4 ms·

Do we prioritize agriculture or human use, given modern water constraints? Aren't those basically the same things just at different stages? Where should the f

Do we prioritize agriculture or human use, given modern water constraints? Aren't those basically the same things just at different stages? Where should the food production move to? I ask because there is a strong movement to re-shore everything so moving it off-shore probably won't get much traction. It's probably a different topic all together but I would agree that most things we produce are not required for healthy well nourished people but there would probably be a diverse range of opinions on what foods those might be. My personal preference would be to nix anything that is not Paleolithic, i.e. get rid of anything that is not meat or vegetable or does not contribute to that chain so we keep the things that feed livestock and stop producing the rest

ethbr1 3y ago
Food production should move to where there's sufficient water to grow things economically. About 20-60% of US agricultural value is exported, mostly in unprocessed form, so there's little danger of the US becoming dependent on food imports. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58396 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery... High-water use crops are only economical to grow in the southwest because water is mispriced. Absent that, farmers would grow something else. They'd probably make less money, but that's something we address via subsidies (gradually phasing out).
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  I agree with all of this, but They'd probably make less money There is no incentive for farmers that already operate on razor thin margins to make less money. They will produce whatever makes them the most money. How do we incentivize changing behavior without putting farmers out of business? Or I guess another way to put it is, how do we correct the system that got us here without punishing the farmers? AFAIK they are not the bad guys, rather they are the ones feeding us and are subject to operating in the system that was created before they were born. Changing water rights does not feel like it addresses the problem in a way that does not harm innocent people. Maybe that should happen long term when water demands are lower but it feels like the demand should shift first through some incentives. How do we change incentives without harming people so that we can later change the water rights without as much push-back?
  - RugnirViking 3y ago
    the margin naturally sharpens to fit a razor. Do you think that if we slightly taxed alfalfa more that nobody would grow anything on that land? No, prices of whatever they switched to would adjust, and farmers would be back to razor thin margins just like anybody else. Thats how a market do. Except this time there would hopefully be a bit less of a massive externality
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    It's a great point, because farmers are literally tied to their land in ways most of us aren't. If economic structural changes impact them, they can't pack their bags and move their farm to a different region. Morally, what feels right to me is "Let no person have their livelihood demolished by that which is completely outside their control". Sometimes, that's unavoidable, but I think with water use we could fold policies in over 50 years to lessen the velocity of disruption. And hell, why not bind it to subsidies for building out solar/wind renewables on their land, while we're at it?
  - LinuxBender 3y ago
    I forgot to add that every time we put farmers out of business their land gets snatched up by the likes of Bill Gates or Blackrock. This also needs to stop.
jonhohle 3y ago
They are the same use, but it seems on the agriculture side there is little incentive to use water efficiently based on rights that were granted 100 or more years ago. Off and on I’ve been trying to find a video I saw on YouTube several years ago where an ag-ed group had found (and I’m going to get this way wrong) growing lichens along with crops trapped a lot of moisture near crop root systems providing a significant reduction in irrigation requirements. But if water is cheap, why would a farming operation introduce risk or complicate their operation. I’d personally like to see AZ get some of its water rights to the Colorado river back. Our state government is talking about building and operating desalination plants in Mexico to meet future while CA sits on hundreds of miles of coast, takes about 60% of allocated CO river water, and already operates a desalination plant. For the ongoing cost of a plant and operations, no one is willing to give up an equivalent portion of existing water rights?
galangalalgol 3y ago
I find your idea attractive, but centrally planning agriculture has a hideous track record. Market forces have made a mess too, but in the form of destroying public resources like aquifers, soil, and the climate. Both lead to famine, just on different timelines. "We can do better" makes me think of the weight loss new years resolutions people make. We won't do better, because we haven't changed. The failure isn't a lack of knowledge, but human nature. I agree that if we are to centrally plan it, we'd want to have things like roots, leaves, and the most sustainable animal proteins we can find. Eggs are great, but allergies are relatively common. Milk is the same. Farmed fish can be done well, but that also has allergies among those who also have shellfish allergies. Plant proteins work well for people who don't have legume allergies, but they aren't that sustainable for rice or soy. Pea is ok... maybe just egg chickens and the old hens go to those allergic to eggs?
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  I think allergies should also be addressed at the root of the problem rather than trying to side-step it for everyone that has allergies. Rather I would like to see functional medicine focus on finding all the root causes of a persons ailment and cure the root causes not just allergies. There is already a lot of progress being made in this area in big part by understanding the gut, gut health and gut bacteria both beneficial and detrimental. While I am not a fan of fecal transplants as that seems very unscientific to me, I have personally had great success by by-passing the stomach for advanced cultures of probiotics with with MCT oil, several trillion CFU per dose.
  - galangalalgol 3y ago
    I think money will get put into autoimmune research due to long covid, which might help with allergies too, and yeah, gut biome will almost certainly be part of that. We should acknowledge too that different genotypes need different diets.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

ethbr1 3y ago

Food production should move to where there's sufficient water to grow things economically. About 20-60% of US agricultural value is exported, mostly in unprocessed form, so there's little danger of the US becoming dependent on food imports. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=58396 https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery... High-water use crops are only economical to grow in the southwest because water is mispriced. Absent that, farmers would grow something else. They'd probably make less money, but that's something we address via subsidies (gradually phasing out).

