5 ms·
I actually agree with this in principle, but isn't California a huge source of food for much of the west coast? Where will the food be grown then?
by allannienhuis 5y ago
I actually agree with this in principle, but isn't California a huge source of food for much of the west coast? Where will the food be grown then?
- rmah 5y agoPretty much anywhere else with sunlight, soil and water?
- ta988 5y agoIn states with a more reasonable water usage?
- throwaway09223 5y agoYes and no. There are crops which make sense to grow in California due to the climate, which we shouldn't grow elsewhere. Alfalfa isn't one of them. We export alfalfa to other countries, essentially exporting our water. Cow feed can be better grown elsewhere (and cows can be better raised elsewhere) Another problem crop in California is rice. We simply shouldn't grow rice in this state. Most rice is grown in the southern US where water is plentiful. We could stop growing rice without significant impact. More water is used in California growing rice than all of Los Angeles residential use put together. We could cut these crops significantly without appreciable impact to our food supply, using a fraction of our existing conservation budgets, and not have to worry about residential conservation for decades or longer. There's a pretty good intro to the economic breakdown here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-doing/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-d...
- FuriouslyAdrift 5y agoCalifornia is the #1 agriculture state in the US by dollar amount (most is dairy, almonds, and grapes/wine).
- Robotbeat 5y agoIf it’s so valuable, then it seems they’d be fine to pay the same amount for water as municipal utilities do.