21 ms·

How do we save water: Stop growing alfalfa in Imperial County

299 points by cute_boi 3y ago

catchnear4321 3y ago
> In fact, alfalfa has become an instrument for exporting subsidized water. efficient, too. why would anyone want to ship the supplies half way around the world when you can just ship the product? especially when the supplies are sold to you at a discount compared to the locals?
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I do wonder how much or that discount is due to it being non potable water with no treatment or complex distribution network. Not saying it’s a good idea but comparing canal water for irrigation with fluorinated chlorinated potable water piped directly to your house doesn’t seem reasonable.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    You can turn canal water into potable water at some cost. It's much more difficult to turn no water into potable water.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      No debate there. It’s a stupid waste regardless. But that’s not my point. However it’s hard to see unlike units and be ok with that. Maybe my physics teachers were too mean to me, or my work in quantitative fields has twisted me, but reading otherwise well reasoned stuff that makes unfair comparisons hurts the entire line of reasoning in my mind. So my question still stands out there - but I would note whatever savings over municipal water they have or don’t have, that doesn’t make it a good idea. Just because you pay a fair price to destroy something of incalculable value doesn’t mean the price reflects the costs.
  - seemaze 3y ago
    It's worse than what you propose. In Arizona at least, the existing water rights allow agriculture to pump fresh, clean, ancient ground water as a less expensive alternative to surface water transported via canal. Because agriculture won't use it, the canal water has to be made potable and distributed in the municipal water supply.
    - fnordpiglet 3y ago
      Yeah that’s definitely worse. Although I would note the California case still makes me wonder, as it’s not apples to apples, even if it’s a stupid waste regardless of the actual metric.
- lokar 3y ago
  In this case alfalfa is the supply, the product is milk and dairy products
  - catchnear4321 3y ago
    in this case alfalfa is both product and supply, and those producing alfalfa in conus are avoiding having to transport water. to grow alfalfa. to feed animals.
    - lokar 3y ago
      I would consider the end product or service sold at retail
      - kylebenzle 3y ago
        I believe catchnear4321 is clearly correct.
      - catchnear4321 3y ago
        who limited the conversation to end product?
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Ship the product (alfalfa) instead of the supply (water), is the point of the comment. You need water to grow alfalfa, but not much water is contained inside it.
intalentive 3y ago
If water is scarce then the price should reflect it. These “outrages” all seem to be about outsized private profit from too-cheap public resources.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  This is true and unfortunately more complicated. I've long been saying "just price it at real market value and the issue will be solved", similar to what you are saying. The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. We'd need to reform those water rights and I bet no politician has enough interest to fight a dirty media battle with "the people who provide your food" who I also would expect to likely get physically violent at some point.
  - throw0101b 3y ago
    > The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. By "archaic" do you mean they got there first? Because farming has been around in (e.g.) Arizona for >100 years, and there weren't any problems back then when there was mostly a whole lot of nothin' in the region. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-how-to-grow-alfalfa-in-the/id1056200096?i=1000620995337 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h... * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real-fight-over-water-in-arizona/id1056200096?i=1000621126694 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real... Then folks decided that building large population centres in the middle of the desert was a good idea, and here we are. It should also be noted that Native Americans were also living and farming before white settlers arrived: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history Though it's not like having large civilizations living in a desert is unique to the American (South-)West: see Mesopotamia and Egypt. They're just usually huddle around rivers.
    - mjhay 3y ago
      There's massive population in the desert now, but that's not where the water is going. The vast majority of water is used by agriculture, which has also expanded massively in the same time frame. It's a red herring that natives and early settlers farmed in the same areas - the water they used is nothing compared to modern agriculture. Efficient water usage (e.g. drip irrigation) and not growing comically unsuitable crops like alfalfa would solve this problem, even in the face of climate change.
zackkatz 3y ago
Same in the west slope of Colorado. So much water is used to grow alfalfa, in part because there is a “use it or lose it” water rights policy: > Failure to apply a water right to beneficial use when water was available for a period of ten or more years results in a rebuttable presumption of abandonment. This leads to huge amounts of wasted water and alfalfa growing. https://dwr.colorado.gov/services/water-administration/water-rights https://dwr.colorado.gov/services/water-administration/water...
- troyvit 3y ago
  Man this fact just points so heavily to a natural part of human nature. If we're given more than we need, but are threatened to lose some or all of it if we don't use it, we'll find ways to use it whether we need it or not. Seems like it's also human nature to make those threats.
  - peteradio 3y ago
    > If we're given more than we need, but are threatened to lose some or all of it if we don't use it, we'll find ways to use it Not really.. without stupid legislation we'd let it rot which in the case of water would be exactly what we'd want.
colechristensen 3y ago
Solution: tax irrigated alfalfa in particular regions starting small and having yearly rate increases.
- bgentry 3y ago
  Or just charge a fair rate for all water resources in the state, one that is representative of its scarcity and cost, without massively subsidizing inefficient agricultural use in the process. The alfalfa situation would correct itself if the water being used was fairly priced and not heavily subsidized.
  - llbeansandrice 3y ago
    You still have issues of “use it or lose it” water rights in many places so even if it is expensive there’s a massive incentive to still use all of it somehow.
