6 ms·

It ain't happening, folks. Better start the mass migration now before it's too late (assuming insane water use policies continue as they have).

unstatusthequo 4y ago
Well, they wanted to build an oil pipeline across the country. That nearly happened. Guess we understand what’s more valuable to the lobbyists.
- thehappypm 4y ago
  Oil is over 100x more valuable per unit than water, isn’t it? My residential water source charges $8/1000 gallons, or about $.30/bbl. Oil is around $100.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  A freshwater pipeline spill is pretty harmless. Oil, not so much.
acdha 4y ago
That’s not it either: most of the water use is agricultural. Even if you move, you’re affected by that - even to some extent internationally. What we should be doing is taxing water heavily with some kind of progressive scale, and a phase-in saying the tax will go up 10% a year to encourage people to invest in efficiency improvements.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  The effect of reducing CA agriculture is probably pretty marginal. Some of the most water-heavy crops like alfalfa or rice are just better grown elsewhere. We can just stop growing rice in CA entirely and expand a tiny bit more in the south where most rice is grown already. We can just stop growing (and exporting) alfalfa in California and grow more in other alfalfa producing states with more water available. There are fruit crops which are important to grow in California, but most of the crops that consume major amounts of water don't need to be grown here at all. It's just not that big of a deal to relocate the vast majority of water consuming crops.
  - innagadadavida 4y ago
    If you have travelled on I5 and have seen all the farm owners with their placards, you will soon realize their water rights are iron clad - they are a vote bank and their economic output is significant. So, in conclusion, CA will: 1. Let the ground water deplete and ground sink 2. Bring in migrant workers from outside / illegally to work the lands 3. Take away water from your showers and toilets But they will never move these industries out of Central Valley. Now I need to find a public ledger to record my predictions.
    - sparker72678 4y ago
      You’re not wrong (Drive the 99, it’s ever starker), but most of these people aren’t living just to spite others. Without positive incentives to get these people to take their livelihoods elsewhere (or find new livelihoods), why are they going to be enthusiastic about being encouraged out? We need carrots, not just sticks.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      They don't have many votes. Furthermore, their share of the California economy is astonishingly tiny. So it should be very fixable. Most of the US vegetable crop is grown in California, but there is practically no value in growing other things there. Most of the alfalfa is exported to feed to foreign animals. In effect we are donating water to those countries.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > The effect of reducing CA agriculture is probably pretty marginal. Some of the most water-heavy crops like alfalfa or rice are just better grown elsewhere. To the extent that's true, they are also already grown in those better places. Farmers don't just choose to farm a crop in a bad place when a better place is a available and unused. > We can just stop growing rice in CA entirely Why? Rice isn't water intensive (from a consumption point of view). It gets better yield when flooded at the right stages of growth, but it doesn't consume that water, so it's not particularly relevant. > expand a tiny bit more in the south where most rice is grown already California grows 19% of the US total rice production, #2 behind Arkansas which grows 49%. There's no “tiny bit more” you squeeze out of anywhere (in the US, at least) that replaces California. > We can just stop growing (and exporting) alfalfa in California and grow more in other alfalfa producing states with more water available. Again, California is the #2 state in Alfalfa production. You aren't squeezing a little bit out of other Alfalfa producing states to replace it's output.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Just banning alfalfa cultivation in California would free up all the water anybody needs. Ban pistachios for even more.

unstatusthequo 4y ago

Well, they wanted to build an oil pipeline across the country. That nearly happened. Guess we understand what’s more valuable to the lobbyists.

thehappypm 4y ago
Oil is over 100x more valuable per unit than water, isn’t it? My residential water source charges $8/1000 gallons, or about $.30/bbl. Oil is around $100.
ncmncm 4y ago
A freshwater pipeline spill is pretty harmless. Oil, not so much.

acdha 4y ago

That’s not it either: most of the water use is agricultural. Even if you move, you’re affected by that - even to some extent internationally. What we should be doing is taxing water heavily with some kind of progressive scale, and a phase-in saying the tax will go up 10% a year to encourage people to invest in efficiency improvements.

throwaway09223 4y ago
The effect of reducing CA agriculture is probably pretty marginal. Some of the most water-heavy crops like alfalfa or rice are just better grown elsewhere. We can just stop growing rice in CA entirely and expand a tiny bit more in the south where most rice is grown already. We can just stop growing (and exporting) alfalfa in California and grow more in other alfalfa producing states with more water available. There are fruit crops which are important to grow in California, but most of the crops that consume major amounts of water don't need to be grown here at all. It's just not that big of a deal to relocate the vast majority of water consuming crops.
- innagadadavida 4y ago
  If you have travelled on I5 and have seen all the farm owners with their placards, you will soon realize their water rights are iron clad - they are a vote bank and their economic output is significant. So, in conclusion, CA will: 1. Let the ground water deplete and ground sink 2. Bring in migrant workers from outside / illegally to work the lands 3. Take away water from your showers and toilets But they will never move these industries out of Central Valley. Now I need to find a public ledger to record my predictions.
  - sparker72678 4y ago
    You’re not wrong (Drive the 99, it’s ever starker), but most of these people aren’t living just to spite others. Without positive incentives to get these people to take their livelihoods elsewhere (or find new livelihoods), why are they going to be enthusiastic about being encouraged out? We need carrots, not just sticks.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    They don't have many votes. Furthermore, their share of the California economy is astonishingly tiny. So it should be very fixable. Most of the US vegetable crop is grown in California, but there is practically no value in growing other things there. Most of the alfalfa is exported to feed to foreign animals. In effect we are donating water to those countries.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > The effect of reducing CA agriculture is probably pretty marginal. Some of the most water-heavy crops like alfalfa or rice are just better grown elsewhere. To the extent that's true, they are also already grown in those better places. Farmers don't just choose to farm a crop in a bad place when a better place is a available and unused. > We can just stop growing rice in CA entirely Why? Rice isn't water intensive (from a consumption point of view). It gets better yield when flooded at the right stages of growth, but it doesn't consume that water, so it's not particularly relevant. > expand a tiny bit more in the south where most rice is grown already California grows 19% of the US total rice production, #2 behind Arkansas which grows 49%. There's no “tiny bit more” you squeeze out of anywhere (in the US, at least) that replaces California. > We can just stop growing (and exporting) alfalfa in California and grow more in other alfalfa producing states with more water available. Again, California is the #2 state in Alfalfa production. You aren't squeezing a little bit out of other Alfalfa producing states to replace it's output.
ncmncm 4y ago
Just banning alfalfa cultivation in California would free up all the water anybody needs. Ban pistachios for even more.