samatman 5y ago
I can tell when someone gets their California agriculture hot takes from popular media, because it's always almonds. Half of California water (period, not agricultural water, water) use is for growing alfalfa to feed to cattle. An industry where we have no comparative advantage, unlike almonds. But the water is cheap. California almond production could also be a great deal more frugal, Israelis use about 1/20th the water per almond. Their big innovation is buried irrigation, California almond ranchers spray water on the ground and it mostly just evaporates. But water is cheap. Abolish the water rights system and auction the water at a reasonable price. Almonds would stay, alfalfa would diminish or disappear. But "conversion of water into money" aka farming is good. People like to eat.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Conversion of fossil water that will be gone if we keep going is not good. People in the future like to eat too.
- whoknowswhat11 5y ago
  Or tax water at 0.25 cents per gallon. Someone buying 8 oz at the airport won’t notice. Water is scarce because in a lot of cases water is free
  - samatman 5y ago
    Eight bucks just for the water to draw a bath? No thanks. Residential and city use is a) a drop in the proverbial bucket (20% of California water use) and b) comes from a completely different system. For the most part it's drawn from snowmelt in the Sierras, and even when drought gets pretty bad it's been sustainable. Fingers crossed it will stay that way. Really it's farmers who should pay for water, and hard limits on aquifer withdrawal. They'll hate it but there's not enough to go around and I don't see an alternative. Also worth pointing out that California is an enormous place and what applies to the Central and Imperial Valleys doesn't apply to, say, the San Joaquin Delta. There's no good reason to stop growing rice in the latter, because the acre-feet of water which go into doing so are just going to flow directly into the Bay otherwise. Maybe we could pay for more of it to be diverted into the Central Valley if there was some sort of profit in it. Water auctions, say.
lumberingjack 5y ago
Meanwhile southern states that have tons of water like Georgia trying to grow almonds get under sold by California so what's happening there?
kjaftaedi 5y ago
It's far worse than almonds. Saudi Arabia is using California land to grow water intensive crops to feed their cows. (because it's illegal to do so in their own country).. and they pay next to nothing. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...

ipnon 5y ago

Externalities is the word: the real costs that aren't included in the price. Every gallon of water pumped is a gallon less that can be used for drinking, bathing or other agriculture, but the price for water remains low and fixed. This means there is no economic signal for the water market to respond to in times when water is scarce. If we included the cost of externalities in the price of water, water would only be used for the most useful tasks. First keeping away everyone's thirst, then keeping everyone bathed and sanitary, then watering our staple crops, and then finally we can keep the golf courses green and water slides running. But when changes in scarcity do not affect changes in price, the golf courses stay green while the drinking taps start going dry. There is enough water for everything we need, if not for everything we want.

wwweston 5y ago
There's also a plausible case that even some water-hungry agricultural production may be sustainable with more water-efficient techniques... but someone operating under water right frameworks where use isn't metered has no immediate incentive to adapt to them. It really seems like the framework of water usage in the west needs some serious reconsideration.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  I assume most of these farmers are also getting massive government subsidies, so you possibly wouldn't have to get into the nasty legal tangle of the water rights, just remove subsidies from anyone doing anything they shouldn't be doing, that can include: spraying the wrong pesticides, wasting too much water, not using techniques that store carbon vs release carbon/methane, avoiding monocultures etc. There is an argument for subsidizing farmers, but it also effectively makes them part of the government and somehow those two things are kept very politically seperate.
  - ipnon 5y ago
    On the federal level, the agricultural industry receives Covid relief stimulus sized subsidies every four or five years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_farm_bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_farm_bill

Spivak 5y ago

Something about this seems off. If there were a bunch of hungry buyers for almonds in-state at some given price then why would a farmer even bother with the shipping cost? And also exporting goods is necessary for a healthy economy. If an area exports more money than goods and services then it gets poorer.

username90 5y ago
You are exporting your water from California. Wouldn't people be happier if they had lots of water for their home use and instead of those minor agricultural exports? Seems like a huge misallocation of resources to me.

desine 5y ago

I don’t necessarily disagree, but prioritize water bottlers like Arrowhead above agriculture. I’d also like to see more money put into ocean desalination (solar powered, to cover another great natural resource we have).

TomSwirly 5y ago
> prioritize water bottlers like Arrowhead above agriculture NO. The way to deliver water to humans is in permanent pipes, not in disposable plastic bottles.
- desine 5y ago
  That’s exactly my point. Prioritize changing their price.
mschuster91 5y ago
> I’d also like to see more money put into ocean desalination (solar powered, to cover another great natural resource we have). De-salination produces enormous amounts of saltwater brine that are usually dumped back into the ocean... which in turn threatens marine life: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46863146 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46863146 De-salination should be a last-ditch attempt, not something that should be done regularly!
- agonmon 5y ago
  Don't dump it back then. Should be easy to regulate, each liter of water produced should have a certain number of grams of salt to account for. Personally I would like to see that salt turned into structures: https://gizmodo.com/buildings-you-can-lick-9-spectacular-structures-made-o-5992613 https://gizmodo.com/buildings-you-can-lick-9-spectacular-str...
  - wiml 5y ago
    I wonder how much more costly it is to produce solid salt bricks instead of brine? I like the idea of a New Las Vegas made out of salt.

samatman 5y ago

I can tell when someone gets their California agriculture hot takes from popular media, because it's always almonds. Half of California water (period, not agricultural water, water) use is for growing alfalfa to feed to cattle. An industry where we have no comparative advantage, unlike almonds. But the water is cheap. California almond production could also be a great deal more frugal, Israelis use about 1/20th the water per almond. Their big innovation is buried irrigation, California almond ranchers spray water on the ground and it mostly just evaporates. But water is cheap. Abolish the water rights system and auction the water at a reasonable price. Almonds would stay, alfalfa would diminish or disappear. But "conversion of water into money" aka farming is good. People like to eat.

adrianN 5y ago
Conversion of fossil water that will be gone if we keep going is not good. People in the future like to eat too.
whoknowswhat11 5y ago
Or tax water at 0.25 cents per gallon. Someone buying 8 oz at the airport won’t notice. Water is scarce because in a lot of cases water is free
- samatman 5y ago
  Eight bucks just for the water to draw a bath? No thanks. Residential and city use is a) a drop in the proverbial bucket (20% of California water use) and b) comes from a completely different system. For the most part it's drawn from snowmelt in the Sierras, and even when drought gets pretty bad it's been sustainable. Fingers crossed it will stay that way. Really it's farmers who should pay for water, and hard limits on aquifer withdrawal. They'll hate it but there's not enough to go around and I don't see an alternative. Also worth pointing out that California is an enormous place and what applies to the Central and Imperial Valleys doesn't apply to, say, the San Joaquin Delta. There's no good reason to stop growing rice in the latter, because the acre-feet of water which go into doing so are just going to flow directly into the Bay otherwise. Maybe we could pay for more of it to be diverted into the Central Valley if there was some sort of profit in it. Water auctions, say.

lumberingjack 5y ago

Meanwhile southern states that have tons of water like Georgia trying to grow almonds get under sold by California so what's happening there?

kjaftaedi 5y ago

It's far worse than almonds. Saudi Arabia is using California land to grow water intensive crops to feed their cows. (because it's illegal to do so in their own country).. and they pay next to nothing. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...