5 ms·

Many farmers are getting no [0] water this year and are relying on ground water to keep trees alive or not planting seasonal crops. Others get a very small frac

by jconley 12y ago

Many farmers are getting no [0] water this year and are relying on ground water to keep trees alive or not planting seasonal crops. Others get a very small fraction of their typical allotment [1]. California water rights are complicated... [0] http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200.html http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article11355200... [1] http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/state-water-project-growers-get-percent/article_18eaa03b-36d3-52ce-a15f-5e230a991c84.html http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/in_focus/california_drought/...

grok2 12y ago
The farmers are getting no "Federal" water. I don't know what exactly this means -- presumably the state too supplies water to it's farmers via various water-works projects (your 2nd link indicates that farmers relying on state supplied water will get 20% of their usual quota this year) and farmer's also possibly have other sources of water like wells, bore-wells, etc.
- jconley 12y ago
  It's much more convoluted than that, unfortunately. There are many layers of rights to water. Farmers will get anywhere from 100% to 0% of water from government sources. For instance, my family's farm is getting 0, so they are forced to rely on well water.
- pacificmint 12y ago
  There are two different water systems in California. The Central Valley Project [1] is run by the the federal government, the California State Water Project [2] by the state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project
olliej 12y ago
The trees they're trying to keep alive have ridiculously high water consumption, almonds for instance consume 10s of litres of water for each _individual_ almond. They need to stop growing trees like that in a desert, which is what they're doing. The wells they are digging are tapping into the underlying aquifers that are the last resort, so they are in fact getting _free_ water while complaining about the cost. In essence they are stealing the water that other californians pay for. At the same time they are asking for subsidies, to support a business model built on the ridiculously stupid idea of growing high water use crops in a _desert_. The solution is to actually treat this as a free market (as most HN commenters seem to believe is the solution to everything), everyone pays the same amount for water, including farmers. This would mean farmers would actually make sane use of their water - maybe they can't grow almonds for a profit anymore, and switch to something else. They will probably fairly quickly find some new food stuff that people really want to pay lots of money for, but uses less water. That's how things work.
- jconley 12y ago
  I know this is all straw man, but interesting stuff... Many crops use much more water than Almonds [0], I guess they're just fun to pick on. It'd be interesting to see a calorie/water comparison of many foods. Also, my family's farm spends more money on well water than the government supplied water due to the high cost of electricity for pumping. I do agree that a real market for water might help. The root of the problem really is that we are farming in a desert and relying on water from other locations. However, the desert does otherwise provide a great climate for efficiently/consistently producing many crops. [0] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-farmer-20150326-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-fa...
  - pkaye 12y ago
    Do you think if the state gave incentives to use more efficient water usage methods would help. The reality is agriculture is 80% of water consumption while 2% of the state GDP. It would be more efficient for farmers to conserve water and everyone else pitching in to subsidize it.
    - jconley 12y ago
      % of GDP is one lens to look through when thinking about water rights. Having access to affordable/local/healthy food is another. I think incentives would help, yes. There is also a "use it or lose it" system builtin to many of the water rights contracts that are toxic. Much like big corporate budgets, farmers find a way to use the water just in case they need it the next year. The reality is it is very expensive to change irrigation systems in established orchards. Incentives to do that would certainly be well received by the tree farmers I know.
      - bradleyjg 12y ago
        Of course you fail to mention how much water in the form of crops (especially alfalfa) are being exported. That wouldn't fit in with the friendly local farmer providing nutritious food narrative, now would it?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bradleyjg 12y ago
Ground water is also a limited public resource. In fact, draining an aquifer can have even more dire consequences than draining a surface river. The fact that California law allows unlimited water withdrawal until 2040 is literally a tragedy of the commons.
egh 12y ago
No water from the federal government. Not no water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Water_distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Water_distr...

by jconley 12y ago

grok2 12y ago

The farmers are getting no "Federal" water. I don't know what exactly this means -- presumably the state too supplies water to it's farmers via various water-works projects (your 2nd link indicates that farmers relying on state supplied water will get 20% of their usual quota this year) and farmer's also possibly have other sources of water like wells, bore-wells, etc.

jconley 12y ago
It's much more convoluted than that, unfortunately. There are many layers of rights to water. Farmers will get anywhere from 100% to 0% of water from government sources. For instance, my family's farm is getting 0, so they are forced to rely on well water.
pacificmint 12y ago
There are two different water systems in California. The Central Valley Project [1] is run by the the federal government, the California State Water Project [2] by the state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_Project [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project

olliej 12y ago

The trees they're trying to keep alive have ridiculously high water consumption, almonds for instance consume 10s of litres of water for each _individual_ almond. They need to stop growing trees like that in a desert, which is what they're doing. The wells they are digging are tapping into the underlying aquifers that are the last resort, so they are in fact getting _free_ water while complaining about the cost. In essence they are stealing the water that other californians pay for. At the same time they are asking for subsidies, to support a business model built on the ridiculously stupid idea of growing high water use crops in a _desert_. The solution is to actually treat this as a free market (as most HN commenters seem to believe is the solution to everything), everyone pays the same amount for water, including farmers. This would mean farmers would actually make sane use of their water - maybe they can't grow almonds for a profit anymore, and switch to something else. They will probably fairly quickly find some new food stuff that people really want to pay lots of money for, but uses less water. That's how things work.

jconley 12y ago
I know this is all straw man, but interesting stuff... Many crops use much more water than Almonds [0], I guess they're just fun to pick on. It'd be interesting to see a calorie/water comparison of many foods. Also, my family's farm spends more money on well water than the government supplied water due to the high cost of electricity for pumping. I do agree that a real market for water might help. The root of the problem really is that we are farming in a desert and relying on water from other locations. However, the desert does otherwise provide a great climate for efficiently/consistently producing many crops. [0] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-farmer-20150326-story.html http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-fa...
- pkaye 12y ago
  Do you think if the state gave incentives to use more efficient water usage methods would help. The reality is agriculture is 80% of water consumption while 2% of the state GDP. It would be more efficient for farmers to conserve water and everyone else pitching in to subsidize it.
  - jconley 12y ago
    % of GDP is one lens to look through when thinking about water rights. Having access to affordable/local/healthy food is another. I think incentives would help, yes. There is also a "use it or lose it" system builtin to many of the water rights contracts that are toxic. Much like big corporate budgets, farmers find a way to use the water just in case they need it the next year. The reality is it is very expensive to change irrigation systems in established orchards. Incentives to do that would certainly be well received by the tree farmers I know.
    - bradleyjg 12y ago
      Of course you fail to mention how much water in the form of crops (especially alfalfa) are being exported. That wouldn't fit in with the friendly local farmer providing nutritious food narrative, now would it?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

bradleyjg 12y ago

Ground water is also a limited public resource. In fact, draining an aquifer can have even more dire consequences than draining a surface river. The fact that California law allows unlimited water withdrawal until 2040 is literally a tragedy of the commons.

egh 12y ago

No water from the federal government. Not no water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Water_distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Water_distr...