    - jeffbee 3y ago
      This also ignores that the water contracts in question are often federal and the state of California isn’t necessarily in a position to abrogate their water rights.
  - drc37 3y ago
    You can't just charge the farmer based on a particular crop because they can easily change that from year to year. Alfalfa usually last 4-5 years before they replant. So they would have to basically raise the prices of water for all farmers. A huge portion of our nation's food supply is grown in CA. It would/could drastically raise the prices of food worldwide because some tax hungry politician wants a larger tax base.
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Well yes, that would be a great solution, but it's difficult legally. Those farmers have those water rights fair and square. It pretty much would have to be eminent domain the water rights to make things sane, and the farmers can afford great lawyers with all the money they haven't spent on water.
mabbo 3y ago
I'm not disagreeing with the author- water is being sold at a discount to agribusiness and with an extra price for normal consumers. And something must be done about it. But, it's never just that simple. Is that $800/foot-acre just the cost of the water? Or does the bill for the consumer household water use also include the incredibly expensive infrastructure to pipe water to each little suburban house across California? Low density housing (pervasive because NIMBYism) also means high infrastructure costs. Someone has to pay for all the work to build and maintain those water lines down each street. (And yet, people living in a condo where one pipe serves hundreds pay the same rates!) Agricultural use often requires just dropping a hose into the river, and they business will handle those costs themselves. In short, the water problem in California is more than just "blame China for stealing our water". It is that too, yes, but there isn't just one problem. ... Or I'm completely off base and that $800 figure is just the water and includes none of the other costs...
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  I’m not quite sure how that matters much when the primary problem with water in the western US is simply that there is not enough. If infrastructure costs are higher that’s not that big of a deal when 80% is being used to grow thirsty crops in droughts.
  - mabbo 3y ago
    I don't disagree with you: there is an issue with "we don't have enough water here". But when we criticize a problem, it's important that we are very accurate in the size and scale of the issues. Over-stating the costs to consumers by ignoring other components of the price tag runs the risk that those who are on the other side of this issue will use your oversight as a defence. "Oh clearly you aren't being honest, as you're hiding this other fact". What if the agri-business now publish a report that shows that in actuality, when you factor in infrastructure costs, they are actually paying more for water? (I doubt it, but it's entirely possible).
    - njovin 3y ago
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
This is basically classic arbitrage. Water in the American West is badly mispriced, so ranchers in China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are essentially buying this water for a very low price because their own water price is very high. I'm hoping there is eventually enough outrage in these areas to change policy. Especially in California, where they are forcing people to rip up their lawns and trying to guilt folks into feeling horrible if they take a shower a minute too long, meanwhile they're doing nothing about what is actually the biggest cause of the problem.
- davidw 3y ago
  It drives me absolutely bonkers when I see someone complain about some new apartments "because water". I live in a city in the west where there's a pretty severe housing shortage, and water is also a concern. But when you dig into the water issue... it's all agriculture, and even there they have so much leeway to eliminate waste. I saw an exhibit at the airport of a "pipe" they dug up less than 5 years ago that was made of wood squeezed together with bailing wire. The "Total Water Use" chart here is pretty similar throughout much of the West: https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug... And denser housing tends to use water more efficiently. Edit: dug up a picture of that pipe I took. https://photos.app.goo.gl/PisNhiA81Rsw45Rx8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/PisNhiA81Rsw45Rx8
  - ajmurmann 3y ago
    It's frustrating that there is no political way to prices water at real cost rather than use archaic water rights. I can't even see a reform to water rights major conflicts in those communities given the very real impact on people's lives and the common "don't tread on me"-attitude.
    - davidw 3y ago
      Yes, it's pretty bad. Around Bend, where I live, there isn't a ton of 'serious' agriculture. Lots of hobby farms and some alfalfa operations, but the climate isn't really conducive to growing a lot. We're just a bit too high up to reliably grow many things commercially. Further down the Deschutes river, in Jefferson county, there are a lot of real farms that produce much more important crops ("Approximately 55% of the US domestic market carrot variety seed production is grown in Jefferson County"). Guess who has more water rights?
Gasp0de 3y ago
Growing large amount of edible plants, feeding those to animals for months or years, and then eating the resulting meat is in itself pretty inefficient. A lot of water, energy, and, in extension, carbon emissions could be saved by just not eating (so much) meat. Humans are perfectly capable of living from an entirely vegan or at least vegetarian diet and it is much better for the environment and the climate: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-di...
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  Also worth adding that growing crops for bioethanol and biodiesel is incredibly inefficient too. You get roughly 10x the energy capture through photovoltaics. 75% of US corn production goes to ethanol and animal feed: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
  - mrguyorama 3y ago
    Despite the marketing, the main reason we continue to use ethanol is because it's a great octane booster, especially compared to TEL (leaded gasoline) and MTBE which was poisoning everyone around gas stations. If you want modern engines, you need that octane, and ethanol is a great, cheap, safe way to do it. If you want to stop putting Ethanol into gasoline, you have to find a new octane booster that is dirt cheap, doesn't kill anyone, and won't require anyone change their engines. Or just wait for BEVs to take over.
JTbane 3y ago
Unfortunately the agri lobby is huge and powerful, so I don't expect to see water prices increase for them anytime soon.
