3 ms·

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

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.
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  > Farmers don't just choose to farm a crop in a bad place when a better place is a available and unused. Yes, they absolutely do, for two major reasons: 1) To intentionally use water. Water rights are extremely valuable and they are also use it or lose it. It must be wasted on crops or someone else might get it. 2) To capture federal subsidies - the same reason cotton is grown in Arizona. We have many farm subsidies that encourage behaviors we absolutely don't want. > Why? Rice isn't water intensive (from a consumption point of view). Yes, it is. More water is consumed growing rice than is used by the entire city of Los Angeles. > There's no “tiny bit more” you squeeze out of anywhere (in the US, at least) that replaces California. Of course there is. > 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. Why not? California produces these low value, high water consumption crops only because the perverse public policies makes it extremely cheap to do so. I think you are grossly underestimating the potential capacity in other states. Do you think Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, the Dakotas can't all increase alfalfa production? You don't even have to drive these industries to zero, or even reduce them much at all. Cut alfalfa alone by 10% and every urban municipality in the state can triple their water usage. Re-run your numbers.
thrashh 4y ago
If those crops could be grown better elsewhere, I assume they would already be. But they’re not so I assume that’s not the case. Honestly this is a problem economics is ultimately best at solving IMO. If water supply does slow then prices will go up and water heavy ag will move away on its own. Honestly I’m not too worried
- ncmncm 4y ago
  No. The water used for these crops is not being paid for, at its value. So, the price of California alfalfa is depressed far below its true cost. This is all consequences of utterly insane water allocation policy.
- eesmith 4y ago
  It's multifactorial. Excellent farmland near cities is turned into housing because that pays better than farming. The best agriculturally place to grow tomatoes might be Manhattan, but we're not going to knock down the borough to grow tomatoes there. Now, one may argue that the price includes all of these factors, although that would make the appeal to economics tautological. Why didn't economics prevent the Dust Bowl? What does economics say about dealing with a new wave of Okies?

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.

throwaway09223 4y ago
> Farmers don't just choose to farm a crop in a bad place when a better place is a available and unused. Yes, they absolutely do, for two major reasons: 1) To intentionally use water. Water rights are extremely valuable and they are also use it or lose it. It must be wasted on crops or someone else might get it. 2) To capture federal subsidies - the same reason cotton is grown in Arizona. We have many farm subsidies that encourage behaviors we absolutely don't want. > Why? Rice isn't water intensive (from a consumption point of view). Yes, it is. More water is consumed growing rice than is used by the entire city of Los Angeles. > There's no “tiny bit more” you squeeze out of anywhere (in the US, at least) that replaces California. Of course there is. > 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. Why not? California produces these low value, high water consumption crops only because the perverse public policies makes it extremely cheap to do so. I think you are grossly underestimating the potential capacity in other states. Do you think Texas, Missouri, Nebraska, the Dakotas can't all increase alfalfa production? You don't even have to drive these industries to zero, or even reduce them much at all. Cut alfalfa alone by 10% and every urban municipality in the state can triple their water usage. Re-run your numbers.

thrashh 4y ago

If those crops could be grown better elsewhere, I assume they would already be. But they’re not so I assume that’s not the case. Honestly this is a problem economics is ultimately best at solving IMO. If water supply does slow then prices will go up and water heavy ag will move away on its own. Honestly I’m not too worried

ncmncm 4y ago
No. The water used for these crops is not being paid for, at its value. So, the price of California alfalfa is depressed far below its true cost. This is all consequences of utterly insane water allocation policy.
eesmith 4y ago
It's multifactorial. Excellent farmland near cities is turned into housing because that pays better than farming. The best agriculturally place to grow tomatoes might be Manhattan, but we're not going to knock down the borough to grow tomatoes there. Now, one may argue that the price includes all of these factors, although that would make the appeal to economics tautological. Why didn't economics prevent the Dust Bowl? What does economics say about dealing with a new wave of Okies?