4 ms·

Pistachios are a high-value crop, and other places under drought like the La Mancha region of Spain are also switching from olives and wheat to pistachios. Com

by fmajid 4y ago

Pistachios are a high-value crop, and other places under drought like the La Mancha region of Spain are also switching from olives and wheat to pistachios. Compare this to alfalfa, an ultra-low-value crop the Saudis are growing in California because they bought senior water rights, then shipping to Saudi to feed cows, essentially laundering water. Agricultural water is heavily subsidized in California, and the absurd system of senior and junior water rights means a senior rights owner has absolutely zero incentive to be efficient, so instead of installing efficient drip irrigation, they simply flood fields. But reforming the system would take so much litigation no California politician has dared to do it.

tomjakubowski 4y ago
Couldn't a ballot initiative do the trick? Has anyone been working on that?
- nradov 4y ago
  Yes a ballot initiative could do the trick. However it's hard to get urban voters to really appreciate the scale of the problem or what needs to be done. As long as their home water supply works and the bill isn't exorbitant then everything seems fine. Plus even with a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution, it would probably still be necessary to compensate current water rights holders at fair market value in order to seize or significantly curtail those rights. That type of eminent domain property seizure would be extraordinarily expensive, and so politicians hesitate to propose the tax increases and bond sales that would be necessary to fund it. But the current situation is unsustainable, so eventually we'll hit a true crisis where some large areas literally run out of water.
  - b112 4y ago
    You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. That said, instead you make it illegal in... say, 5 years, to irrigate certain crops without drip feeding. You also provide grants to convert people over to it, for free. Of course, it's still very expensive to maintain all that infra, it clogs, needs to be monitored, etc, but if the whole state has to do it, at least it's comparative competition.
    - Bud 4y ago
      What does "you don't take away rights" even mean? And why say such a thing? Of course rights can, and should, be taken away, if they don't make sense anymore. And these particular rights clearly don't make sense anymore.
      - inferiorhuman 4y ago
        The Colorado River is the source of water for a huge chunk of Southern California, six other states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming), and Mexico. You're not going to change that unilaterally without causing an international incident.
        arbitrary_name 4y ago
        Uhh, we just literally told Mexico they are getting less allocation then usual, because the states also had to take cuts to ensure minimum flows/levels. There is no international incident if everyone understands why the water is not there. And that is not a reason for the states to avoid collectively reconsidering what they are using the water for. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture.
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Yeah, allocations were reduced after months of negotiations prompting a ton of teeth gnashing. Tijuana, for instance, gets almost all of its water from the Colorado River and is already subject to water outages. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture. Agreed.
        Bud 4y ago
        Several huge incidents are going to occur regardless of what we do. That is already baked-in to this situation. That includes fantasies about pretending that we can do nothing. Which we can't.
      - nradov 4y ago
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
Pistachios grow on saline ground and can be irrigated with high salinity water. And that is precisely where it is (and should be) planted in CA. We are looking at entire valley farms going to have to deal with salt water intrusion. Those farmers are hoping to cash in for housing, but pistachios would probably grow well in Salinas/Monterrey valley region.
- sodiumlife 4y ago
  I haven't heard of anyone doing pistachios in Salinas Valley, and was always curious why. Seems that it is mostly salad greens and broccoli, with wine grapes quickly taking over. Does central valley have high salinity water now? It's this becoming a problem in be Salinas Valley? I have lots of family farming there, but am not directly involved in the farming myself, so could be out of the loop.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    not now. the timeline is 35-60 years when salt water intrusion is a guaranteed reality. all those salad and strawberry fields wont exist anymore. there are a few people who own most of the chunk of acres there. it will likely all be housing developments.
  - mellavora 4y ago
    I think pistachio needs cold spells to fruit properly. "Pistachios require long, hot, dry summers and chilling in the winter, but don't tolerate ground that freezes. They require approximately 1,000 accumulative hours of temperature at or below 45° F during dormancy. ... Pistachios have the narrowest environment requirements of any commercially grown nut crop. ...In the United States, that pretty much limits growth to the San Joaquin Valley in California, southeastern Arizona, far west Texas and the high desert of New Mexico." https://wikifarmer.com/pistachio-tree-growing-conditions/ https://wikifarmer.com/pistachio-tree-growing-conditions/
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
This is not just the story of California, but the entire US southwest. Unlike back east, where water is subject to municipal authority and policy (thus allowing a town/city/county/state to decide what the best way to use the water is, especially in times of actual or imminent shortages), the western states ended up with this absurd "water rights" concept that prevents effective policy making.
- lazide 4y ago
  Eh, back east water isn’t life and death - in the sense that for the vast majority of the east coast, everyone has plenty unless you’re a gigantic super metropolis. In the west, water is scarce and the most limited resource in most areas - and literally life and death. An old saw here is, ‘whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over’
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Eh, back east water isn’t life and death You'd have said that in the UK and Western Europe if you're less than 100 years old ... until this summer. Sure, it may not literally be life or death the way it could be if you were lost on foot in the deserts of Nevada, but the prospect of running out of water for agriculture in certain parts of what has hitherto been a well-watered part of the world became quite tangible this summer. The old dividing line for "agriculture without irrigation" was the 100th meridian. It has already moved at least two degrees east, and there are some forecasts that predict that climate change could move it as far as the 90th. So "the east" is a bit of a mutable concept at this time.
    - lazide 4y ago
      ‘literally life and death’ is exactly what I mean. And it doesn’t require being on foot for it to be so. Las Vegas could literally not be more than a tiny town of desert rats without the water rights on the Colorado they have, same with Phoenix. Instead they’re huge bustling metropolises. Even with the issues going on in Europe, crops may die, farmers may go bankrupt - but no one will be literally without water and die from it, or even have to resort to overland tanking.
missedthecue 4y ago
How is that laundering water? Do you mean arbitrage?
- fmajid 4y ago
  There’s not much difference between packing a freighter with alfalfa and filling a tanker with water: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...
inferiorhuman 4y ago
Compare this to alfalfa, an ultra-low-value crop the Saudis are growing in California because they bought senior water rights, then shipping to Saudi to feed cows, essentially laundering water. Alfalfa is used/needed locally for cattle feed. Unfortunately for all of the noise over growing nuts in the desert nobody's talking about the immense amount of water used to raise cows. https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-North-Bay-organic-dairies-5229822.php https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-No... But reforming the system would take so much litigation no California politician has dared to do it. Yeah, it's a bit like Prop 13 in that respect. One only needs to drive down I-5 to see how militantly opposed farmers are to water conservation. California's got a vast system of aqueducts dating back sixty odd years and we're only now getting around to talking about maybe covering them to reduce evaporative losses.
- anonAndOn 4y ago
  Those billboards you see along I-5 opposing water restrictions are largely funded by Stewart Resnick, "the wealthiest farmer in the United States".[0] Cutting off the water would make Stewart less of a billionaire. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick

