4 ms·

So this seems like a stopgap measure so it's not done yet. I'm disappointed to see how people will equally bear the cost of this given we all know what needs to

by jmyeet 3y ago

So this seems like a stopgap measure so it's not done yet. I'm disappointed to see how people will equally bear the cost of this given we all know what needs to change here: we need to reduce agricultural usage. Although cutting off gold courses will propbably help too. Farms have a "use it or lose it" system for water allocation, which leads farms to grow water-intensive crops to keep their allocation, most notably alfalfa. We just need to stop growing such crops. One bone of contention: while climate change is obvviously very real, neither it nor a "historic drought" is the cause of the problem. The problem is, quite simply, overuse based on unrealistic projections of water inflows to the Colorado River basin (see Figure 2 [1]). Blaming it on climate change is washing hands of responsibility. Poor modeling and mismanagement is the real problem. [1]: https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/ColoradoRiver/CRBS_Executive_Summary_FINAL.pdf https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/bsp/docs/finalreport/Colorad...

xp84 3y ago
Driving through the Central Valley on a regular basis, it's interesting the entirely different beliefs/expectations about water that seems to drive politics there. There are signs everywhere railing against the state government for "dumping our dam water into the ocean" which is apparently a political memeification based on a Trump quip. It makes it sound like from the perspective of the Central Valley farming interests, California's cities should just shut off water to homes and businesses, plus allow rivers to be completely run dry by farming to the point saltwater flows inland in the delta, to make it possible for farms to always get unlimited cheap water to grow their choice of crops. The signs also say "Is growing food wasting water????" as though the choice is to either allow unlimited irrigation, or end all farming, ignoring the option that they 'spend' water on crops within a realistic budget even when that doesn't allow full maximization of crops every year. It seems like this lack of realism due to people's desire for very simple good-guy/bad-guy partisan narratives will continue affecting internal CA water politics, which are based on the Sierra Nevada-sourced water that flows in the California Water Project to Los Angeles.
- amflare 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - padjo 3y ago
    The fish are close to extinction, humans are struggling to water their lawns.
  - dymk 3y ago
    It's understandable until you consider that you live in the same food web as those fish, and ecosystems are a little more complex than "Divert all the top-level resources to humans".
    - cmh89 3y ago
      Forget the food web, other people also exist, which is incredibly hard for central valley farmers to understand. I'm not sure the workers of the decimated pacific fishing industry would quite agree that the fish are 'random'. It really comes down to living in a society with competing interests. Society has decided that protecting the last salmon is somewhat important. I say somewhat because central valley farmers are HEAVILY subsidized by the state and federal government and still to get to take the lions share of the water to grow water intensive crops on the desert heat. What's that old saying? "When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
  - callalex 3y ago
    You are doing exactly what the comment you replied to is talking about. Extreme hyperbole helps nobody, and compromise is required when it comes to businesses that exploit any natural resource.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    Central Valley farmers are in this predicament because they spent the last 20 years railing against climate change instead of implementing water-saving techniques for the megadrought that everyone knew was coming. While residents have cut back on their water use by 50% or more in SoCal, Central Valley farmers increased their water use over the past 2 decades. Agriculture now represents 80%+ of the water use in CA, but only about 3% of its economy. If they were growing food with all that water, people might give a damn. But they're not; they're growing alfalfa for export to feed pigs and livestock in other countries that are smart enough not to waste their water on feed crops.
freeopinion 3y ago
You make a very simple statement without any real justification: "We just need to stop growing such crops." I'm guessing that you have all sorts of justification for this and assume that those justifications are well-known and generally agreed. But for those of us less educated, what is the justification? Why shouldn't agriculture be given priority in these regions? Why is water different than land in this regard? When a developer wants to put up a new subdivision, they buy property from the current owner. Why shouldn't water shares be the same?
- dymk 3y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado... Alfalfa and almonds are thirsty yet we grow them by the square mile in the desert. It doesn't take much googling to realize this is not a smart thing to do in a drought area.
  - freeopinion 3y ago
    I guess I don't google enough. I live in the middle of a desert. I live near a small stream in the middle of the desert. That small stream is dammed and diverted to irrigate, wait for it, alfalfa. If we didn't grow alfalfa we would have a lot more water for people to drink. We could sustain more people. Then, instead of having a few thousand people live next to a little stream in the middle of the desert, we could have tens of thousands of people live next to a little stream in the middle of the desert. No amount of googling explains to me why it is better to have more people near a small stream than it is to have more alfalfa near a small stream. Imagine a small island that used the scarce land for agriculture. Would it be better to put more people on the island, or would it be better to grow food on the island? What if there were only a few people and they had large fields to grow food. Should they be forced to give up their land so more people could live on the island? Why is it so important to fill the island with people?
- bcrosby95 3y ago
  If you eliminate 100% of suburban water use you will still have a water problem. If you want a land analogy, it would be like looking at people in San Jose and saying they're the reason for a lack of farmland in California. Plentiful and subsidized year-around food is a security issue on the federal level - but when compared to other industries it brings in comparatively little for the states involved. You can't reasonably expect a few water starved states to export the majority of its water via crops while sacrificing its own economic prosperity for the sake of the broader country.

