6 ms·
If you had more knowledge of agriculture, you wouldn't make an ill-informed comment like "We laugh at middle eastern countries for trying to make agricultural i
by 7Figures2Commas 11y ago
If you had more knowledge of agriculture, you wouldn't make an ill-informed comment like "We laugh at middle eastern countries for trying to make agricultural industries in the desert (see: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen), but we're doing the same thing in California."
The Central Valley has the largest area of Class I soil in the world. Don't know what that means? Look it up. The climate in the Central Valley is quite unique and perfect for growing a wide range of crops. Very few regions in the world have the characteristics of California's Central Valley.
This doesn't mean that water isn't a serious issue worthy of debate. But folks like you, whose knowledge of agriculture is clearly quite superficial, aren't adding anything to the debate. You conveniently ignore how important California agriculture is to our nation's food supply and seem to be willing to pretend that ag in California can just go away without consequence. In reality, it's not the farmers who stand to lose the most if a sustainable solution to this issue isn't found; it's the American people.
- rayiner 11y agoThis isn't an agricultural issue. It's an issue of environmental economics. If California's soil is so valuable, some farmers will be able to grow crops there profitably even if they have to bear the true cost of water and dam infrastructure. Giving those things to them for free just encourages agricultural activity beyond what is efficient. I'm not one to reflexively invoke the magic market fairy, but this is pretty much the textbook case of where markets are good at allocating scarce resources.
- ew6082 11y agoNot that simple. Dams and canals aren't just subsides, they're system efficiency multipliers, much like the Interstate Highway system. Sure, we all pay for such things, but the benefits to transport or farming efficiency reduce end consumer costs significantly. But, as we say in the water industry, Whisky's for Drinkin', Water's for fightin' over!
- rayiner 11y agoYou have to ask yourself why we subsidize certain kinds of infrastructure, and whether that rationale applies equally to transportation as to dams. The answer is it doesn't. There are two basic concepts in environmental economics: positive and negative externalities. A positive externality is when someone benefits from something they don't pay for. Markets under-produce things that create positive externalities, because the price does not reflect that externalized benefit. You correct for positive externalities with subsidies. A negative externality is when someone is harmed by something they do not get compensation for. Markets over-produce things that create negative externalities, because the price does not reflect that externalized cost. You correct for negative externalities with taxes. Transportation infrastructure creates positive externalities. People benefit from a train line besides those who pay to ride it. Dams create negative externalities. The environment and people downstream are harmed by diversion of water, but they don't get compensated for that harm. Consumers buying produce is not a positive externality, because they pay for that produce. Water is an input to production, and the benefits accrue pretty much only to water users, or those who purchase a product or service from water users. If we stopped subsidizing water, the prices of California avocados would go up, but those prices would be efficient prices that correctly reflected the true cost of growing produce in a place with scarce water.
- ew6082 11y agoEh, people also benefit from water management. The alternative is pouring all that fresh water into the ocean. You'd be paying for these guys to do it less efficiently, or paying more to the other guy who farms it in the Midwest or S. America because he doesn't have the competition.
- mentat 11y agoThis seems fundamentally unresponsive to the parent. What is the true cost of water and infrastructure? Who decides? In any case it's not a desert which was your original statement so do you retract that?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]