by fmajid 4y ago

tomjakubowski 4y ago

Couldn't a ballot initiative do the trick? Has anyone been working on that?

nradov 4y ago
Yes a ballot initiative could do the trick. However it's hard to get urban voters to really appreciate the scale of the problem or what needs to be done. As long as their home water supply works and the bill isn't exorbitant then everything seems fine. Plus even with a ballot initiative to change the state Constitution, it would probably still be necessary to compensate current water rights holders at fair market value in order to seize or significantly curtail those rights. That type of eminent domain property seizure would be extraordinarily expensive, and so politicians hesitate to propose the tax increases and bond sales that would be necessary to fund it. But the current situation is unsustainable, so eventually we'll hit a true crisis where some large areas literally run out of water.
- b112 4y ago
  You don't take away rights, I don't even understand how you can tell someone they cannot access water. That said, instead you make it illegal in... say, 5 years, to irrigate certain crops without drip feeding. You also provide grants to convert people over to it, for free. Of course, it's still very expensive to maintain all that infra, it clogs, needs to be monitored, etc, but if the whole state has to do it, at least it's comparative competition.
  - Bud 4y ago
    What does "you don't take away rights" even mean? And why say such a thing? Of course rights can, and should, be taken away, if they don't make sense anymore. And these particular rights clearly don't make sense anymore.
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      The Colorado River is the source of water for a huge chunk of Southern California, six other states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming), and Mexico. You're not going to change that unilaterally without causing an international incident.
      - arbitrary_name 4y ago
        Uhh, we just literally told Mexico they are getting less allocation then usual, because the states also had to take cuts to ensure minimum flows/levels. There is no international incident if everyone understands why the water is not there. And that is not a reason for the states to avoid collectively reconsidering what they are using the water for. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture.
        inferiorhuman 4y ago
        Yeah, allocations were reduced after months of negotiations prompting a ton of teeth gnashing. Tijuana, for instance, gets almost all of its water from the Colorado River and is already subject to water outages. We all need to look for ways to cut usage, including passing the true costs on to agriculture. Agreed.
      - Bud 4y ago
        Several huge incidents are going to occur regardless of what we do. That is already baked-in to this situation. That includes fantasies about pretending that we can do nothing. Which we can't.
    - nradov 4y ago

jelliclesfarm 4y ago

Pistachios grow on saline ground and can be irrigated with high salinity water. And that is precisely where it is (and should be) planted in CA. We are looking at entire valley farms going to have to deal with salt water intrusion. Those farmers are hoping to cash in for housing, but pistachios would probably grow well in Salinas/Monterrey valley region.

