6 ms·

Rice is largely (~95%) grown in the Sacramento Valley, which has plenty of water for it [0]. California produces 82% of the world's almonds [1]. California is

by wooster 12y ago

Rice is largely (~95%) grown in the Sacramento Valley, which has plenty of water for it [0]. California produces 82% of the world's almonds [1]. California is a big ag state for crops requiring irrigation because we have a lot of water (relatively), good weather, and damned good farmers. People would do well to start thinking about California's water problems with the assumption that the farmers have thought about it a lot more than they have. [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2598509.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2598509.html [1] http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-almonds-20140112-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-california-almonds-201...

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Someone thinking about it more is irrelevant. Let's see evidence, plans, and simulations about how the problem can be solved rather than deferring to yet another authority.
- wooster 12y ago
  The regional water boards in California, along with the local water districts, have ample amounts of all of the above dating back to 1967 and beyond, funded by taxpayers, with publicly available data, and in most cases involving said farmers. Feel free to look at the data and get back with your findings. In the meantime, no, "someone thinking about it more" isn't irrelevant. They've been thinking about it more, and taking action, for decades.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago
    If you can't link me straight to what you're talking about, then it isn't good enough yet. If I had to attempt to verify every bullshit sounding argument that I came across, I'd never get any work done. The fact is there appears to be a serious water shortage while the 'authorities' have supposedly been taking care of it for decades. The argument that was made was that we should assume the farmers have "thought about it more than we have", with the implication that we should heed their opinion because they've been sioled away for decades, 'thinking about it'. Show me the dashboard that shows real-time estimates for total water reserves and all the charts about how long that will last us under all scenarios. I was able to find this: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act... But that's just an image posted on top of the state's ubiquitous CMS showing how far below average the water levels have fallen under the stewardship of the current authorities. It's not terrible, but the problem is that it provides very little context for what those water levels mean. How long is that water going to last (it seems like we want to find a way to make this 'indefinite')? How should water usage be modified to make it last longer? What are the effects going to be on food production? These are the questions that we need to know the answers to. Furthermore,this information should be accessible to everyone through a URL so that most of us who don't have time to look back through ~45 years of data to figure out what is going on, can get the current, most relevant information to form rational opinions, instead of just trusting that the 'people in charge' are on top of it.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    Sorry wooster, but "time spent thinking" is utterly irrelevant. Why? Because the expression is meaningless. To have meaning it needs to indicate to what end. There's a world of difference between (for example) "thinking about how to assert as much control over a limited resource for the lowest cost possible" and "thinking about how to manage a limited resource as effectively as possible given the broad range of needs and interests in the state." Farmers have been thinking about themselves for decades. The policies we have as a result reflect precious little interest in the well-being of California as a whole.
stickfigure 12y ago
Farmers are the direct beneficiaries of large, expensive water projects paid for through taxes and bond measures. You can certainly bet they have thought a lot about California's water problems, but I wouldn't accept their suggestions as impartial. Claiming that the Sacramento Valley has plenty of water for rice is nonsense. The Sacramento Valley gets its water from the Sacramento River, which is "fully appropriated" and, from the view out my window, is looking a little shallow these days.
- nitrogen 12y ago
  I've seen this hostility toward agriculture from Californians before on HN, and I don't understand it. Farmers grow the food we eat, so if they need water, we need them to need that water. There doesn't need to be a divide between farmer and non-farmer, with each side hating the other.
  - mariodiana 12y ago
    It's because food should be grown where it's economical to grow it, not where government subsidy is the fundamental thing allowing it. In a manner of speaking, California's chief source of fertilizer is Washington.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      That's a fair point. I think it can be done more cooperatively, though, without the animosity. Still, there are definitely parts of California that are the best place to grow certain things, and there's also something to be said for locally grown produce in terms of carbon footprint and national food security.
      - stickfigure 12y ago
        Considering that farmers are effectively living off of welfare, have been doing so for generations, and tend to be one of the furthest-right voting blocks in the state, I think a fair amount of animosity is warranted.
rgbrenner 12y ago
> which has plenty of water for it [0] [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2598509.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2598509.html That link does not support what you've said. It's just an article about there not being enough water for farmers.. really the opposite of what you've said.
- wooster 12y ago
  The link was mostly for the 95% stat for the Sacramento Valley. A lot of people who trot out the rice talking point seem to think rice is mostly being grown in a "desert", when it's really not.
  - rgbrenner 12y ago
    fair enough. thanks for the clarification.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  Much of the central Sacramento valley is floodplain which can be, and has been, more of an inland sea or lake during wet winters than a valley. Before flood control was put in, Sacramento itself was subject to major inundations, though the last of these was in the 1950s as I recall. During early settler / Indian times, substantially the entire central valley would flood. It's a watershed in which a 300-400 mile long, 50-100 mile wide region drains, all of it flowing out ultimately through the Golden Gate. Water can and does pile up there. And that's the region where rice is typically grown. Contrast this with southern California -- the arid southern part of the Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley near Bakersfield is pretty dry, but cross the Tehachapi Mountains to the south and you're in the Mohave desert. That region still gets water, via the California Aqueduct and state water project, and is also home to much agriculture, including alfalfa and cotton cultivation, which demands a lot of water.
maxerickson 12y ago
What region has the worst farmers? Maybe more interesting, which one with comparable economic development to the US.

