3 ms·
But the state of california would pay for it and has a huge tax base. It wouldn't be cheap but isn't completely infeasible. Especially since water intensive agr
by brutusborn 4y ago
But the state of california would pay for it and has a huge tax base. It wouldn't be cheap but isn't completely infeasible. Especially since water intensive agriculture tends to produce very expensive crops (nuts, avocados etc.). My back of the napkin is $20 billion capex based on existing water usage and existing desal plants.
- akudha 4y agoWhy do we need to grow nuts and avocados in California in the first place, during a drought? It is not like these are staple crops and are needed for humans to survive, right? If tax payers pay for any solution, what guarantees do they have that these solutions will end up only benefiting some rich farmers and not everyone? Wouldn’t it be sensible to just stop growing water intensive crops in drought areas? Across the world I mean, not just California. Especially if those crops are “nice to have”?
- onetokeoverthe 4y ago
- brutusborn 4y agoI'm not suggesting that it's a good idea, just that it is probably economically feasible.
- mrcheesebreeze 4y agoDo you really think california would do something that helps the people? That hellhole state is the kind of place that demolishes free homes built for the homeless.
- bergenty 4y agoThat’s borderline delusional. California is probably one of the cushiest states for the homeless.