sodiumlife 4y ago
I haven't heard of anyone doing pistachios in Salinas Valley, and was always curious why. Seems that it is mostly salad greens and broccoli, with wine grapes quickly taking over. Does central valley have high salinity water now? It's this becoming a problem in be Salinas Valley? I have lots of family farming there, but am not directly involved in the farming myself, so could be out of the loop.
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  not now. the timeline is 35-60 years when salt water intrusion is a guaranteed reality. all those salad and strawberry fields wont exist anymore. there are a few people who own most of the chunk of acres there. it will likely all be housing developments.
- mellavora 4y ago
  I think pistachio needs cold spells to fruit properly. "Pistachios require long, hot, dry summers and chilling in the winter, but don't tolerate ground that freezes. They require approximately 1,000 accumulative hours of temperature at or below 45° F during dormancy. ... Pistachios have the narrowest environment requirements of any commercially grown nut crop. ...In the United States, that pretty much limits growth to the San Joaquin Valley in California, southeastern Arizona, far west Texas and the high desert of New Mexico." https://wikifarmer.com/pistachio-tree-growing-conditions/ https://wikifarmer.com/pistachio-tree-growing-conditions/

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

This is not just the story of California, but the entire US southwest. Unlike back east, where water is subject to municipal authority and policy (thus allowing a town/city/county/state to decide what the best way to use the water is, especially in times of actual or imminent shortages), the western states ended up with this absurd "water rights" concept that prevents effective policy making.

lazide 4y ago
Eh, back east water isn’t life and death - in the sense that for the vast majority of the east coast, everyone has plenty unless you’re a gigantic super metropolis. In the west, water is scarce and the most limited resource in most areas - and literally life and death. An old saw here is, ‘whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over’
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > Eh, back east water isn’t life and death You'd have said that in the UK and Western Europe if you're less than 100 years old ... until this summer. Sure, it may not literally be life or death the way it could be if you were lost on foot in the deserts of Nevada, but the prospect of running out of water for agriculture in certain parts of what has hitherto been a well-watered part of the world became quite tangible this summer. The old dividing line for "agriculture without irrigation" was the 100th meridian. It has already moved at least two degrees east, and there are some forecasts that predict that climate change could move it as far as the 90th. So "the east" is a bit of a mutable concept at this time.
  - lazide 4y ago
    ‘literally life and death’ is exactly what I mean. And it doesn’t require being on foot for it to be so. Las Vegas could literally not be more than a tiny town of desert rats without the water rights on the Colorado they have, same with Phoenix. Instead they’re huge bustling metropolises. Even with the issues going on in Europe, crops may die, farmers may go bankrupt - but no one will be literally without water and die from it, or even have to resort to overland tanking.

missedthecue 4y ago

How is that laundering water? Do you mean arbitrage?

fmajid 4y ago
There’s not much difference between packing a freighter with alfalfa and filling a tanker with water: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-w...

inferiorhuman 4y ago

Compare this to alfalfa, an ultra-low-value crop the Saudis are growing in California because they bought senior water rights, then shipping to Saudi to feed cows, essentially laundering water. Alfalfa is used/needed locally for cattle feed. Unfortunately for all of the noise over growing nuts in the desert nobody's talking about the immense amount of water used to raise cows. https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-North-Bay-organic-dairies-5229822.php https://www.sfgate.com/science/article/California-drought-No... But reforming the system would take so much litigation no California politician has dared to do it. Yeah, it's a bit like Prop 13 in that respect. One only needs to drive down I-5 to see how militantly opposed farmers are to water conservation. California's got a vast system of aqueducts dating back sixty odd years and we're only now getting around to talking about maybe covering them to reduce evaporative losses.

anonAndOn 4y ago
Those billboards you see along I-5 opposing water restrictions are largely funded by Stewart Resnick, "the wealthiest farmer in the United States".[0] Cutting off the water would make Stewart less of a billionaire. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_Resnick