bix6 3y ago
We do the same thing with bottled water. Keep protesting, maybe someday they’ll listen :/ “However, Nestlé paid only $524 a year under a 1978 permit that expired but which the company continued to use. The U.S. Forest Service issued a new permit in 2018 for $2,000 despite local protests” https://www.sunset.com/food-wine/bottled-water-companies-are-getting-rich-off-california-water https://www.sunset.com/food-wine/bottled-water-companies-are...
Mistletoe 3y ago
But how else would my Mom raise her miniature donkeys and sell them to rich people for $3,000 a piece? I wish I was kidding. There is just entirely too much money floating around and it is being spent in absurd ways.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  If she makes that much money from the donkeys, she'd likely be able to pay the real price off the water. This article someone posted higher up, shows that at least in Oregon an entire county loses $25 million on agriculture while wasting tons of water. All to keep water rights: https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug... I'd bet that it's not that different in California and even if not, there would be alternatives to the wasteful alfalfa for export
- wil421 3y ago
  She needs to get into raising Swans. My wife’s uncle bought a pair for about the same price. The couple who raises them said they sell about $750,000 in swans a year.
  - Mistletoe 3y ago
    Good lord. I had no idea.
ensignavenger 3y ago
If we 1) Eliminate "use it or lose it" restrictions on water rights, and 2) allow farmers to sell or lease their water rights, would they really complain about these two options being added to how they manage their assets? If they choose to stop growing alfalpha because they can lease their water rights to a municipal water supply for more money, or because they aren't going to lose those water rights if they don't use them, that seems to solve the problem, and everyone wins. So why aren't we doing that?
tzs 3y ago
> So, next time you see a truckload of hay going west on the freeway give it a wave! > Wave goodbye to $13,000 worth of scarce water that was sold to agribusiness for just $1,000 and is now headed overseas on that truck Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck. Where does the other 99.995% end up? I have no idea because every single article I've seen about water use in agriculture fails to cover what happens to that water. All I've been able to find is that almost all of it goes into the air around the farms via evapotranspiration. But what happens after that?
- lucidguppy 3y ago
  If I use 74 tons of 24 karat gold to create one plant - I don't care much about how much gold is in the plant. I care about how much less gold I have now.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > But what happens after that? Eventually, rain. Usually somewhere else. > Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck. Apple doesn't give me a discount on my Macbook to account for the material they burned/trashed during its manufacture.
- grapehut 3y ago
  It depends a lot on where the farm is, how much they irrigate, and when they irrigate. But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers. It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow
  - Sevii 3y ago
    That’s a good point, to be useful to plants the water has to get into the ground. From there it’s either evaporating or moving into aquifers.
drc37 3y ago
This article is very short sighted. This is CA. You know once they ban one crop or start charging more for that crop, then they will start charging more for everything else. CA likes to suck companies dry through regulation and taxation. Once they go down this slippery slope, it won't end and prices on all foods will increase as a result.
- mjhay 3y ago
  The water is being subsidized. Other people are paying for it. Alfalfa is a low-value crop. It's a stupid and economically inefficient crop to grow in a desert. You can't waive away actual physical constraints as being due to "big government" or whatever.
throw0101b 3y ago
Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast recently had two episodes on the topic: "An Arizona Farmer on How to Grow Alfalfa in the Middle of the Desert" > Due to a combination of drought, climate change and booming growth, Arizona is facing looming water scarcity. But for all the sprawl and population increase, the overwhelming amount of water used in the state is not consumed by residences, but rather farmers. So naturally, many argue that we should be doing less agriculture in the desert and move the production of cotton, alfalfa and various vegetables towards places with more rain. On this episode, we speak with Trevor Bales, the proprietor of Bales Hay Farm & Ranch in Arizona about his family’s history in the state and why he thinks this dry desert is a great place to grow alfalfa. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-how-to-grow-alfalfa-in-the/id1056200096?i=1000620995337 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h... "Understanding the Real Fight Over Water in Arizona" > Arizona recently announced new constraints on housing development in the areas around Phoenix. At issue is water rights and scarcity, which have been a challenge for the US Southwest for as long as people have been living there. That being said, the region is currently in the midst of a 25-year megadrought and when you combine that with booming growth, difficult choices may have to be made. But how do water rights get divided? Who holds them? How much is water worth to the housing developers, farmers and semiconductor manufacturers that have flocked to the state? To learn more, we speak with Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University. We discuss both current and past water management practices in the state. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real-fight-over-water-in-arizona/id1056200096?i=1000621126694 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real... (Episode available on most of the major platforms (including YT?), Apple just came up first in the search.)
rajbot 3y ago
The alfalfa growers and the industries they support, such as the beef industry, have successfully convinced Californians that their water issues are entirely due to growing almonds. There have been so many news stories about growing almonds in the California desert, but almost none about alfalfa.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
haliskerbas 3y ago
Isn’t this capitalism working as expected?
- chasd00 3y ago
  no not really. If it were then the cost of water would be driven by market forces. Here it isn't, it's driven by old water rights. The price of water for agriculture is staying constant but demand has greatly increased. If things were working as they should be the higher demand (and constant or decreasing supply) would result in increasing price. Increasing price would drive agriculture to make more efficient use of the water but price isn't rising so there's no incentive to be more efficient.
