3 ms·

How do you stop a bad actor (e.g. CA) using up the entire country's water supply?

zeroonetwothree 5y ago
Pricing
gumby 5y ago
I think CA often gets a bad rap from jealous people but your message is a case that is 100% right on. California's agricultural practices are unsustainable and exploitative.
- syki 5y ago
  There are certainly some bad practices but overall don’t we need the agricultural capabilities of California? It’s not like all those crops can be grown elsewhere in the country more efficiently, right?
  - stevehawk 5y ago
    doesn't seem like they're being grown efficiently in California, either, though?
    - syki 5y ago
      Efficiently in that with enough water it’s the best place to grow things. The soil, weather, etc. are really good. Water needs to be better allocated but my understanding is that it’s not feasible to just say that California should have much less farmland since there isn’t elsewhere in the country that can have its output.
  - zamfi 5y ago
    California is a great place to grow what is grown there, but it is not efficient in terms of water use, in part because the incentives are screwed up. The end result of the existing water rights systems is that for some farms in very arid regions, water is basically free, so they use a ton of it growing e.g., Almonds and Pomegranates, highly water-intensive crops which should probably be grown in less-arid parts of the state. If water cost effectively reflected water scarcity within the central valley, I suspect things would be quite different. But this is hard to change, because politics (in California but also everywhere) favors incumbents who have a lot to lose, over newcomers who could have a lot to gain, or over a large population that stands to gain a little bit but not enough to vote over it. (See: occupational licensing, Prop. 13, etc.)
    - syki 5y ago
      This is my understanding too. That the types of crops being grown in a given place (like almonds) is a problem and water use could be much less than it is but we do absolutely need California to grow things because it’s an important agricultural contributor. Other states wouldn’t be able to pick up the slack in California’s absence. Such is my understanding.
  - gumby 5y ago
    I'm talking about the Central Valley, which is basically an unsustainable extractive factory. Agriculture in coastal areas is largely lower value row crops and vegetables. Water is discussed the most, as there are essentially no pricing signals to moderate use. High water crops like rice are grown in the desert. Water has been pulled without limit from a 20 Ky old aquifer; the land has subsequently settled meaning it won't ever refill even if you could wait long enough. It's not just water though; topsoil practices are equally short-term oriented, leading to a rise in topsoil prices (old topsoil is trucked out and replaced by new) though not water rates. I've done projects out there; visiting a farm or farm town is more reminiscent of a chemical factory than the bucolic pictures on the packages in the supermarket. Agriculture is responsible for about 80% of water extraction yet the burden of rationing is placed on consumers who collectively use about 10% of the State's water directly. So 80% of the water goes to 2% of the gross state product, a lot of which is exported. Literally exporting the thing for which there is a shortage. It would be cheaper, simpler, and ecologically superior for the tech and aerospace sectors to simply pay the farmers to stay home and watch TV. It's hard not to notice that the Central Valley was settled by refugees from Oklahoma who had unsustainably farmed their area until it literally blew away (read, for example, The Grapes of Wrath) and just restarted those practices in their new home. But they had nothing to do with the unsustainable fishing practices that destroyed the industry described by Steinbeck in Cannery Row et al.
    - syki 5y ago
      Thanks for the info!

Pricing

I think CA often gets a bad rap from jealous people but your message is a case that is 100% right on. California's agricultural practices are unsustainable and exploitative.

syki 5y ago
There are certainly some bad practices but overall don’t we need the agricultural capabilities of California? It’s not like all those crops can be grown elsewhere in the country more efficiently, right?
- stevehawk 5y ago
  doesn't seem like they're being grown efficiently in California, either, though?
  - syki 5y ago
    Efficiently in that with enough water it’s the best place to grow things. The soil, weather, etc. are really good. Water needs to be better allocated but my understanding is that it’s not feasible to just say that California should have much less farmland since there isn’t elsewhere in the country that can have its output.
- zamfi 5y ago
  California is a great place to grow what is grown there, but it is not efficient in terms of water use, in part because the incentives are screwed up. The end result of the existing water rights systems is that for some farms in very arid regions, water is basically free, so they use a ton of it growing e.g., Almonds and Pomegranates, highly water-intensive crops which should probably be grown in less-arid parts of the state. If water cost effectively reflected water scarcity within the central valley, I suspect things would be quite different. But this is hard to change, because politics (in California but also everywhere) favors incumbents who have a lot to lose, over newcomers who could have a lot to gain, or over a large population that stands to gain a little bit but not enough to vote over it. (See: occupational licensing, Prop. 13, etc.)
  - syki 5y ago
    This is my understanding too. That the types of crops being grown in a given place (like almonds) is a problem and water use could be much less than it is but we do absolutely need California to grow things because it’s an important agricultural contributor. Other states wouldn’t be able to pick up the slack in California’s absence. Such is my understanding.
- gumby 5y ago
  I'm talking about the Central Valley, which is basically an unsustainable extractive factory. Agriculture in coastal areas is largely lower value row crops and vegetables. Water is discussed the most, as there are essentially no pricing signals to moderate use. High water crops like rice are grown in the desert. Water has been pulled without limit from a 20 Ky old aquifer; the land has subsequently settled meaning it won't ever refill even if you could wait long enough. It's not just water though; topsoil practices are equally short-term oriented, leading to a rise in topsoil prices (old topsoil is trucked out and replaced by new) though not water rates. I've done projects out there; visiting a farm or farm town is more reminiscent of a chemical factory than the bucolic pictures on the packages in the supermarket. Agriculture is responsible for about 80% of water extraction yet the burden of rationing is placed on consumers who collectively use about 10% of the State's water directly. So 80% of the water goes to 2% of the gross state product, a lot of which is exported. Literally exporting the thing for which there is a shortage. It would be cheaper, simpler, and ecologically superior for the tech and aerospace sectors to simply pay the farmers to stay home and watch TV. It's hard not to notice that the Central Valley was settled by refugees from Oklahoma who had unsustainably farmed their area until it literally blew away (read, for example, The Grapes of Wrath) and just restarted those practices in their new home. But they had nothing to do with the unsustainable fishing practices that destroyed the industry described by Steinbeck in Cannery Row et al.
  - syki 5y ago
    Thanks for the info!