3 ms·

Desalinations projects would not solve the issue. The 'water crisis' is really an economic problem with the underpricing of water leading to suboptimal practice

Desalinations projects would not solve the issue. The 'water crisis' is really an economic problem with the underpricing of water leading to suboptimal practices not a engineering one. Even if desalination worked moderately -- Californian farmers would end up farming more rice and walnut trees and you'd end up in the same situation.

adventured 5y ago
Increasing the price of water would not work effectively either. Almonds have high margins and more pricing power than most crops. To say nothing of the obnoxious fact that around 2/3 of the US almond crop is exported (ie California is depleting their water supply to line the pockets of a billionaire almond cartel and exporting their scarce water resources in the process). And even if the rich almond growers could somehow afford dramatically higher water prices, it still doesn't make sense to allow them to consume so much of California's water - water which is a critical, scarce public good being converted to very narrow private wealth. The correct solution is to ban the growing of all almond, pistachio and walnut crops in California. The minimum they should do is ban the export of those crops, although that is likely still not enough.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  IDK. I love roasted almonds as a snack but they are pretty expensive. If they went much higher I'd cut back or stop buying them. As it is I only buy them on sale.
- resonantjacket5 5y ago
  Increasing the price of water would of course work. There is nothing inherently special about water. What is special is how water has been underpriced for so long as well as the use of aquifers through wells temporarily 'increasing the supply' until they run out. Banning almonds, pistachos, walnut crops etc... is really just an indirect way of increasing the price of water for farmers. I've heard other suggestions to mandate more conservative water practices aka drip irrigation and ban water hungry crops and sure that kinda works -- but this is exactly what higher prices is supposed to fix already. There is no magical solution to the now permanent decreased water per year, it's not a 'temporary drought' anymore. Eventually the price of water will be set back to normal either through dollar cost or with lottery random shortages as the agency is currently forced to do.
- glennvtx 5y ago
  This is a terrible idea, From the perspective of someone who knows nothing about agriculture, and the water cycle. Trees encourage the retention of water in the ground, Their roots penetrate the clay soils, which on a microscopic level appeal as layers of paper: pour water on a pile of newspaper and it sheds off, allow water to penetrate and that clay can hold 1/3 of it's volume in water. The removal of beaver dams, building of fences and roadways, is what has caused your environmental damage. Before people began to manage the land in this way, It was rich with water and fertile. When you think to take water from farmers, so that you can take a long shower or grow a landscape in your yard, you are part of the problem.

adventured 5y ago

Increasing the price of water would not work effectively either. Almonds have high margins and more pricing power than most crops. To say nothing of the obnoxious fact that around 2/3 of the US almond crop is exported (ie California is depleting their water supply to line the pockets of a billionaire almond cartel and exporting their scarce water resources in the process). And even if the rich almond growers could somehow afford dramatically higher water prices, it still doesn't make sense to allow them to consume so much of California's water - water which is a critical, scarce public good being converted to very narrow private wealth. The correct solution is to ban the growing of all almond, pistachio and walnut crops in California. The minimum they should do is ban the export of those crops, although that is likely still not enough.

throwawayboise 5y ago
IDK. I love roasted almonds as a snack but they are pretty expensive. If they went much higher I'd cut back or stop buying them. As it is I only buy them on sale.
resonantjacket5 5y ago
Increasing the price of water would of course work. There is nothing inherently special about water. What is special is how water has been underpriced for so long as well as the use of aquifers through wells temporarily 'increasing the supply' until they run out. Banning almonds, pistachos, walnut crops etc... is really just an indirect way of increasing the price of water for farmers. I've heard other suggestions to mandate more conservative water practices aka drip irrigation and ban water hungry crops and sure that kinda works -- but this is exactly what higher prices is supposed to fix already. There is no magical solution to the now permanent decreased water per year, it's not a 'temporary drought' anymore. Eventually the price of water will be set back to normal either through dollar cost or with lottery random shortages as the agency is currently forced to do.
glennvtx 5y ago
This is a terrible idea, From the perspective of someone who knows nothing about agriculture, and the water cycle. Trees encourage the retention of water in the ground, Their roots penetrate the clay soils, which on a microscopic level appeal as layers of paper: pour water on a pile of newspaper and it sheds off, allow water to penetrate and that clay can hold 1/3 of it's volume in water. The removal of beaver dams, building of fences and roadways, is what has caused your environmental damage. Before people began to manage the land in this way, It was rich with water and fertile. When you think to take water from farmers, so that you can take a long shower or grow a landscape in your yard, you are part of the problem.