3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> > There's no “tiny bit more” you squeeze out of anywhere (in the US, at least) that replaces California. > Of course there is. Show me plausible numbers based on available unused land and local yields where this can be done with land that is available without just pushing the same problem elsewhere by displacing other crops. > > 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? Because the reason California is such a large share of the output is that it has twice the national average yield. And because it is such a large share. And because the other places that are relatively good for alfalfa production are already doing it. > You don't even have to drive these industries to zero, or even reduce them much at all. So now you are doing a complete retreat from your argument that we don't need to grow these crops in California st all and it would be easy to replace them in other states? Now your argument is only that maybe we should shave a fraction off the CA production? Well, that gets down to the fundamental problem. > Cut alfalfa alone by 10% and every urban municipality in the state can triple their water usage. So, get those urban residents to vote for a ballot measure requiring (and setting the funding mechanism for) the state to pay for the eminent domain costs of condemning the applicable water rights and we can do that. Because if you are talking about that production decision as a state policy, that's almost certain to be a taking (whether direct or regulatory).
- throwaway09223 4y ago
  > we don't need to grow these crops in California st all I said this only about rice, and it's absolutely true. It would involve a 20% expansion of production in other states. > pushing the same problem elsewhere by displacing other crops. Impossible. Other states do not have drought issues like California. It's simply an issue of perverse economic incentives. > So now you are doing a complete retreat No, this is what I've said from the start. It seems you are making unwarranted assumptions. > So, get those urban residents to vote for a ballot measure requiring (and setting the funding mechanism for) the state to pay for the eminent domain costs of condemning the applicable water rights and we can do that. Yup, and it will cost less than current water reclamation projects. I'm glad you agree.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> > There's no “tiny bit more” you squeeze out of anywhere (in the US, at least) that replaces California. > Of course there is. Show me plausible numbers based on available unused land and local yields where this can be done with land that is available without just pushing the same problem elsewhere by displacing other crops. > > 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? Because the reason California is such a large share of the output is that it has twice the national average yield. And because it is such a large share. And because the other places that are relatively good for alfalfa production are already doing it. > You don't even have to drive these industries to zero, or even reduce them much at all. So now you are doing a complete retreat from your argument that we don't need to grow these crops in California st all and it would be easy to replace them in other states? Now your argument is only that maybe we should shave a fraction off the CA production? Well, that gets down to the fundamental problem. > Cut alfalfa alone by 10% and every urban municipality in the state can triple their water usage. So, get those urban residents to vote for a ballot measure requiring (and setting the funding mechanism for) the state to pay for the eminent domain costs of condemning the applicable water rights and we can do that. Because if you are talking about that production decision as a state policy, that's almost certain to be a taking (whether direct or regulatory).

throwaway09223 4y ago
> we don't need to grow these crops in California st all I said this only about rice, and it's absolutely true. It would involve a 20% expansion of production in other states. > pushing the same problem elsewhere by displacing other crops. Impossible. Other states do not have drought issues like California. It's simply an issue of perverse economic incentives. > So now you are doing a complete retreat No, this is what I've said from the start. It seems you are making unwarranted assumptions. > So, get those urban residents to vote for a ballot measure requiring (and setting the funding mechanism for) the state to pay for the eminent domain costs of condemning the applicable water rights and we can do that. Yup, and it will cost less than current water reclamation projects. I'm glad you agree.