6 ms·

Here's a novel idea: Don't live in the desert. Don't grow baby spinach in the desert. Let water prices rise to the extremes they need to discourage people from

Here's a novel idea: Don't live in the desert. Don't grow baby spinach in the desert. Let water prices rise to the extremes they need to discourage people from doing stupid stuff with essentially free water.

yalogin 5y ago
Who is going to tell middle California that they need to pay a lot higher to grow crops? The politicians sure won’t. The government is already an enemy in those parts.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  If they already hate the government, making them hate the government some more doesn't seem like a problem. Figuring out what is equitable and carrying it out is the hard part, the political consequences of pissing some people off shouldn't really matter.
- stevenwoo 5y ago
  When one drives on I-5 or 99 through central California, there are billboards every 10-20 miles telling people that big government is trying to stop farming by restricting water rights. There is a constant messaging campaign (for the 20+ years I have lived in California) and the signs all look the same, and it's the opposite of what you are writing.
  - mercutio2 5y ago
    Huh? Those signs all are arguing for more free water for agriculture. That’s not the opposite of “The politicians won’t tell farmers to pay for their inefficient water use”. Or maybe you’re arguing “yeah, politicians, won’t try to charge market rate for water, because the farmers are already up at arms at not having more subsidies thrown their way”?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      It's not about subsidies, it is about water contracts and infrastructure that the farmers paid for up front.
      - 8note 5y ago
        The infrastructure that came with water in it? They built the Colorado River?
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Most of the fights over water in the central valley is over water coming from the American and Sacramento rivers, not the Colorado river. Bonds were raised and contracts were made with farmers for X gallons at Y price. The state water project doesn't want to uphold the contracts and this is what the farmers are demanding. There is a separate fight also going on about new laws preventing farmers pumping their own water with private wells. The state holds that the new laws supersede the water rights of the farmers, but that restricting their use does not constitute eminent domain and the farmers do not need to be compensated. There are a number of heated cases making their way through the courts regarding this now. Last, the waters imported from the Colorado River are used for drinking and domestic use, not for agriculture.
pibechorro 5y ago
Living in synch with nature, what a radical idea! /S They wont, it will fail and then those who get it and are ahead of the curb will innovate. You already see it with rising fertilizer costs, farmers are looking into more traditional methods not reliant ok chemical companies. Regulators will surely screw it up, as they have been in cohoots with $insiders.
ch4s3 5y ago
> Don't live in the desert. Only ~10% of the use is residential. > Don't grow baby spinach in the desert. This would also be fine if the water wasn't divided up using a formula that allocates more water than has historically flowed through the Colorado. I have no problem with pricing it correctly.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deaddodo 5y ago
> Don't live in the desert Most Californians don't. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes. The idea that "California is one big desert" is pretty big misunderstanding, unless you think people should evacuate places like a significant portion of the Mediterranean (Sicily and Southern Italy, particularly), the pacific northwest and huge segments of the Rocky Mountain states as well. They're also not the ones using the water.

yalogin 5y ago

Who is going to tell middle California that they need to pay a lot higher to grow crops? The politicians sure won’t. The government is already an enemy in those parts.

maxerickson 5y ago
If they already hate the government, making them hate the government some more doesn't seem like a problem. Figuring out what is equitable and carrying it out is the hard part, the political consequences of pissing some people off shouldn't really matter.
stevenwoo 5y ago
When one drives on I-5 or 99 through central California, there are billboards every 10-20 miles telling people that big government is trying to stop farming by restricting water rights. There is a constant messaging campaign (for the 20+ years I have lived in California) and the signs all look the same, and it's the opposite of what you are writing.
- mercutio2 5y ago
  Huh? Those signs all are arguing for more free water for agriculture. That’s not the opposite of “The politicians won’t tell farmers to pay for their inefficient water use”. Or maybe you’re arguing “yeah, politicians, won’t try to charge market rate for water, because the farmers are already up at arms at not having more subsidies thrown their way”?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    It's not about subsidies, it is about water contracts and infrastructure that the farmers paid for up front.
    - 8note 5y ago
      The infrastructure that came with water in it? They built the Colorado River?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        Most of the fights over water in the central valley is over water coming from the American and Sacramento rivers, not the Colorado river. Bonds were raised and contracts were made with farmers for X gallons at Y price. The state water project doesn't want to uphold the contracts and this is what the farmers are demanding. There is a separate fight also going on about new laws preventing farmers pumping their own water with private wells. The state holds that the new laws supersede the water rights of the farmers, but that restricting their use does not constitute eminent domain and the farmers do not need to be compensated. There are a number of heated cases making their way through the courts regarding this now. Last, the waters imported from the Colorado River are used for drinking and domestic use, not for agriculture.

pibechorro 5y ago

Living in synch with nature, what a radical idea! /S They wont, it will fail and then those who get it and are ahead of the curb will innovate. You already see it with rising fertilizer costs, farmers are looking into more traditional methods not reliant ok chemical companies. Regulators will surely screw it up, as they have been in cohoots with $insiders.

ch4s3 5y ago

> Don't live in the desert. Only ~10% of the use is residential. > Don't grow baby spinach in the desert. This would also be fine if the water wasn't divided up using a formula that allocates more water than has historically flowed through the Colorado. I have no problem with pricing it correctly.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deaddodo 5y ago

> Don't live in the desert Most Californians don't. They live in chaparral, temperate coniferous forest and mountainous biomes. The idea that "California is one big desert" is pretty big misunderstanding, unless you think people should evacuate places like a significant portion of the Mediterranean (Sicily and Southern Italy, particularly), the pacific northwest and huge segments of the Rocky Mountain states as well. They're also not the ones using the water.