4 ms·

Since farming is 80% of water use, cutting out a little bit of the water intensive farming will provide for any residential needs for some time.

by pkaye 4y ago

MattGaiser 4y ago
Yep. All other discussions are fiddling around the edges while you still have farmers casually spraying water in the hot air as it is cheaper than pipes.
- freeopinion 4y ago
  Then raise the price of water. I don't get a Nobel Prize for this. It really just earns me a Captain Obvious sticker. In the short term, your food will be more expensive. In the long term, people will invest in water-reduced production. Want to see fintech and crypto currency startups at YC get replaced by VF (vertical farming) startups claiming to reduce water use by 80%? Just raise the price of water by 1¢/liter. VFVC (vertical farming venture capital) will be all the rage.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    You're assuming farmers are paying for water the same way residential consumers do. "Just raise the price of water" doesn't work without first reforming a lot of law.
  - ausbah 4y ago
    I think the recent bouts of inflation show that people don't take large price hikes kindly
  - JaimeThompson 4y ago
    In a country where major companies get governments to fund their factories while they spend billions on stock buybacks that is unlikely to be allowed to happen.
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Well that's it. Pack it up. There's no solution as long as government can be bought by companies.
bushbaba 4y ago
...and if you stop farming in california. Inflation will go up. Realistically, California could and should start a major water works project to import water from the east or pacific northwest.
- pkaye 4y ago
  Only alterantive is to cut back some of the corn/soybean production in the midwest and grow some of the other crops grown in California. If that doesn't work, like you said, we can import water but other states need to cooperate and the federal government should chip in some funding. You can't just tell Californians to suck it up and figure this out by themselves when the state has >10% of the population plus many essential crops and industries.
  - Kon-Peki 4y ago
    I don't think there is a need to cut back on corn/soybean production. But we definitely need to be growing more fruits and veggies in the midwest. Last year Illinois passed two laws: one prevents towns and cities from restricting vegetable gardens. If you want to fill your front yard with a hoop house, your city can't stop you. The other forces each county to establish guidelines for p2p food sales and prevents town and cities from stopping it. This needs to be adopted in other states.
uoaei 4y ago
Yup. Orchard farmers will routinely leave their thirstier crops in puddles of water, leaving their sprinklers on the whole day because it's easier and less management than a smarter plan. Any exposed water that evaporates from the surface is effectively wasted and won't be replenished until the next rain- or snowfall.
- adolph 4y ago
  Meet the California Couple Who Uses More Water Than Every Home in Los Angeles Combined How megafarmers Lynda and Stewart Resnick built their billion-dollar empire. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewart-resnick-california-water/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewar... Having shrewdly maneuvered the backroom politics of California’s byzantine water rules, they are now thought to consume more of the state’s water than any other family, farm, or company. They control more of it in some years than what’s used by the residents of Los Angeles and the entire San Francisco Bay Area combined. [...] 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. The couple pocketed more than $30 million in the process.

Since farming is 80% of water use, cutting out a little bit of the water intensive farming will provide for any residential needs for some time.

by pkaye 4y ago

Since farming is 80% of water use, cutting out a little bit of the water intensive farming will provide for any residential needs for some time.

MattGaiser 4y ago

Yep. All other discussions are fiddling around the edges while you still have farmers casually spraying water in the hot air as it is cheaper than pipes.

freeopinion 4y ago
Then raise the price of water. I don't get a Nobel Prize for this. It really just earns me a Captain Obvious sticker. In the short term, your food will be more expensive. In the long term, people will invest in water-reduced production. Want to see fintech and crypto currency startups at YC get replaced by VF (vertical farming) startups claiming to reduce water use by 80%? Just raise the price of water by 1¢/liter. VFVC (vertical farming venture capital) will be all the rage.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  You're assuming farmers are paying for water the same way residential consumers do. "Just raise the price of water" doesn't work without first reforming a lot of law.
- ausbah 4y ago
  I think the recent bouts of inflation show that people don't take large price hikes kindly
- JaimeThompson 4y ago
  In a country where major companies get governments to fund their factories while they spend billions on stock buybacks that is unlikely to be allowed to happen.
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Well that's it. Pack it up. There's no solution as long as government can be bought by companies.

bushbaba 4y ago

...and if you stop farming in california. Inflation will go up. Realistically, California could and should start a major water works project to import water from the east or pacific northwest.

pkaye 4y ago
Only alterantive is to cut back some of the corn/soybean production in the midwest and grow some of the other crops grown in California. If that doesn't work, like you said, we can import water but other states need to cooperate and the federal government should chip in some funding. You can't just tell Californians to suck it up and figure this out by themselves when the state has >10% of the population plus many essential crops and industries.
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  I don't think there is a need to cut back on corn/soybean production. But we definitely need to be growing more fruits and veggies in the midwest. Last year Illinois passed two laws: one prevents towns and cities from restricting vegetable gardens. If you want to fill your front yard with a hoop house, your city can't stop you. The other forces each county to establish guidelines for p2p food sales and prevents town and cities from stopping it. This needs to be adopted in other states.

uoaei 4y ago

Yup. Orchard farmers will routinely leave their thirstier crops in puddles of water, leaving their sprinklers on the whole day because it's easier and less management than a smarter plan. Any exposed water that evaporates from the surface is effectively wasted and won't be replenished until the next rain- or snowfall.

adolph 4y ago
Meet the California Couple Who Uses More Water Than Every Home in Los Angeles Combined How megafarmers Lynda and Stewart Resnick built their billion-dollar empire. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewart-resnick-california-water/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/08/lynda-stewar... Having shrewdly maneuvered the backroom politics of California’s byzantine water rules, they are now thought to consume more of the state’s water than any other family, farm, or company. They control more of it in some years than what’s used by the residents of Los Angeles and the entire San Francisco Bay Area combined. [...] 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. The couple pocketed more than $30 million in the process.