11 ms·
California moves to cut off water to thousands of farmers
- contravariant 5y ago> “We have really tried to walk that line of not wanting to invoke new measures that are going to have a significant effect ... unless it’s absolutely necessary,” This isn't exactly an unusual stance, but I'm increasingly convinced it's a terribly ineffective way to handle a crisis.
- mumblemumble 5y agoIt seems that necessity is one of those things that can only be definitively assessed in hindsight. If you're closely monitoring the situation you might be able to trim it down to a very short term sort of hindsight, but, yeah, it's hard to see how that's a winning strategy in the long run. Even just barely too late is still too late.
- blooalien 5y ago"Hindsight is 20/20 vision." - Everyone's Uncle or Gran'pa Ever
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago"Crisis" is the only way change happens. Politicians can't sell change without a crisis (for good and bad).
- ethbr0 5y agoI might phrase it as "afford change." Telling people they have to pay an extra $1 in taxes for renewing stockpiled medical equipment gets you booted out of office by voters. Asking people to pay $1 during a pandemic is obvious to everyone and agreed. Was it any less of a good idea in the first time period than the second?
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoI'd have to see more information on whether the government buys the medical equipment at reasonable prices, whether they stockpile the right equipment, and whether there are unforeseen consequences of these purchases. Do you have information on this?
- ethbr0 5y agoTry googling ASPR. And you can always file FOIA requests if it's not listed.
- ErikVandeWater 5y agoI don't see anything on that website that is measured as result achieved / $ spent. And I'm supposed to spend my own money on FOIA requests to see if my tax dollars are being spent wisely? Fat chance it is. Edit: > If you're not willing to put in time (a basic search engine query) I went straight to the official ASPR website as you suggested. > auditing government records probably isn't a good fit for you That was never the question.
- ethbr0 5y agoIf you're not willing to put in time (a basic search engine query) or effort (an FOIA request), then auditing government records probably isn't a good fit for you.
- xyzzyz 5y agoInteresting that the California government approach to COVID was completely opposite: lots and lots of measures, most without even any idea about effectiveness, much less cost-benefit calculation.
- atrus 5y agoAll about visibility. A water shortage is a lot slower and less flashy than a packed hospital.
- wwweston 5y agoI have acquaintances who work in this field, including bio sciences for CA state institutions and state public health in another blue state, and having heard some narration of internal conversations, I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. If your model of what was happening was action without consideration, then it’s badly wrong.
- hodgesrm 5y agoAt the very least, the rationale behind some of the restrictions was poorly and (I think) in some cases dishonestly communicated. Outdoor dining, playground shutdowns, etc., come to mind. It's very hard to stand up and say for the good of all we're going to do things that will cause some of you to lose your businesses. So many politicians simple didn't. Moreover a number of the people making such decisions didn't follow their own rules. There are so many instances of this in particular that it's probably not necessary to cite them.
- xyzzyz 5y ago> I think it’s exceptionally presumptuous to claim that the kind of people who contribute to these decisions weren’t thinking about effectiveness and tradeoffs. I’ve seen some of the papers they were passing around about effectiveness of various restrictions. What were those papers? In fact, they had no data about effectiveness of many (if not most) of the restrictions when they passed them early last year. They had absolutely no data about economic cost either. > I’ve heard stories about internal conversations over economic concerns and pressures and secondary impacts. You make it seem like I should praise them for having conversations about economic concerns, as if it was some kind of going above and beyond, instead of barest of the bare minimums one would expect from government officials enacting highly disruptive policy by fiat.
- blooalien 5y agoSadly, the effective way to handle these crises would have been to avoid or minimize it all in the first place, but sadly politicians decades ago who could have done exactly that were nearly as corrupt, greedy, ignorant, and short-sighted as those we still have "leading" the world today. Anyone wishing to debate my view of politicians, first do your research on how many decades ago they had advance warning all these things we hear, read, and see in the news these days were exceedingly likely statistically speaking, but were avoidable with appropriate actions being undertaken to avoid the worst. Pandemics, climate causing weather to freak out, extinctions of entire species, civil unrest, financial craziness. All predicted by many scientists who devote their lives to studying those topics decades ago.