  - fnimick 3y ago
    Monopolization of resources (water) by rich business interests is also an inevitable part of capitalism.
freeopinion 3y ago
"We can do one simple thing and our water supply crisis will be over." I don't think this was written as a parody. I think the author really thinks like this. They seem to ignore some pretty obvious things. I will assume they are fairly intelligent and educated, so the ignorance is suspicious. For example, they seem shocked that treated potable water delivered via an expensive network of sanitary pipelines would be more expensive than untreated water delivered via a ditch. They gloss over the "10 or even 12" crops of alfalfa a year, but don't seem to realize that 10 or 12 cuttings a year is phenomenal and a big part of why Imperial County is special. Other places struggle to get four cuttings per year. I think the author almost hits the right target even though they are aiming at the wrong target. We don't need to stop growing alfalfa. We need to have a rational pricing system for water. If somebody can buy water for $1/unit right out of a well, then spend $3/unit to treat that water and $1/unit to transport that water to market, and can sell it for $6/unit to the public, they might get outbid by somebody who can buy the same water for $2/unit out of the well, spend $0/unit to treat the water, spend $0.5/unit to transport the water to market and be able to sell it for $3.50/unit. In any efficient economy, this is a no-brainer. It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana. If the argument is that the world is running out of water (which does seem to be the author's argument) then we have bigger problems than alfalfa. Eliminating farm land so we can fit more humans will not solve the water shortage. It will compound it. I am not proposing that we cut back on humans on the planet. I think there are plenty of resources for both. The author is right that we have to balance the demands we put on those resources. But I think we should be more thoughtful about it than the author proposes.
- jmcqk6 3y ago
  > It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana. You're just trading problems here. If you push everyone into Montana, now you have a resource moving problem. And the assumption "We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana" seems especially suspect. Have you been to Montana? It's the least populated state for a reason. Many of them actually. You seem to think your thoughts are obviously right, but you ignored massive complexity. Not to mention, I don't think anyone is actually arguing to "eliminate farm land so that we can fit more humans on it." The problem is the water usage, not trying to change farmland into apartment buildings.
cboswel1 3y ago
Nearly 85% of ALL water used in Utah is for Agriculture, with 45% specifically used for Alfalfa farming...less than 1% of the state's GDP comes from Agriculture.
DrThunder 3y ago
We don't need Alfalfa? Is the claim here that this agriculture is unnecessary. If so, then why is it happening. It seems to me that they'd go out of business if that's true at all. Just do it somewhere else is not an answer. How about just don't live in a dry desert climate at all?
slantedview 3y ago
There's a lot that's wrong with farming and water use in California - alfalfa is just one of the many things. California also uses flood irrigation to grow rice, and open ditch irrigation is widespread. There are more efficient water delivery systems California could be using.
w10-1 3y ago
It's hard to imagine that shipping alfalfa across the Pacific makes economic sense -- perhaps only to fill otherwise empty container ships? Subsidizing water for this is crazy, but it's also driven by the desire of China to avoid depending on the U.S. for food. So crazy, sure, but WHY do we have this kind of crazy? Yes, agri-business lobbyists are more concentrated than consumer (i.e. have lower coordination costs and higher stakes), but that's not the main reason. Democracies that geographically distribute representation are subject to hostaging, so e.g., every district has defense spending, midwestern states get ethanol mandates and California's central valley gets decades of bullet train investment, and water allocation is majorly messed up. That's essentially the picture of politics in the US today, and it has less to do with capitalism than with how we agreed to agree (though none of us actually agreed to that). The only thing moderating that tendency is when national political party discipline overrides local -- in war (before, during, and after), or in periods of ideological fervor. Not a solution. So the real question is: why can we make exponential progress in teraflop systems, but not moderately rational governance?
smsm42 3y ago
Finally people start paying attention to the politics of water subsidies. That has been going on for years and was one of (many) weird things in California that everybody is talking about water crisis and nobody is talking about alfalfa.
1lint 3y ago
I don't think this article raises an actual issue (if it even exists). If we take up the author's call to action in the title and introduction to "stop growing alfalfa" (presumably by outlawing it), then the corporations that grew alfalfa would obviously just find some other crop/product through which to effectively export water, albeit less efficiently, in which case the preexisting problems still exist but are even worse. The real question is why these farmers/corporations are using their water to grow crops in the first place, when they could presumably be selling their water to consumers at much higher retail rates. An immediately obvious answer would be that the costs of transporting/distributing this water from the source to the consumer is greater than the profit margin, in which case there isn't even a problem to begin with. If the issue is regulation restricting corporations from selling/distributing their water to consumers, then it should be an obvious win for the politicians to fix: their corporate lobbyists get more money selling water at higher rates, while their voters get to buy water at cheaper rates. Either way, the article doesn't even mention any regulations at issue.
silexia 3y ago
We need to find an alternative system to using water rights... Perhaps some sort of geo based mass market? Maybe a more geo based version of how we price electricity?
ccorcos 3y ago
> And while this is happening, that slow-moving ecological train wreck, the Salton Sea, continues to dry up. Very odd comment at the end considering that the only reason the Salton Sea exists today was due to a different “ecological disaster” in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

