4 ms·

Ideally, farmer's should be charged for water usage instead of water access. Many of the water rights mentioned in the article are access rights. Meaning they c

by jkyle 11y ago

Ideally, farmer's should be charged for water usage instead of water access. Many of the water rights mentioned in the article are access rights. Meaning they can pump and use as much as they want. Make inefficiency come with a cost and watch an entire new industry spring up around water efficiency. Water is a limited and precious resource. Prices should reflect that. Anything less is a subsidy padding the profits of industrial agriculture.

mc32 11y ago
Agreed. The whole system needs to be updated and optimized differently, at least optimized towards efficient water usage, relative to the crop. My objection is the vilification of farmers. I.e. Farmers use 80%! Yet we urbanites are the ones first asked to conserve! The framing is very questionable.
- rjsw 11y ago
  Why make it relative to the crop ? If California is no longer the best place to grow particular things then grow them elsewhere.
- jkyle 11y ago
  No vilification of farmers here. The reason it's absurd to squeeze urbanites is their a minor user of the resource. You simply can't solve the problem by reducing urban water usage. You should always look at inefficiencies in the 80% before you squeeze the 20%. And if the industry contracts a bit, it's not the end of the world or even a significant impact on the economy.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > You simply can't solve the problem by reducing urban water usage. You simply can't solve the problem by reducing rural water usage, either. The most feasible solution would be to build desalinization plants. California is a coastal state, and the majority of its population lives in cities located along said coast; pushing those urban centers to oceanic water will immediately free up that 20% of inland water usage, even more of which could be freed up by farms using oceanic water as well.

4 ms·

Ideally, farmer's should be charged for water usage instead of water access. Many of the water rights mentioned in the article are access rights. Meaning they c

by jkyle 11y ago

mc32 11y ago
Agreed. The whole system needs to be updated and optimized differently, at least optimized towards efficient water usage, relative to the crop. My objection is the vilification of farmers. I.e. Farmers use 80%! Yet we urbanites are the ones first asked to conserve! The framing is very questionable.
- rjsw 11y ago
  Why make it relative to the crop ? If California is no longer the best place to grow particular things then grow them elsewhere.
- jkyle 11y ago
  No vilification of farmers here. The reason it's absurd to squeeze urbanites is their a minor user of the resource. You simply can't solve the problem by reducing urban water usage. You should always look at inefficiencies in the 80% before you squeeze the 20%. And if the industry contracts a bit, it's not the end of the world or even a significant impact on the economy.
  - yellowapple 11y ago
    > You simply can't solve the problem by reducing urban water usage. You simply can't solve the problem by reducing rural water usage, either. The most feasible solution would be to build desalinization plants. California is a coastal state, and the majority of its population lives in cities located along said coast; pushing those urban centers to oceanic water will immediately free up that 20% of inland water usage, even more of which could be freed up by farms using oceanic water as well.