by jmyeet 3y ago

xp84 3y ago

Driving through the Central Valley on a regular basis, it's interesting the entirely different beliefs/expectations about water that seems to drive politics there. There are signs everywhere railing against the state government for "dumping our dam water into the ocean" which is apparently a political memeification based on a Trump quip. It makes it sound like from the perspective of the Central Valley farming interests, California's cities should just shut off water to homes and businesses, plus allow rivers to be completely run dry by farming to the point saltwater flows inland in the delta, to make it possible for farms to always get unlimited cheap water to grow their choice of crops. The signs also say "Is growing food wasting water????" as though the choice is to either allow unlimited irrigation, or end all farming, ignoring the option that they 'spend' water on crops within a realistic budget even when that doesn't allow full maximization of crops every year. It seems like this lack of realism due to people's desire for very simple good-guy/bad-guy partisan narratives will continue affecting internal CA water politics, which are based on the Sierra Nevada-sourced water that flows in the California Water Project to Los Angeles.

amflare 3y ago
[flagged]
- padjo 3y ago
  The fish are close to extinction, humans are struggling to water their lawns.
- dymk 3y ago
  It's understandable until you consider that you live in the same food web as those fish, and ecosystems are a little more complex than "Divert all the top-level resources to humans".
  - cmh89 3y ago
    Forget the food web, other people also exist, which is incredibly hard for central valley farmers to understand. I'm not sure the workers of the decimated pacific fishing industry would quite agree that the fish are 'random'. It really comes down to living in a society with competing interests. Society has decided that protecting the last salmon is somewhat important. I say somewhat because central valley farmers are HEAVILY subsidized by the state and federal government and still to get to take the lions share of the water to grow water intensive crops on the desert heat. What's that old saying? "When you are used to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
- callalex 3y ago
  You are doing exactly what the comment you replied to is talking about. Extreme hyperbole helps nobody, and compromise is required when it comes to businesses that exploit any natural resource.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  Central Valley farmers are in this predicament because they spent the last 20 years railing against climate change instead of implementing water-saving techniques for the megadrought that everyone knew was coming. While residents have cut back on their water use by 50% or more in SoCal, Central Valley farmers increased their water use over the past 2 decades. Agriculture now represents 80%+ of the water use in CA, but only about 3% of its economy. If they were growing food with all that water, people might give a damn. But they're not; they're growing alfalfa for export to feed pigs and livestock in other countries that are smart enough not to waste their water on feed crops.

freeopinion 3y ago

You make a very simple statement without any real justification: "We just need to stop growing such crops." I'm guessing that you have all sorts of justification for this and assume that those justifications are well-known and generally agreed. But for those of us less educated, what is the justification? Why shouldn't agriculture be given priority in these regions? Why is water different than land in this regard? When a developer wants to put up a new subdivision, they buy property from the current owner. Why shouldn't water shares be the same?

dymk 3y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado... Alfalfa and almonds are thirsty yet we grow them by the square mile in the desert. It doesn't take much googling to realize this is not a smart thing to do in a drought area.
- freeopinion 3y ago
  I guess I don't google enough. I live in the middle of a desert. I live near a small stream in the middle of the desert. That small stream is dammed and diverted to irrigate, wait for it, alfalfa. If we didn't grow alfalfa we would have a lot more water for people to drink. We could sustain more people. Then, instead of having a few thousand people live next to a little stream in the middle of the desert, we could have tens of thousands of people live next to a little stream in the middle of the desert. No amount of googling explains to me why it is better to have more people near a small stream than it is to have more alfalfa near a small stream. Imagine a small island that used the scarce land for agriculture. Would it be better to put more people on the island, or would it be better to grow food on the island? What if there were only a few people and they had large fields to grow food. Should they be forced to give up their land so more people could live on the island? Why is it so important to fill the island with people?
bcrosby95 3y ago
If you eliminate 100% of suburban water use you will still have a water problem. If you want a land analogy, it would be like looking at people in San Jose and saying they're the reason for a lack of farmland in California. Plentiful and subsidized year-around food is a security issue on the federal level - but when compared to other industries it brings in comparatively little for the states involved. You can't reasonably expect a few water starved states to export the majority of its water via crops while sacrificing its own economic prosperity for the sake of the broader country.