299 points by cute_boi 3y ago

> In fact, alfalfa has become an instrument for exporting subsidized water. efficient, too. why would anyone want to ship the supplies half way around the world when you can just ship the product? especially when the supplies are sold to you at a discount compared to the locals?

fnordpiglet 3y ago
I do wonder how much or that discount is due to it being non potable water with no treatment or complex distribution network. Not saying it’s a good idea but comparing canal water for irrigation with fluorinated chlorinated potable water piped directly to your house doesn’t seem reasonable.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  You can turn canal water into potable water at some cost. It's much more difficult to turn no water into potable water.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    No debate there. It’s a stupid waste regardless. But that’s not my point. However it’s hard to see unlike units and be ok with that. Maybe my physics teachers were too mean to me, or my work in quantitative fields has twisted me, but reading otherwise well reasoned stuff that makes unfair comparisons hurts the entire line of reasoning in my mind. So my question still stands out there - but I would note whatever savings over municipal water they have or don’t have, that doesn’t make it a good idea. Just because you pay a fair price to destroy something of incalculable value doesn’t mean the price reflects the costs.
- seemaze 3y ago
  It's worse than what you propose. In Arizona at least, the existing water rights allow agriculture to pump fresh, clean, ancient ground water as a less expensive alternative to surface water transported via canal. Because agriculture won't use it, the canal water has to be made potable and distributed in the municipal water supply.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    Yeah that’s definitely worse. Although I would note the California case still makes me wonder, as it’s not apples to apples, even if it’s a stupid waste regardless of the actual metric.
lokar 3y ago
In this case alfalfa is the supply, the product is milk and dairy products
- catchnear4321 3y ago
  in this case alfalfa is both product and supply, and those producing alfalfa in conus are avoiding having to transport water. to grow alfalfa. to feed animals.
  - lokar 3y ago
    I would consider the end product or service sold at retail
    - kylebenzle 3y ago
      I believe catchnear4321 is clearly correct.
    - catchnear4321 3y ago
      who limited the conversation to end product?
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Ship the product (alfalfa) instead of the supply (water), is the point of the comment. You need water to grow alfalfa, but not much water is contained inside it.

intalentive 3y ago

If water is scarce then the price should reflect it. These “outrages” all seem to be about outsized private profit from too-cheap public resources.

ajmurmann 3y ago
This is true and unfortunately more complicated. I've long been saying "just price it at real market value and the issue will be solved", similar to what you are saying. The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. We'd need to reform those water rights and I bet no politician has enough interest to fight a dirty media battle with "the people who provide your food" who I also would expect to likely get physically violent at some point.
- throw0101b 3y ago
  > The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. By "archaic" do you mean they got there first? Because farming has been around in (e.g.) Arizona for >100 years, and there weren't any problems back then when there was mostly a whole lot of nothin' in the region. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-how-to-grow-alfalfa-in-the/id1056200096?i=1000620995337 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h... * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real-fight-over-water-in-arizona/id1056200096?i=1000621126694 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real... Then folks decided that building large population centres in the middle of the desert was a good idea, and here we are. It should also be noted that Native Americans were also living and farming before white settlers arrived: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history Though it's not like having large civilizations living in a desert is unique to the American (South-)West: see Mesopotamia and Egypt. They're just usually huddle around rivers.
  - mjhay 3y ago
    There's massive population in the desert now, but that's not where the water is going. The vast majority of water is used by agriculture, which has also expanded massively in the same time frame. It's a red herring that natives and early settlers farmed in the same areas - the water they used is nothing compared to modern agriculture. Efficient water usage (e.g. drip irrigation) and not growing comically unsuitable crops like alfalfa would solve this problem, even in the face of climate change.

zackkatz 3y ago

Same in the west slope of Colorado. So much water is used to grow alfalfa, in part because there is a “use it or lose it” water rights policy: > Failure to apply a water right to beneficial use when water was available for a period of ten or more years results in a rebuttable presumption of abandonment. This leads to huge amounts of wasted water and alfalfa growing. https://dwr.colorado.gov/services/water-administration/water-rights https://dwr.colorado.gov/services/water-administration/water...

troyvit 3y ago
Man this fact just points so heavily to a natural part of human nature. If we're given more than we need, but are threatened to lose some or all of it if we don't use it, we'll find ways to use it whether we need it or not. Seems like it's also human nature to make those threats.
- peteradio 3y ago
  > If we're given more than we need, but are threatened to lose some or all of it if we don't use it, we'll find ways to use it Not really.. without stupid legislation we'd let it rot which in the case of water would be exactly what we'd want.

colechristensen 3y ago

Solution: tax irrigated alfalfa in particular regions starting small and having yearly rate increases.

