3 ms·

"The problem can be regulated and rectified," What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? Sure, we could make farmers pay actual costs and elimina

"The problem can be regulated and rectified," What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? Sure, we could make farmers pay actual costs and eliminate subsidies. We will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices. It's also possible the rich countries buyout crops from the poor and create famines or the breakdown of free trade (or we abandon the US version of free trade and tax imports to match domestic prices).

kurthr 3y ago
I think you'd want a justification for subsidizing selected farmers and foreign countries imports other than, it makes the largest landowners the highest short term profit. None of it will exist long term unless global warming increases rainfall in the western US. How to rectify? The simplest is to charge/tax farming with scarce water for export. The next is to allow metro purchase of water rights (already happening).
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? California has a smaller water budget than before. Use has to be cut from somewhere, and to date, those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users. There should be a fixed amount of water every farm and household gets for free, and after that, a market rate for it. (This is complicated by the history of Western water rights.) > will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices The world doesn't have that much arable land [1]. America has most of it (and somewhat uniquley, a growing share), and moreover, it's bang next to the world's largest consumers. Those are difficult built-in advantages to fuck up. (I'm not even counting the various federal agricultural subisides and trade protections.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  > those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users This is really the core of my frustration - if you're a CA resident, and don't live in the central valley or work in the agriculture business, what possible benefit to you is supplying most of the world's supply of almonds? Water, especially in the southwest, is an increasingly scarce and valuable resource. Why would california residents want to subsidize the rest of the world's almond consumption? (Honestly I think they don't, but the political reasons behind this are complex and depressing and way off track of the subject matter of this thread)
  - observationist 3y ago
    Don't worry, your sacrifice means the politicians funded by the farmers continue to get elected. All you need to do is elect different politicians that will enact regulation that sensibly and responsibly manage the water, reducing the profit made by almond farmers and their campaign donations. I'm sure they pay taxes that fund something or other they can point to as somehow being a net benefit to "the economy" or some high level abstraction. The politics should be simple - California's got a whole lot of cities and population in places where a reliable and predictable source of clean water is a matter of life and death, and it should be a trivial calculation of necessity. What is needed by those places, minus a sensible and responsible buffer, is set aside, calculated dispassionately and without regard to almond farmers or any other interests. Once those calculations are made, offer fair allowances of water from what remains. If some years there are no allowances, then maybe you shouldn't run an almond farm in California. People should win out over corporations almost every time. The trouble with these issues is that yes, they are complex, and that it's somehow acceptable for politicians to use the complexity to fog up the narratives and we give them the latitude to make bass ackwards decisions like favoring the almond farmers. Deny them the complexity and insist on the simple solution - people first, corporations can figure their shit out with whatever's left, and no more.
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      > All you need to do is elect different politicians that will enact regulation that sensibly and responsibly manage the water all of what you wrote is well said, I just think in the current california political climate (which is a little strange and different from the rest of the country, and not at all what people outside california imagine it is) what you said is essentially impossible as long as politicians are for hire by corporations. Anyone lobbying for this has no chance to get in a position to make any meaningful change. The best hope for change is a proposition passing - california constitution allows basically any prop to make the ballot and they must be enacted into law if they pass. It’s one of the great things about the way CA govt works. The people can overrule through referendum essentially any law (except when the state unconstitutionally removed the secession prop) or part of the constitution. Not all places give voters that much power in how the state is run. However, unfortunately, drought policy in CA has amnesia and every time we have a massive water year like this year everyone thinks severe drought is never going to happen again. For a state that is so seemingly climate conscious, they’re shockingly blind to the realities that climate change will bring to the state’s water supply. We won’t try to address this until it’s such a severe emergency that people are dying in the street (or even worse to them - corporations losing money! oh no!) imho.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "I'm not even counting the various federal agricultural subisides and trade protections." This was the main part I was talking about. The only way most farms get by is due to subsidies. There aren't many trade protections that I'm aware of. For example, honey is completely undercut by overseas sources, organic labeling is based on the production site regulations which can be less strict than domestically, we can't export most pork due to ratraphine use, etc. Remove the protections and rhe industry collapses. This is the odd man out when it comes to politics as it's something supported by both sides. Cost of living is too high in the US to be able to export to many nations. The major consumers would look to the cheaper nations before us, leading to strict export controls, further supporting price increases. We saw a bit about this with the wheat export restrictions and famine fears in some countries. The water allocations should be fixed. It's possible that eliminating crops not suitable for the area could be another fix (rice and almonds) without having to dive too much into the allocation side.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    Not a lot of subsidies. Certainly just rhetoric to talk about 'most farms'. Despite the rhetoric of "preserving the family farm," the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations. Small operators can participate in crop insurance. But they pay for that, just like you and me.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      You do realize crop insurance is actually subsidized by the Feds right? Yes, individuals still pay, but the feds cover a portion of the premiums. Commodity market price controls are a form of subsidization. Yes a lot of the money goes to the biggest farms. There are some programs specifically for smaller operations too. There are also state level grants, programs, and subsidies in most states. There are even programs for distressed loans.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        So is most insurance, subsidized. A big disaster, federal assistance comes out - FEMA etc. Billions. The better part of a trillion in the last decade. The existence of small programs is true. But negligible in big picture - one or two pennies from the pocket of the consumer annually.

