3 ms·

Why? All that water is being used for direct human consumption. Isn't that better use than a gallon per almond? I think so.

by dahdum 4y ago

tux1968 4y ago
There are tradeoffs for sure, but fundamentally farming is a life-sustaining activity, and we should be very careful about unintended consequences of our policies. For instance, maybe almonds should not in fact be grown in this region, but I suspect that is a very small and unrepresentative portion of the actual crops harvested.
- CJefferson 4y ago
  Your "suspect" seems to be based on zero evidence. A quick google seems to give various sources that say: * Farming uses about 80% of all water in california. * Almonds use 17% of that (so 13% of all water use). Are almonds important enough to use 13% of all water use in an area suffering increasing cripling drought? I'm happy to have a discussion about it, but calling it a small portion seems to greatly underplay almonds.
  - fbdab103 4y ago
    >Almonds use 17% of that (so 13% of all water use). Ye gads, that's an amazing stat. I heard heard almonds were using a lot water, but never the scale. For a strictly luxury crop, that is an unbelievable amount of resources in a state with 11 desalination plants.
    - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
      >luxury crop Almonds are luxury?
      - khazhoux 4y ago
        Compared to wheat, sure
  - tux1968 4y ago
    Well, i'm not sure a quick google is definitive, but my main point stands on its own. As I said, almonds may not be a good tradeoff for the region, but farming in-general should be treated very carefully, and is indeed life-sustaining and critical. We shouldn't just equate "farming" in the region, with "almonds". Even if we take your googled numbers as fact, it's a relatively small minority of the total farming production in the region.
    - CJefferson 4y ago
      Farming should be treated carefully, I think we agree. What isn’t careful, in my opinion, is to take some poorly thought out “water rights” rules and keep applying them, while it is clear they are not fit for purpose and various water levels, both above and below ground, continue to reach new lows every year.
- wudangmonk 4y ago
  I too doubt almonds use that much water but they make an easy target since who cares about almonds right?. Much like not washing your car or not watering your lawn would never make much of a difference yet still people were making a big deal out of that as if that would solve everything. Farming is needed and I'm all for farming, but that's for fruits and vegetables which like almonds I doubt they take up that much water. If I had to guess it would probably be some type of animal feed that is wasting all that water. I remember reading a story somewhere where the saudi's were buying up land that had these old water rules to grow animal feed to bring back home. When other countries start using you this way to me is a sign of a BIG problem in your policies.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    The water numbers get really ugly once you account for productivity. Some plants would T surprise me if 80%+ gets lost at various stages (spoiling, damage, pests, etc).
  - spondylosaurus 4y ago
    > If I had to guess it would probably be some type of animal feed that is wasting all that water. Alfalfa is the culprit you're looking for. Thirsty crop, grown in the desert, and almost exclusively for nonhuman consumption.
slimsag 4y ago
In Arizona, Nestle is building a new $700mm plant to produce 'high quality creamers', and were going to use the local utility EPCOR for water-but apparently EPCOR may not be able to provide enough for their needs. To resolve the issue, they are lobbying[0] to have the groundwater laws adjusted to allow companies to treat and return their own water back to groundwater aquifers without any oversight. e.g. they may be allocated to pump 3,000 acre-feet of water/year, but if they pump 1,000 acre-feet of 'treated' wastewater back into the ground /somewhere/ then they are allowed to pump an additional 1,000 /plus/ 1,000 more the next year. And of course those are all virtual credits, they can acquire clean water wherever they like and dispose of 'treated' water into the ground wherever for credits, with little to no oversight. [0] https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/nestle-arizona-water-bill-creamer-groundwater-red-bull/75-012d98fb-c965-4fca-976e-b548a6ebbbb0 https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/nestle-...

Why? All that water is being used for direct human consumption. Isn't that better use than a gallon per almond? I think so.

by dahdum 4y ago

Why? All that water is being used for direct human consumption. Isn't that better use than a gallon per almond? I think so.

tux1968 4y ago

There are tradeoffs for sure, but fundamentally farming is a life-sustaining activity, and we should be very careful about unintended consequences of our policies. For instance, maybe almonds should not in fact be grown in this region, but I suspect that is a very small and unrepresentative portion of the actual crops harvested.

CJefferson 4y ago
Your "suspect" seems to be based on zero evidence. A quick google seems to give various sources that say: * Farming uses about 80% of all water in california. * Almonds use 17% of that (so 13% of all water use). Are almonds important enough to use 13% of all water use in an area suffering increasing cripling drought? I'm happy to have a discussion about it, but calling it a small portion seems to greatly underplay almonds.
- fbdab103 4y ago
  >Almonds use 17% of that (so 13% of all water use). Ye gads, that's an amazing stat. I heard heard almonds were using a lot water, but never the scale. For a strictly luxury crop, that is an unbelievable amount of resources in a state with 11 desalination plants.
  - JacobThreeThree 4y ago
    >luxury crop Almonds are luxury?
    - khazhoux 4y ago
      Compared to wheat, sure
- tux1968 4y ago
  Well, i'm not sure a quick google is definitive, but my main point stands on its own. As I said, almonds may not be a good tradeoff for the region, but farming in-general should be treated very carefully, and is indeed life-sustaining and critical. We shouldn't just equate "farming" in the region, with "almonds". Even if we take your googled numbers as fact, it's a relatively small minority of the total farming production in the region.
  - CJefferson 4y ago
    Farming should be treated carefully, I think we agree. What isn’t careful, in my opinion, is to take some poorly thought out “water rights” rules and keep applying them, while it is clear they are not fit for purpose and various water levels, both above and below ground, continue to reach new lows every year.
wudangmonk 4y ago
I too doubt almonds use that much water but they make an easy target since who cares about almonds right?. Much like not washing your car or not watering your lawn would never make much of a difference yet still people were making a big deal out of that as if that would solve everything. Farming is needed and I'm all for farming, but that's for fruits and vegetables which like almonds I doubt they take up that much water. If I had to guess it would probably be some type of animal feed that is wasting all that water. I remember reading a story somewhere where the saudi's were buying up land that had these old water rules to grow animal feed to bring back home. When other countries start using you this way to me is a sign of a BIG problem in your policies.
- TylerE 4y ago
  The water numbers get really ugly once you account for productivity. Some plants would T surprise me if 80%+ gets lost at various stages (spoiling, damage, pests, etc).
- spondylosaurus 4y ago
  > If I had to guess it would probably be some type of animal feed that is wasting all that water. Alfalfa is the culprit you're looking for. Thirsty crop, grown in the desert, and almost exclusively for nonhuman consumption.

slimsag 4y ago

In Arizona, Nestle is building a new $700mm plant to produce 'high quality creamers', and were going to use the local utility EPCOR for water-but apparently EPCOR may not be able to provide enough for their needs. To resolve the issue, they are lobbying[0] to have the groundwater laws adjusted to allow companies to treat and return their own water back to groundwater aquifers without any oversight. e.g. they may be allocated to pump 3,000 acre-feet of water/year, but if they pump 1,000 acre-feet of 'treated' wastewater back into the ground /somewhere/ then they are allowed to pump an additional 1,000 /plus/ 1,000 more the next year. And of course those are all virtual credits, they can acquire clean water wherever they like and dispose of 'treated' water into the ground wherever for credits, with little to no oversight. [0] https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/nestle-arizona-water-bill-creamer-groundwater-red-bull/75-012d98fb-c965-4fca-976e-b548a6ebbbb0 https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/nestle-...