bgentry 3y ago
Or just charge a fair rate for all water resources in the state, one that is representative of its scarcity and cost, without massively subsidizing inefficient agricultural use in the process. The alfalfa situation would correct itself if the water being used was fairly priced and not heavily subsidized.
- llbeansandrice 3y ago
  You still have issues of “use it or lose it” water rights in many places so even if it is expensive there’s a massive incentive to still use all of it somehow.
  - jeffbee 3y ago
    This also ignores that the water contracts in question are often federal and the state of California isn’t necessarily in a position to abrogate their water rights.
- drc37 3y ago
  You can't just charge the farmer based on a particular crop because they can easily change that from year to year. Alfalfa usually last 4-5 years before they replant. So they would have to basically raise the prices of water for all farmers. A huge portion of our nation's food supply is grown in CA. It would/could drastically raise the prices of food worldwide because some tax hungry politician wants a larger tax base.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Well yes, that would be a great solution, but it's difficult legally. Those farmers have those water rights fair and square. It pretty much would have to be eminent domain the water rights to make things sane, and the farmers can afford great lawyers with all the money they haven't spent on water.

mabbo 3y ago

I'm not disagreeing with the author- water is being sold at a discount to agribusiness and with an extra price for normal consumers. And something must be done about it. But, it's never just that simple. Is that $800/foot-acre just the cost of the water? Or does the bill for the consumer household water use also include the incredibly expensive infrastructure to pipe water to each little suburban house across California? Low density housing (pervasive because NIMBYism) also means high infrastructure costs. Someone has to pay for all the work to build and maintain those water lines down each street. (And yet, people living in a condo where one pipe serves hundreds pay the same rates!) Agricultural use often requires just dropping a hose into the river, and they business will handle those costs themselves. In short, the water problem in California is more than just "blame China for stealing our water". It is that too, yes, but there isn't just one problem. ... Or I'm completely off base and that $800 figure is just the water and includes none of the other costs...

llbeansandrice 3y ago
I’m not quite sure how that matters much when the primary problem with water in the western US is simply that there is not enough. If infrastructure costs are higher that’s not that big of a deal when 80% is being used to grow thirsty crops in droughts.
- mabbo 3y ago
  I don't disagree with you: there is an issue with "we don't have enough water here". But when we criticize a problem, it's important that we are very accurate in the size and scale of the issues. Over-stating the costs to consumers by ignoring other components of the price tag runs the risk that those who are on the other side of this issue will use your oversight as a defence. "Oh clearly you aren't being honest, as you're hiding this other fact". What if the agri-business now publish a report that shows that in actuality, when you factor in infrastructure costs, they are actually paying more for water? (I doubt it, but it's entirely possible).
  - njovin 3y ago

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

This is basically classic arbitrage. Water in the American West is badly mispriced, so ranchers in China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are essentially buying this water for a very low price because their own water price is very high. I'm hoping there is eventually enough outrage in these areas to change policy. Especially in California, where they are forcing people to rip up their lawns and trying to guilt folks into feeling horrible if they take a shower a minute too long, meanwhile they're doing nothing about what is actually the biggest cause of the problem.

davidw 3y ago
It drives me absolutely bonkers when I see someone complain about some new apartments "because water". I live in a city in the west where there's a pretty severe housing shortage, and water is also a concern. But when you dig into the water issue... it's all agriculture, and even there they have so much leeway to eliminate waste. I saw an exhibit at the airport of a "pipe" they dug up less than 5 years ago that was made of wood squeezed together with bailing wire. The "Total Water Use" chart here is pretty similar throughout much of the West: https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug... And denser housing tends to use water more efficiently. Edit: dug up a picture of that pipe I took. https://photos.app.goo.gl/PisNhiA81Rsw45Rx8 https://photos.app.goo.gl/PisNhiA81Rsw45Rx8
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  It's frustrating that there is no political way to prices water at real cost rather than use archaic water rights. I can't even see a reform to water rights major conflicts in those communities given the very real impact on people's lives and the common "don't tread on me"-attitude.
  - davidw 3y ago
    Yes, it's pretty bad. Around Bend, where I live, there isn't a ton of 'serious' agriculture. Lots of hobby farms and some alfalfa operations, but the climate isn't really conducive to growing a lot. We're just a bit too high up to reliably grow many things commercially. Further down the Deschutes river, in Jefferson county, there are a lot of real farms that produce much more important crops ("Approximately 55% of the US domestic market carrot variety seed production is grown in Jefferson County"). Guess who has more water rights?

Gasp0de 3y ago

Growing large amount of edible plants, feeding those to animals for months or years, and then eating the resulting meat is in itself pretty inefficient. A lot of water, energy, and, in extension, carbon emissions could be saved by just not eating (so much) meat. Humans are perfectly capable of living from an entirely vegan or at least vegetarian diet and it is much better for the environment and the climate: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-di...

Scoundreller 3y ago
Also worth adding that growing crops for bioethanol and biodiesel is incredibly inefficient too. You get roughly 10x the energy capture through photovoltaics. 75% of US corn production goes to ethanol and animal feed: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  Despite the marketing, the main reason we continue to use ethanol is because it's a great octane booster, especially compared to TEL (leaded gasoline) and MTBE which was poisoning everyone around gas stations. If you want modern engines, you need that octane, and ethanol is a great, cheap, safe way to do it. If you want to stop putting Ethanol into gasoline, you have to find a new octane booster that is dirt cheap, doesn't kill anyone, and won't require anyone change their engines. Or just wait for BEVs to take over.