- briefcomment 5y agoFish over crops? We already have crazy shortages of corn and grains world wide [1] (ignore the conspiratorial tone in the video if you don't like it, there are still plenty of objective observations). [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNry6K908xw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNry6K908xw
- Barrin92 5y agoIn that case it would probably be great to link to those sources rather than spread disinformation from a channel that apparently thinks Bill Gates is spying on your trash and China is bio-engineering tiny humans. That video is a good example of why not to ignore the 'conspirational tone'.
- briefcomment 5y agoOk, the full list of links to all the articles he referenced are at the bottom of this page [1]. [1]https://www.iceagefarmer.com/2021/07/21/global-wheat-supplies-short-as-drought-flood-ravage-crops-supply-chain-falters/ https://www.iceagefarmer.com/2021/07/21/global-wheat-supplie...
- treeman79 5y agoMaybe stop burning our food supply
- mistrial9 5y agofifty percent food waste in the USA ?
- briefcomment 5y agoWe export food to places that don't waste as much as well.
- colechristensen 5y agoGo look at the grain futures market and tell me there are “crazy shortages”. Variations in crop production especially regionally are quite normal, perhaps a little irritated because of climate issues, but the conspiracy and exaggeration are not at all necessary.
- BikiniPrince 5y agoI would like to know what the alternatives are. What are the negatives to a decrease in the fish population?
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoProb collapse of local ecosystems. Anywhere there’s a river with fish it’s prob gonna be an important source of food for the animals in the area. Also extinction of certain species would be possible.
- xref 5y agoBroken treaties and the way of life for numerous Native American tribes
- jimbob45 5y agoIn Texas, you’re not allowed to robo-water (hoses are fine) your lawn outside of your two specific days (at least, in the city we were in). Seems like a common sense strategy to me, yet I know Oregon doesn’t do that and I’m guessing CA is the same way. I know residents can be weird about water but surely after years and years of droughts, everyone would understand.
- kemiller 5y agoLawns are really not the problem though. Golf course maybe. The problem is thirsty crops like alfalfa grown in the desert and then shipped out of state.
- ncmncm 5y agoIt will take legislation to cut off the golf courses. Most likely it will need a ballot measure, because what legislator is going to vote for cutting off the golf courses?
- TaylorAlexander 5y agoI think lawns have an important role psychologically. There’s something amiss to me about continuing to dump water on non-native grasses in a major drought. Part of solving climate change is about changing our minds. And I’ve always felt happy to see brown lawns since the draught started. If the actual effect of lawns is truly insignificant then that’s one thing, but if it’s a borderline case I’d factor in the psychological value. Brown lawns or natural landscaping are a sign of unity on this important issue.
- blooalien 5y agoYou mention a huge part of an easy start to a solution to one part of the problem a couple times… "non-native grasses", "natural landscaping". It's entirely possible to create a really pleasant yardscape with native plants that require little to no care once placed, and can still supply that green which the human psyche seems to require. The hard part is convincing the cities to stop fining and harassing folks who choose that over a standard "golf course" lawn.
- EE84M3i 5y agoCould someone chime in with how these farmers physically get this water? The article says "tap in" to the streams. Does that mean the farmers themselves drop a hose with a pump (or some other means of limited diversion) into the stream? Do they own the land the steam is on or does the government own the streams and provide permits for access? Is it generally the farmers themselves doing this or is there some middleman (public/private?) water distributor? If there's any suggested reading on this I'd be curious. I would have expected the state to simply charge more and more for this access rather than cut it off all at once.
- colechristensen 5y agoPipes and ditches, often agreements or easements with neighbors. In general just because you own land a river runs through doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the river. Maybe the university of california has some information, i don’t know anything specific other than seeing first hand irrigation ditches in the sacramento valley
- blooalien 5y ago> "In general just because you own land a river runs through doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want to the river." Indeed there have been more than a few disputes, incidents, and court cases throughout history leading up to the current rules and agreements surrounding the various ways it's often handled nowadays. One must have consideration for "downstream neighbors". Easy way to spark an incident is doing something "untoward" or inconsiderate with the water upstream of a neighbor.
