3 ms·
Not that this is a simple answer politically, but every time I see an article about whether we should use water on almonds[1] or alfalfa[2] or six endangered fi
by glaugh 12y ago
Not that this is a simple answer politically, but every time I see an article about whether we should use water on almonds[1] or alfalfa[2] or six endangered fish, I wish we would just price water more appropriately, and let more valuable uses of water win out over less. Wouldn't solve this particular issue, but a more appropriate price for this decision would at least help focus minds on what exactly is the tradeoff.
This sort of thing: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-price-of-water-is-too-low.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/business/economy/the-price...
[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0...
[2] http://gizmodo.com/seriously-stop-demonizing-almonds-1696065939 http://gizmodo.com/seriously-stop-demonizing-almonds-1696065...
- ScottBurson 12y agoPricing water appropriately would be great, but there's more to this issue than that. In a nutshell: what is the value of keeping a fish species from going extinct? That's a policy question requiring public debate.
- sandworm 12y agoThe public debate has already come and gone. The law is written. The fish wins.
- briandear 12y agoMaybe everyone should just move out of California. Or perhaps they could all just euthanize themselves? That would save a lot of water. Certainly saving six fish is far for important.
- tim333 12y agoThey should mandate water supply for endangered species and then after that price water at the same price for everyone. Much of the current agriculture would become unviable and the farmers could switch to either less thirst crops, growing somewhere wetter or just get some comp and do something else. Agricultural water use would plummet. Problem solved. Apart from politics of course.