JTbane 3y ago

Unfortunately the agri lobby is huge and powerful, so I don't expect to see water prices increase for them anytime soon.

bix6 3y ago

We do the same thing with bottled water. Keep protesting, maybe someday they’ll listen :/ “However, Nestlé paid only $524 a year under a 1978 permit that expired but which the company continued to use. The U.S. Forest Service issued a new permit in 2018 for $2,000 despite local protests” https://www.sunset.com/food-wine/bottled-water-companies-are-getting-rich-off-california-water https://www.sunset.com/food-wine/bottled-water-companies-are...

Mistletoe 3y ago

But how else would my Mom raise her miniature donkeys and sell them to rich people for $3,000 a piece? I wish I was kidding. There is just entirely too much money floating around and it is being spent in absurd ways.

ajmurmann 3y ago
If she makes that much money from the donkeys, she'd likely be able to pay the real price off the water. This article someone posted higher up, shows that at least in Oregon an entire county loses $25 million on agriculture while wasting tons of water. All to keep water rights: https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug... I'd bet that it's not that different in California and even if not, there would be alternatives to the wasteful alfalfa for export
wil421 3y ago
She needs to get into raising Swans. My wife’s uncle bought a pair for about the same price. The couple who raises them said they sell about $750,000 in swans a year.
- Mistletoe 3y ago
  Good lord. I had no idea.

ensignavenger 3y ago

If we 1) Eliminate "use it or lose it" restrictions on water rights, and 2) allow farmers to sell or lease their water rights, would they really complain about these two options being added to how they manage their assets? If they choose to stop growing alfalpha because they can lease their water rights to a municipal water supply for more money, or because they aren't going to lose those water rights if they don't use them, that seems to solve the problem, and everyone wins. So why aren't we doing that?

tzs 3y ago

> So, next time you see a truckload of hay going west on the freeway give it a wave! > Wave goodbye to $13,000 worth of scarce water that was sold to agribusiness for just $1,000 and is now headed overseas on that truck Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck. Where does the other 99.995% end up? I have no idea because every single article I've seen about water use in agriculture fails to cover what happens to that water. All I've been able to find is that almost all of it goes into the air around the farms via evapotranspiration. But what happens after that?

lucidguppy 3y ago
If I use 74 tons of 24 karat gold to create one plant - I don't care much about how much gold is in the plant. I care about how much less gold I have now.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> But what happens after that? Eventually, rain. Usually somewhere else. > Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck. Apple doesn't give me a discount on my Macbook to account for the material they burned/trashed during its manufacture.
grapehut 3y ago
It depends a lot on where the farm is, how much they irrigate, and when they irrigate. But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers. It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow
- Sevii 3y ago
  That’s a good point, to be useful to plants the water has to get into the ground. From there it’s either evaporating or moving into aquifers.

drc37 3y ago

This article is very short sighted. This is CA. You know once they ban one crop or start charging more for that crop, then they will start charging more for everything else. CA likes to suck companies dry through regulation and taxation. Once they go down this slippery slope, it won't end and prices on all foods will increase as a result.

mjhay 3y ago
The water is being subsidized. Other people are paying for it. Alfalfa is a low-value crop. It's a stupid and economically inefficient crop to grow in a desert. You can't waive away actual physical constraints as being due to "big government" or whatever.

throw0101b 3y ago

Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast recently had two episodes on the topic: "An Arizona Farmer on How to Grow Alfalfa in the Middle of the Desert" > Due to a combination of drought, climate change and booming growth, Arizona is facing looming water scarcity. But for all the sprawl and population increase, the overwhelming amount of water used in the state is not consumed by residences, but rather farmers. So naturally, many argue that we should be doing less agriculture in the desert and move the production of cotton, alfalfa and various vegetables towards places with more rain. On this episode, we speak with Trevor Bales, the proprietor of Bales Hay Farm & Ranch in Arizona about his family’s history in the state and why he thinks this dry desert is a great place to grow alfalfa. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-how-to-grow-alfalfa-in-the/id1056200096?i=1000620995337 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h... "Understanding the Real Fight Over Water in Arizona" > Arizona recently announced new constraints on housing development in the areas around Phoenix. At issue is water rights and scarcity, which have been a challenge for the US Southwest for as long as people have been living there. That being said, the region is currently in the midst of a 25-year megadrought and when you combine that with booming growth, difficult choices may have to be made. But how do water rights get divided? Who holds them? How much is water worth to the housing developers, farmers and semiconductor manufacturers that have flocked to the state? To learn more, we speak with Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University. We discuss both current and past water management practices in the state. * https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real-fight-over-water-in-arizona/id1056200096?i=1000621126694 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real... (Episode available on most of the major platforms (including YT?), Apple just came up first in the search.)

rajbot 3y ago

The alfalfa growers and the industries they support, such as the beef industry, have successfully convinced Californians that their water issues are entirely due to growing almonds. There have been so many news stories about growing almonds in the California desert, but almost none about alfalfa.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

haliskerbas 3y ago

Isn’t this capitalism working as expected?

chasd00 3y ago
no not really. If it were then the cost of water would be driven by market forces. Here it isn't, it's driven by old water rights. The price of water for agriculture is staying constant but demand has greatly increased. If things were working as they should be the higher demand (and constant or decreasing supply) would result in increasing price. Increasing price would drive agriculture to make more efficient use of the water but price isn't rising so there's no incentive to be more efficient.
- fnimick 3y ago
  Monopolization of resources (water) by rich business interests is also an inevitable part of capitalism.

