4 ms·

This article doesn't address why the California government is being so stupid about water rationing. Why isn't it reforming these broken water laws that are me

This article doesn't address why the California government is being so stupid about water rationing. Why isn't it reforming these broken water laws that are mentioned in the article? The CA govt just dodges the question, every time. Why? Are the agriculture lobbyists really that powerful? Or is something else going on here?

mhurron 12y ago
You really have to ask why a government in the US isn't taking action against a business or industry?
TulliusCicero 12y ago
Farmers are sacred in America. People are terrified of the idea that, "if we cut how much water they get, how will we eat???" Never mind that such thinking is nonsense. What will happen if water becomes more expensive is that farmers will adopt more efficient technology, they will grow somewhat less of the thirstier crops, and those crops will go up in price somewhat. So yes, the downside is that the price of your almonds and alfalfa will be a bit higher; the upside is that people will have enough water for day to day use to live normally.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  Also, "if we enforce immigration laws or require farmers to pay a living wage, how will we eat?" It's despicable.
  - clamprecht 12y ago
    And I guess 150 years ago, it was "If we can't use slave labor, how can we afford to produce X".
    - WalterSear 12y ago
      Human psychology and its inherent cognitive dissonance and moral relativism is an absolute bitch.
- raldi 12y ago
  > if we cut how much water they get, how will we eat? And the thing is, we don't even need to curtail farming to the point where it impacts what we (Californians) eat. We just need to stop using California's water to grow things that people in other states (or other continents) eat. Or charge them more for it, and use the proceeds to pay for expensive water-production and water-preservation technology.
- beamatronic 12y ago
  I'm ready to have a STEM-based government where all of the participants ( read: politicians ) are from a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math background.
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find a person alive who isn't onboard with the idea that everything should be run by people they perceive as most like themselves. It's not a terribly useful sentiment.
  - nsnick 12y ago
    Doesn't China have a government like that?
    - BrainInAJar 12y ago
      lots of repressive states have engineering led governments.
    - dmoy 12y ago
      Yes, especially if you include economics in STEM, then 5 out of 7 on the standing committee are in that boat, as well as many of the previous members.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  We don't need too much water to grow many crops. http://www.gereports.com/post/91250246340/lettuce-see-the-future-japanese-farmer-builds http://www.gereports.com/post/91250246340/lettuce-see-the-fu... "the farm can also cut its water usage to just 1 percent of the amount needed by outdoor fields."
JohnTHaller 12y ago
Because money. That's generally the answer when the government does something that defies logic.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Have you not seen the opposition to the governor's existing water plans (for new infrastructure bonds and so on)? Inland California is conservative, and happy to blame liberal coastal elites for the problem even though most of the water is used in the Central Valley. And yet, agricultural lobbyists are really that powerful. Even though farming is only about 2-3% of the state's GDP, the farming lobby is crazy militant. Also, right-leaning politicians love to stoke conflict between rural and urban-dwellers, as it translates into more rural votes at election time.
rodgerd 12y ago
> Are the agriculture lobbyists really that powerful? Yes. This is hardly limited to California. Dairy, corn, wheat, the list goes on, and in many case pandering to those lobbies undermines the US' international interests.
bsder 12y ago
Because it hasn't hit individual people hard enough to begin fighting against the agribusinesses. The agribusinesses (let's not call them farmers please) know that the moment there is real water rationing or consumer price of water goes up, all holy hell will break loose and people will demand that the use of water for crops simply stop. So, they are making sure that the end consumer view of water stays static while vacuuming up as much profit as they can before it all collapses.
- anthonyarroyo 12y ago
  I agree that we should stop calling them farmers, it allows them to leverage all the Norman Rockwell good sentiment. I have family who farm lavender, grapes, pomegranates, etc. They work hard and they are a small operation. They are farmers. This pistachio guy is a run of the mill corporate shitbag and should be reminded of such.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

mhurron 12y ago

You really have to ask why a government in the US isn't taking action against a business or industry?

TulliusCicero 12y ago

Farmers are sacred in America. People are terrified of the idea that, "if we cut how much water they get, how will we eat???" Never mind that such thinking is nonsense. What will happen if water becomes more expensive is that farmers will adopt more efficient technology, they will grow somewhat less of the thirstier crops, and those crops will go up in price somewhat. So yes, the downside is that the price of your almonds and alfalfa will be a bit higher; the upside is that people will have enough water for day to day use to live normally.

WalterSear 12y ago
Also, "if we enforce immigration laws or require farmers to pay a living wage, how will we eat?" It's despicable.
- clamprecht 12y ago
  And I guess 150 years ago, it was "If we can't use slave labor, how can we afford to produce X".
  - WalterSear 12y ago
    Human psychology and its inherent cognitive dissonance and moral relativism is an absolute bitch.
raldi 12y ago
> if we cut how much water they get, how will we eat? And the thing is, we don't even need to curtail farming to the point where it impacts what we (Californians) eat. We just need to stop using California's water to grow things that people in other states (or other continents) eat. Or charge them more for it, and use the proceeds to pay for expensive water-production and water-preservation technology.
beamatronic 12y ago
I'm ready to have a STEM-based government where all of the participants ( read: politicians ) are from a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math background.
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Of course, you'd be hard-pressed to find a person alive who isn't onboard with the idea that everything should be run by people they perceive as most like themselves. It's not a terribly useful sentiment.
- nsnick 12y ago
  Doesn't China have a government like that?
  - BrainInAJar 12y ago
    lots of repressive states have engineering led governments.
  - dmoy 12y ago
    Yes, especially if you include economics in STEM, then 5 out of 7 on the standing committee are in that boat, as well as many of the previous members.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
IndianAstronaut 12y ago
We don't need too much water to grow many crops. http://www.gereports.com/post/91250246340/lettuce-see-the-future-japanese-farmer-builds http://www.gereports.com/post/91250246340/lettuce-see-the-fu... "the farm can also cut its water usage to just 1 percent of the amount needed by outdoor fields."

JohnTHaller 12y ago

Because money. That's generally the answer when the government does something that defies logic.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Have you not seen the opposition to the governor's existing water plans (for new infrastructure bonds and so on)? Inland California is conservative, and happy to blame liberal coastal elites for the problem even though most of the water is used in the Central Valley. And yet, agricultural lobbyists are really that powerful. Even though farming is only about 2-3% of the state's GDP, the farming lobby is crazy militant. Also, right-leaning politicians love to stoke conflict between rural and urban-dwellers, as it translates into more rural votes at election time.

rodgerd 12y ago

> Are the agriculture lobbyists really that powerful? Yes. This is hardly limited to California. Dairy, corn, wheat, the list goes on, and in many case pandering to those lobbies undermines the US' international interests.

bsder 12y ago

Because it hasn't hit individual people hard enough to begin fighting against the agribusinesses. The agribusinesses (let's not call them farmers please) know that the moment there is real water rationing or consumer price of water goes up, all holy hell will break loose and people will demand that the use of water for crops simply stop. So, they are making sure that the end consumer view of water stays static while vacuuming up as much profit as they can before it all collapses.

anthonyarroyo 12y ago
I agree that we should stop calling them farmers, it allows them to leverage all the Norman Rockwell good sentiment. I have family who farm lavender, grapes, pomegranates, etc. They work hard and they are a small operation. They are farmers. This pistachio guy is a run of the mill corporate shitbag and should be reminded of such.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]