LinuxBender 3y ago
I agree with all of this, but They'd probably make less money There is no incentive for farmers that already operate on razor thin margins to make less money. They will produce whatever makes them the most money. How do we incentivize changing behavior without putting farmers out of business? Or I guess another way to put it is, how do we correct the system that got us here without punishing the farmers? AFAIK they are not the bad guys, rather they are the ones feeding us and are subject to operating in the system that was created before they were born. Changing water rights does not feel like it addresses the problem in a way that does not harm innocent people. Maybe that should happen long term when water demands are lower but it feels like the demand should shift first through some incentives. How do we change incentives without harming people so that we can later change the water rights without as much push-back?
- RugnirViking 3y ago
  the margin naturally sharpens to fit a razor. Do you think that if we slightly taxed alfalfa more that nobody would grow anything on that land? No, prices of whatever they switched to would adjust, and farmers would be back to razor thin margins just like anybody else. Thats how a market do. Except this time there would hopefully be a bit less of a massive externality
- ethbr1 3y ago
  It's a great point, because farmers are literally tied to their land in ways most of us aren't. If economic structural changes impact them, they can't pack their bags and move their farm to a different region. Morally, what feels right to me is "Let no person have their livelihood demolished by that which is completely outside their control". Sometimes, that's unavoidable, but I think with water use we could fold policies in over 50 years to lessen the velocity of disruption. And hell, why not bind it to subsidies for building out solar/wind renewables on their land, while we're at it?
- LinuxBender 3y ago
  I forgot to add that every time we put farmers out of business their land gets snatched up by the likes of Bill Gates or Blackrock. This also needs to stop.

jonhohle 3y ago

They are the same use, but it seems on the agriculture side there is little incentive to use water efficiently based on rights that were granted 100 or more years ago. Off and on I’ve been trying to find a video I saw on YouTube several years ago where an ag-ed group had found (and I’m going to get this way wrong) growing lichens along with crops trapped a lot of moisture near crop root systems providing a significant reduction in irrigation requirements. But if water is cheap, why would a farming operation introduce risk or complicate their operation. I’d personally like to see AZ get some of its water rights to the Colorado river back. Our state government is talking about building and operating desalination plants in Mexico to meet future while CA sits on hundreds of miles of coast, takes about 60% of allocated CO river water, and already operates a desalination plant. For the ongoing cost of a plant and operations, no one is willing to give up an equivalent portion of existing water rights?

galangalalgol 3y ago

I find your idea attractive, but centrally planning agriculture has a hideous track record. Market forces have made a mess too, but in the form of destroying public resources like aquifers, soil, and the climate. Both lead to famine, just on different timelines. "We can do better" makes me think of the weight loss new years resolutions people make. We won't do better, because we haven't changed. The failure isn't a lack of knowledge, but human nature. I agree that if we are to centrally plan it, we'd want to have things like roots, leaves, and the most sustainable animal proteins we can find. Eggs are great, but allergies are relatively common. Milk is the same. Farmed fish can be done well, but that also has allergies among those who also have shellfish allergies. Plant proteins work well for people who don't have legume allergies, but they aren't that sustainable for rice or soy. Pea is ok... maybe just egg chickens and the old hens go to those allergic to eggs?

LinuxBender 3y ago
I think allergies should also be addressed at the root of the problem rather than trying to side-step it for everyone that has allergies. Rather I would like to see functional medicine focus on finding all the root causes of a persons ailment and cure the root causes not just allergies. There is already a lot of progress being made in this area in big part by understanding the gut, gut health and gut bacteria both beneficial and detrimental. While I am not a fan of fecal transplants as that seems very unscientific to me, I have personally had great success by by-passing the stomach for advanced cultures of probiotics with with MCT oil, several trillion CFU per dose.
- galangalalgol 3y ago
  I think money will get put into autoimmune research due to long covid, which might help with allergies too, and yeah, gut biome will almost certainly be part of that. We should acknowledge too that different genotypes need different diets.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]