4 ms·

I see this comment every-time water resources in the west are mentioned. But industries and Ag exist in a region for a reason, and none of it is related to wat

I see this comment every-time water resources in the west are mentioned. But industries and Ag exist in a region for a reason, and none of it is related to water. Most industries (esp Ag) exist within vast contractor, raw material supply and labor networks. That means vast support networks, families, kids in school etc. that can't be moved on a whim. With the infinite energy being beamed down on the West, desalination plants along the California coast + Water Pipelines seem a lot more realistic tbh, NIMBY-ism be damned.

rcpt 4y ago
It's absolutely related to water rights. California farm owners wouldn't opt to grow alfalfa if water were priced sanely for them
ethanbond 4y ago
Ag should exist only in locations where it's viable for it to exist, which yes, is very closely related to water. If Arizona wants to have a thriving agricultural economy, it should farm rocks. (Disclaimer: I grew up in Arizona. There are great people there and they deserve great jobs. But water intensive farming in an actual desert is not a valid solution)
cgriswald 4y ago
Agricultural exists here in California somewhat independently of water but the choice of what crops or livestock to carry is absolutely about water. Many California farms would choose less water-intensive crops or livestock if they had to pay more for water. There are plenty of crops to choose from that are supported by the existing soil, contractors, materials (of which water is one...), and labor networks. > With the infinite energy being beamed down on the West, desalination plants along the California coast + Water Pipelines seem a lot more realistic tbh, NIMBY-ism be damned. The desalinization plants could be located nearly anywhere on the coast and we already have lots and lots of pipes running water from reservoirs both above and below ground. It's hard to imagine this being a NIMBY issue. (This seems more like continuing to blame residential areas.) It might be sold as a NIMBY issue by agriculture lobbyists since agriculture absolutely will not want to pay for it. But this is all about agriculture wanting a cheap, infinite supply of water.
- pj_mukh 4y ago
  Agriculture lobbyists aren't paying people to show up at desalination plant approval meetings[1]. Optimizing crops is fine, but simply biting around the edges of the problem of scarcity assuming you're making progress is what's caused most of these problems. [1] https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/05/california-desalination-plant-coastal-commission/ https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/05/california-desali...
acdha 4y ago
You’re not wrong that things can’t trivially be switched but it continues to highlight the need to switch to market pricing. Water has been subsidized so low for so long that it doesn’t factor in to planning at all. Letting rates rise would encourage a ton of efficiency improvements and relocation which currently aren’t even being considered.

rcpt 4y ago

It's absolutely related to water rights. California farm owners wouldn't opt to grow alfalfa if water were priced sanely for them

ethanbond 4y ago

Ag should exist only in locations where it's viable for it to exist, which yes, is very closely related to water. If Arizona wants to have a thriving agricultural economy, it should farm rocks. (Disclaimer: I grew up in Arizona. There are great people there and they deserve great jobs. But water intensive farming in an actual desert is not a valid solution)

cgriswald 4y ago

Agricultural exists here in California somewhat independently of water but the choice of what crops or livestock to carry is absolutely about water. Many California farms would choose less water-intensive crops or livestock if they had to pay more for water. There are plenty of crops to choose from that are supported by the existing soil, contractors, materials (of which water is one...), and labor networks. > With the infinite energy being beamed down on the West, desalination plants along the California coast + Water Pipelines seem a lot more realistic tbh, NIMBY-ism be damned. The desalinization plants could be located nearly anywhere on the coast and we already have lots and lots of pipes running water from reservoirs both above and below ground. It's hard to imagine this being a NIMBY issue. (This seems more like continuing to blame residential areas.) It might be sold as a NIMBY issue by agriculture lobbyists since agriculture absolutely will not want to pay for it. But this is all about agriculture wanting a cheap, infinite supply of water.

pj_mukh 4y ago
Agriculture lobbyists aren't paying people to show up at desalination plant approval meetings[1]. Optimizing crops is fine, but simply biting around the edges of the problem of scarcity assuming you're making progress is what's caused most of these problems. [1] https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/05/california-desalination-plant-coastal-commission/ https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/05/california-desali...

acdha 4y ago

You’re not wrong that things can’t trivially be switched but it continues to highlight the need to switch to market pricing. Water has been subsidized so low for so long that it doesn’t factor in to planning at all. Letting rates rise would encourage a ton of efficiency improvements and relocation which currently aren’t even being considered.