- pyuser583 5y agoI’m pretty sure you never own the river.
- TigeriusKirk 5y agoMan-made irrigation channels run through the farms. It can be as simple as opening a gate on the channel to let the water into the fields.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- dimal 5y agoCan we start to talk about massive desalination projects? The Israelis seem to have made it work.[1] [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...
- throwawaysea 5y agoIt’s expensive to build and takes time, but is feasible especially if we have nuclear energy to meet increased demands. Sam Diego built a giant desalination plant a few years ago and hoped it would supply more of the city’s needs, but it is only good for about 7% of their demand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsba...). California the state would need a huge number of these.
- rolleiflex 5y agoThe issue with these is that the other side of the output is hyper-salty brine, which kills pretty much any life it encounters, and that brine does get dumped to the ocean. The ocean has more than enough capacity to absorb the hit, but it still damages the ecosystem at the exit point nevertheless. Israel and Saudi Arabia do it because, well, if they don’t their country pretty much ceases to exist, but it’s much better cost/performance ratio to focus on whatever water California has before we go there. It’s also that even the most water-conscious agriculture practice uses obnoxious amounts of water just because of the sheer size of land involved. Supplying that kind of water via desalination plants pretty much by definition means having done all prior optimisations to the max before tapping into that stream. If you’re interested in agriculture from a layman’s perspective, I recommend Clarkson’s Farm on Amazon Prime Video, where Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear figures out how to farm right, long way round.
- simfree 5y agoDilute it with more sea water and send it to the Salton Sea. This would improve water quality in the Salton Sea while detaining the brine.
- molszanski 5y agoAlmonds use like what, 10% of CA water? How is the war on almonds going?
- ncmncm 5y agoWhen a billionaire owns the almond trees, blocking their water is a governor-level operation. Last I heard, a reporter said he was stealing the water for them. That ought to make it easier to get it blocked, but I bet it makes it harder, instead. Better just to drive a truckfull of thrift-store rags up to where he is tapping the canal, and feed them in one at a time.
- dehrmann 5y agoI wonder what the current water use looks like. In the last 20 years, even almonds in areas with good water situations have switched to drip irrigation. Also, those "gallon per nut" figures often ignore groundwater recharge.
- pdx6 5y agoI have to imagine this will increase global food costs, but there’s opportunity here to make farming high water crops more efficient: - reclaim runoff - more efficient growing methods The capex and research are there. I wonder how the Boise startup scene is handling it?
- 01100011 5y agoWe need a national water grid. I suggested this in another thread and got a mix of responses: - You can't touch the Great Lakes. - You can't steal another region's water. - Pumps consume electricity. - Grids are a security vulnerability. to which I'd say: - Water would be drawn from a number of sources, and having a grid would allow the draw to be distributed, lessening the impact to any single source. - No one complains that the rest of the US is stealing CA's agriculture. If there is an exchange of funds, there should be no objection to an ecologically responsible exchange of water for local funding. - Desalination also consumes electricity. Shipping imported food from other countries also uses energy(and has inherent national security risks above a certain level). - Insecurity is not an inherent quality of a grid. Poor implementation of our electrical grid is not sufficient evidence against a national water grid. In fact, they enhance regional security by allowing us to cope with climate change and unforeseen weather events. We could draw the water from regional flood control systems and the mouths of great waterways (St. Lawrence, Mississippi, Columbia, etc). We could leverage a larger system of reservoirs for gravity based energy storage systems. I don't know, it just seems to make perfect sense to me. Right now, we treat water as a regional issue and have an antiquated system of treaties and agreements that favors entrenched parties and fails to serve the needs of society.
- ChrisLTD 5y agoThat's an interesting idea. I think we also need to consider the possibility that some of these areas experiencing drought might be unfit for agriculture. To put it another way, maybe we should be helping the farmers move rather than the water?
- 01100011 5y agoThe issue with that is many of the areas which may have insufficient water have insufficient water because they are otherwise so conducive to agriculture. The CA central valley is amazing for Ag, we've just exceeded the (surprisingly plentiful) natural supply of water because we've grown too much. There are many areas where we would grow even more food if we could only supply the water, and many areas of the country where we often have too much water. Why not solve both issues?