by wooster 12y ago

jsprogrammer 12y ago

Someone thinking about it more is irrelevant. Let's see evidence, plans, and simulations about how the problem can be solved rather than deferring to yet another authority.

wooster 12y ago
The regional water boards in California, along with the local water districts, have ample amounts of all of the above dating back to 1967 and beyond, funded by taxpayers, with publicly available data, and in most cases involving said farmers. Feel free to look at the data and get back with your findings. In the meantime, no, "someone thinking about it more" isn't irrelevant. They've been thinking about it more, and taking action, for decades.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  If you can't link me straight to what you're talking about, then it isn't good enough yet. If I had to attempt to verify every bullshit sounding argument that I came across, I'd never get any work done. The fact is there appears to be a serious water shortage while the 'authorities' have supposedly been taking care of it for decades. The argument that was made was that we should assume the farmers have "thought about it more than we have", with the implication that we should heed their opinion because they've been sioled away for decades, 'thinking about it'. Show me the dashboard that shows real-time estimates for total water reserves and all the charts about how long that will last us under all scenarios. I was able to find this: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.action http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cdecapp/resapp/getResGraphsMain.act... But that's just an image posted on top of the state's ubiquitous CMS showing how far below average the water levels have fallen under the stewardship of the current authorities. It's not terrible, but the problem is that it provides very little context for what those water levels mean. How long is that water going to last (it seems like we want to find a way to make this 'indefinite')? How should water usage be modified to make it last longer? What are the effects going to be on food production? These are the questions that we need to know the answers to. Furthermore,this information should be accessible to everyone through a URL so that most of us who don't have time to look back through ~45 years of data to figure out what is going on, can get the current, most relevant information to form rational opinions, instead of just trusting that the 'people in charge' are on top of it.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  Sorry wooster, but "time spent thinking" is utterly irrelevant. Why? Because the expression is meaningless. To have meaning it needs to indicate to what end. There's a world of difference between (for example) "thinking about how to assert as much control over a limited resource for the lowest cost possible" and "thinking about how to manage a limited resource as effectively as possible given the broad range of needs and interests in the state." Farmers have been thinking about themselves for decades. The policies we have as a result reflect precious little interest in the well-being of California as a whole.

stickfigure 12y ago

Farmers are the direct beneficiaries of large, expensive water projects paid for through taxes and bond measures. You can certainly bet they have thought a lot about California's water problems, but I wouldn't accept their suggestions as impartial. Claiming that the Sacramento Valley has plenty of water for rice is nonsense. The Sacramento Valley gets its water from the Sacramento River, which is "fully appropriated" and, from the view out my window, is looking a little shallow these days.

nitrogen 12y ago
I've seen this hostility toward agriculture from Californians before on HN, and I don't understand it. Farmers grow the food we eat, so if they need water, we need them to need that water. There doesn't need to be a divide between farmer and non-farmer, with each side hating the other.
- mariodiana 12y ago
  It's because food should be grown where it's economical to grow it, not where government subsidy is the fundamental thing allowing it. In a manner of speaking, California's chief source of fertilizer is Washington.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    That's a fair point. I think it can be done more cooperatively, though, without the animosity. Still, there are definitely parts of California that are the best place to grow certain things, and there's also something to be said for locally grown produce in terms of carbon footprint and national food security.
    - stickfigure 12y ago
      Considering that farmers are effectively living off of welfare, have been doing so for generations, and tend to be one of the furthest-right voting blocks in the state, I think a fair amount of animosity is warranted.

rgbrenner 12y ago

> which has plenty of water for it [0] [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2598509.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article2598509.html That link does not support what you've said. It's just an article about there not being enough water for farmers.. really the opposite of what you've said.

wooster 12y ago
The link was mostly for the 95% stat for the Sacramento Valley. A lot of people who trot out the rice talking point seem to think rice is mostly being grown in a "desert", when it's really not.
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  fair enough. thanks for the clarification.
dredmorbius 12y ago
Much of the central Sacramento valley is floodplain which can be, and has been, more of an inland sea or lake during wet winters than a valley. Before flood control was put in, Sacramento itself was subject to major inundations, though the last of these was in the 1950s as I recall. During early settler / Indian times, substantially the entire central valley would flood. It's a watershed in which a 300-400 mile long, 50-100 mile wide region drains, all of it flowing out ultimately through the Golden Gate. Water can and does pile up there. And that's the region where rice is typically grown. Contrast this with southern California -- the arid southern part of the Sacramento / San Joaquin Valley near Bakersfield is pretty dry, but cross the Tehachapi Mountains to the south and you're in the Mohave desert. That region still gets water, via the California Aqueduct and state water project, and is also home to much agriculture, including alfalfa and cotton cultivation, which demands a lot of water.

maxerickson 12y ago

What region has the worst farmers? Maybe more interesting, which one with comparable economic development to the US.