kurthr 3y ago

I think you'd want a justification for subsidizing selected farmers and foreign countries imports other than, it makes the largest landowners the highest short term profit. None of it will exist long term unless global warming increases rainfall in the western US. How to rectify? The simplest is to charge/tax farming with scarce water for export. The next is to allow metro purchase of water rights (already happening).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? California has a smaller water budget than before. Use has to be cut from somewhere, and to date, those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users. There should be a fixed amount of water every farm and household gets for free, and after that, a market rate for it. (This is complicated by the history of Western water rights.) > will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices The world doesn't have that much arable land [1]. America has most of it (and somewhat uniquley, a growing share), and moreover, it's bang next to the world's largest consumers. Those are difficult built-in advantages to fuck up. (I'm not even counting the various federal agricultural subisides and trade protections.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

JohnMakin 3y ago
> those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users This is really the core of my frustration - if you're a CA resident, and don't live in the central valley or work in the agriculture business, what possible benefit to you is supplying most of the world's supply of almonds? Water, especially in the southwest, is an increasingly scarce and valuable resource. Why would california residents want to subsidize the rest of the world's almond consumption? (Honestly I think they don't, but the political reasons behind this are complex and depressing and way off track of the subject matter of this thread)
- observationist 3y ago
  Don't worry, your sacrifice means the politicians funded by the farmers continue to get elected. All you need to do is elect different politicians that will enact regulation that sensibly and responsibly manage the water, reducing the profit made by almond farmers and their campaign donations. I'm sure they pay taxes that fund something or other they can point to as somehow being a net benefit to "the economy" or some high level abstraction. The politics should be simple - California's got a whole lot of cities and population in places where a reliable and predictable source of clean water is a matter of life and death, and it should be a trivial calculation of necessity. What is needed by those places, minus a sensible and responsible buffer, is set aside, calculated dispassionately and without regard to almond farmers or any other interests. Once those calculations are made, offer fair allowances of water from what remains. If some years there are no allowances, then maybe you shouldn't run an almond farm in California. People should win out over corporations almost every time. The trouble with these issues is that yes, they are complex, and that it's somehow acceptable for politicians to use the complexity to fog up the narratives and we give them the latitude to make bass ackwards decisions like favoring the almond farmers. Deny them the complexity and insist on the simple solution - people first, corporations can figure their shit out with whatever's left, and no more.
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    > All you need to do is elect different politicians that will enact regulation that sensibly and responsibly manage the water all of what you wrote is well said, I just think in the current california political climate (which is a little strange and different from the rest of the country, and not at all what people outside california imagine it is) what you said is essentially impossible as long as politicians are for hire by corporations. Anyone lobbying for this has no chance to get in a position to make any meaningful change. The best hope for change is a proposition passing - california constitution allows basically any prop to make the ballot and they must be enacted into law if they pass. It’s one of the great things about the way CA govt works. The people can overrule through referendum essentially any law (except when the state unconstitutionally removed the secession prop) or part of the constitution. Not all places give voters that much power in how the state is run. However, unfortunately, drought policy in CA has amnesia and every time we have a massive water year like this year everyone thinks severe drought is never going to happen again. For a state that is so seemingly climate conscious, they’re shockingly blind to the realities that climate change will bring to the state’s water supply. We won’t try to address this until it’s such a severe emergency that people are dying in the street (or even worse to them - corporations losing money! oh no!) imho.
giantg2 3y ago
"I'm not even counting the various federal agricultural subisides and trade protections." This was the main part I was talking about. The only way most farms get by is due to subsidies. There aren't many trade protections that I'm aware of. For example, honey is completely undercut by overseas sources, organic labeling is based on the production site regulations which can be less strict than domestically, we can't export most pork due to ratraphine use, etc. Remove the protections and rhe industry collapses. This is the odd man out when it comes to politics as it's something supported by both sides. Cost of living is too high in the US to be able to export to many nations. The major consumers would look to the cheaper nations before us, leading to strict export controls, further supporting price increases. We saw a bit about this with the wheat export restrictions and famine fears in some countries. The water allocations should be fixed. It's possible that eliminating crops not suitable for the area could be another fix (rice and almonds) without having to dive too much into the allocation side.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Not a lot of subsidies. Certainly just rhetoric to talk about 'most farms'. Despite the rhetoric of "preserving the family farm," the vast majority of farmers do not benefit from federal farm subsidy programs and most of the subsidies go to the largest and most financially secure farm operations. Small operators can participate in crop insurance. But they pay for that, just like you and me.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    You do realize crop insurance is actually subsidized by the Feds right? Yes, individuals still pay, but the feds cover a portion of the premiums. Commodity market price controls are a form of subsidization. Yes a lot of the money goes to the biggest farms. There are some programs specifically for smaller operations too. There are also state level grants, programs, and subsidies in most states. There are even programs for distressed loans.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      So is most insurance, subsidized. A big disaster, federal assistance comes out - FEMA etc. Billions. The better part of a trillion in the last decade. The existence of small programs is true. But negligible in big picture - one or two pennies from the pocket of the consumer annually.