- mark_l_watson 5y agoThis is a scary situation. Personally, I would like to see allocation of agricultural water for maximum human nutrition value per gallon: chicken (much, much, much less water per ounce than beef, and much less than pork), soybeans and peas (less than chickpeas), kale, Brussels sprouts, carrots, etc. that take relatively little water. There are good web sites that break down nutrients vs. water used. It seems like we are approaching two problems: economic collapse for middle class and poor people, and problems with food production. I wish that news media would cover these topics. The problem is that the only things on the table for discussion by our governments and news media is the promotion of things that maximize corporate profits or otherwise cater to special interests.
- jeffbee 5y agoOK, now we know what your strategy would be in Sim California, but please bring it around to our actual legal system.
- Wowfunhappy 5y agoDoes it necessarily make sense to grow any of these foods in California though, as opposed to in a part of the country which isn't a natural desert?
- mark_l_watson 5y agoThanks for mentioning that. Of course food should be grown both near end consumers, and as efficiently as possible. It is crazy shipping food very long distances. Eat local and fresh.
- beej71 5y agoAnd a natural sopping wetland. The Central Valley is a big and varied place.
- ghoward 5y agoThe media won't talk about it because what politicians are doing is exactly what's causing or exacerbating the economic collapse of the poor and middle class. And I'm not talking politicians from one party. Both parties are responsible.
- hamburgerwah 5y agoThe entire california water drama boils down to just two things: the delta smelt and the resnick family (Paramount farms, FIJI water, POM/Wonderful). 1/3 of californias freshwater is diverted back to the ocean to "protect" the delta smelt, the resnicks control and use an additional 1/3 including the kern water bank. Everything else is window dressing and about moving money into and out of various pockets. There is no actual shortage of freshwater in any meaningful way in california. Should one very political and well connected family control 1/3 of the massive states entire irrigation water? How could they abuse that to enrich themselves and california's elite? Who are the largest donors to newsom in the recall?
- adolph 5y agoThe Resnicks are the world’s biggest producers of pistachios and almonds, and they also hold vast groves of lemons, grapefruit, and navel oranges. All told, they claim to own America’s second-largest produce company, worth an estimated $4.2 billion. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewart-resnick-california-water/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewar... Edit to add more: So in 1995, state officials agreed to a deal or, as it has been suggested, a staggering giveaway. The farmers had to relinquish 14 billion gallons of “paper water”—junior water rights that exist only de jure, since there simply isn’t enough rainfall most years to fulfill them. In exchange, they got ownership of the Kern Water Bank, a naturally occurring underground reservoir that lies beneath 32 square miles of Kern County, which sits toward the southern end of the Central Valley. The bank held up to 488 billion gallons of water, and because it sat beneath a floodplain it could be easily recharged in wet years with rainfall and surplus water piped in from the Delta. The Resnicks, who’d given up the most paper water rights, came to hold a majority vote on the bank’s board and the majority of its water. Adam Keats, senior attorney at the Center for Food Safety, describes the transfer of the water bank to the Resnicks and other farmers as “an unconstitutional rip-off.” And here’s a key fact to consider against this backdrop: The Resnicks aren’t just pumping to irrigate their fruit and nut trees—they’re also in the business of farming water itself. Their land came with decades-old contracts with the state and federal government that allow them to purchase water piped south by state canals. The Kern Water Bank gave them the ability to store this water and sell it back to the state at a premium in times of drought. According to an investigation by the Contra Costa Times, between 2000 and 2007 the Resnicks bought water for potentially as little as $28 per acre-foot (the amount needed to cover one acre in one foot of water) and then sold it for as much as $196 per acre-foot to the state, which used it to supply other farmers whose Delta supply had been previously curtailed.
- glennvtx 5y agoThe number of people here ok with destroying agriculture is alarming.
- kaminar 5y agoThere is a new market to trade water, which was created late 2020. Remember 2021, it's the year the food and water wars began. There will not just be shortages, there will be no way to purchase at any price. If you are not prepared, now is the time.