freeopinion 3y ago

"We can do one simple thing and our water supply crisis will be over." I don't think this was written as a parody. I think the author really thinks like this. They seem to ignore some pretty obvious things. I will assume they are fairly intelligent and educated, so the ignorance is suspicious. For example, they seem shocked that treated potable water delivered via an expensive network of sanitary pipelines would be more expensive than untreated water delivered via a ditch. They gloss over the "10 or even 12" crops of alfalfa a year, but don't seem to realize that 10 or 12 cuttings a year is phenomenal and a big part of why Imperial County is special. Other places struggle to get four cuttings per year. I think the author almost hits the right target even though they are aiming at the wrong target. We don't need to stop growing alfalfa. We need to have a rational pricing system for water. If somebody can buy water for $1/unit right out of a well, then spend $3/unit to treat that water and $1/unit to transport that water to market, and can sell it for $6/unit to the public, they might get outbid by somebody who can buy the same water for $2/unit out of the well, spend $0/unit to treat the water, spend $0.5/unit to transport the water to market and be able to sell it for $3.50/unit. In any efficient economy, this is a no-brainer. It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana. If the argument is that the world is running out of water (which does seem to be the author's argument) then we have bigger problems than alfalfa. Eliminating farm land so we can fit more humans will not solve the water shortage. It will compound it. I am not proposing that we cut back on humans on the planet. I think there are plenty of resources for both. The author is right that we have to balance the demands we put on those resources. But I think we should be more thoughtful about it than the author proposes.

jmcqk6 3y ago
> It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana. You're just trading problems here. If you push everyone into Montana, now you have a resource moving problem. And the assumption "We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana" seems especially suspect. Have you been to Montana? It's the least populated state for a reason. Many of them actually. You seem to think your thoughts are obviously right, but you ignored massive complexity. Not to mention, I don't think anyone is actually arguing to "eliminate farm land so that we can fit more humans on it." The problem is the water usage, not trying to change farmland into apartment buildings.

cboswel1 3y ago

Nearly 85% of ALL water used in Utah is for Agriculture, with 45% specifically used for Alfalfa farming...less than 1% of the state's GDP comes from Agriculture.

DrThunder 3y ago

We don't need Alfalfa? Is the claim here that this agriculture is unnecessary. If so, then why is it happening. It seems to me that they'd go out of business if that's true at all. Just do it somewhere else is not an answer. How about just don't live in a dry desert climate at all?

slantedview 3y ago

There's a lot that's wrong with farming and water use in California - alfalfa is just one of the many things. California also uses flood irrigation to grow rice, and open ditch irrigation is widespread. There are more efficient water delivery systems California could be using.

w10-1 3y ago

It's hard to imagine that shipping alfalfa across the Pacific makes economic sense -- perhaps only to fill otherwise empty container ships? Subsidizing water for this is crazy, but it's also driven by the desire of China to avoid depending on the U.S. for food. So crazy, sure, but WHY do we have this kind of crazy? Yes, agri-business lobbyists are more concentrated than consumer (i.e. have lower coordination costs and higher stakes), but that's not the main reason. Democracies that geographically distribute representation are subject to hostaging, so e.g., every district has defense spending, midwestern states get ethanol mandates and California's central valley gets decades of bullet train investment, and water allocation is majorly messed up. That's essentially the picture of politics in the US today, and it has less to do with capitalism than with how we agreed to agree (though none of us actually agreed to that). The only thing moderating that tendency is when national political party discipline overrides local -- in war (before, during, and after), or in periods of ideological fervor. Not a solution. So the real question is: why can we make exponential progress in teraflop systems, but not moderately rational governance?

smsm42 3y ago

Finally people start paying attention to the politics of water subsidies. That has been going on for years and was one of (many) weird things in California that everybody is talking about water crisis and nobody is talking about alfalfa.

1lint 3y ago

I don't think this article raises an actual issue (if it even exists). If we take up the author's call to action in the title and introduction to "stop growing alfalfa" (presumably by outlawing it), then the corporations that grew alfalfa would obviously just find some other crop/product through which to effectively export water, albeit less efficiently, in which case the preexisting problems still exist but are even worse. The real question is why these farmers/corporations are using their water to grow crops in the first place, when they could presumably be selling their water to consumers at much higher retail rates. An immediately obvious answer would be that the costs of transporting/distributing this water from the source to the consumer is greater than the profit margin, in which case there isn't even a problem to begin with. If the issue is regulation restricting corporations from selling/distributing their water to consumers, then it should be an obvious win for the politicians to fix: their corporate lobbyists get more money selling water at higher rates, while their voters get to buy water at cheaper rates. Either way, the article doesn't even mention any regulations at issue.

silexia 3y ago

We need to find an alternative system to using water rights... Perhaps some sort of geo based mass market? Maybe a more geo based version of how we price electricity?

ccorcos 3y ago

> And while this is happening, that slow-moving ecological train wreck, the Salton Sea, continues to dry up. Very odd comment at the end considering that the only reason the Salton Sea exists today was due to a different “ecological disaster” in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea