Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California has about one year of water left

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#131

Post by user_0001 »

IndianAstronaut wrote: post #73
emodendroket wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which would still be absolutely catastrophic considering how much of US (and world, for that matter) supplies of produce come from CA.

Not really. If the US opened up its agricultural markets much more to the rest of the world, there will be no shortage of suppliers. Problem is that to sell crops to the US there is a maze of regulations and tariffs.

and the practise of subsidies to over produce then forcibly dump the product on other countries, decimating their local farming economies as they are not allowed to add import tariffs and subsidize their industries as that is anti-competitive

Re: California has about one year of water left

#132

Post by minikites »

Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: strong language and opinion I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu. You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways.…

I live in rural New York and I have mixed feelings about fracking for similar reasons. Why should we push environmental problems onto other people? We should be the ones to deal with them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_issues_in_the_Nig...

> A UNDP report states that there have been a total of 6,817 oil spills between 1976 and 2001, which account for a loss of three million barrels of oil, of which more than 70% was not recovered.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#133

Post by happyscrappy »

Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: strong language and opinion I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu. You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways.…

The sad truth is that the US will be fine. Few countries are as well positioned for rapid change as the US. Sorry.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#134

Post by zedpm »

melling wrote: post #29
sp332 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, if people can't afford water to drink, they're clearly not valuable enough to live. If a farm can't afford water for crops, the crops weren't profitable enough to grow anyway. And if the rest of the nation can't afford food since some foods will be scarce without California farms, they should just be more productive. No need for regulation!

Maybe we should get our almonds from somewhere else? http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/0... Maybe California wouldn't have such a problem if they didn't plant crops that required so much water?

Good thought; Marcona almonds from Spain are much better anyway.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#135

Post by ars »

malandrew wrote: post #109
rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…

other, more water rich parts of the country My main question is: What are these other water rich part of the country that aren't already fully exploited for agriculture? Are there maps published somewhere that tell people where they can move to to establish farms elsewhere?

The US has lots of young forests that grew after people abandoned the area that used to be farmed.

If you ever go for a walk in the woods and wonder why the trees are all so (relatively) small, that's why.

There is plenty of room for more farmland. You will have to cut some trees, but that's always been the case.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#136

Post by crpatino »

tdees40 wrote: post #9
joshstrange wrote: post #5

So what happens when they run out of water? Are there water sources that are just undrinkable that can be cleaned up; similar to fracking now being cheap enough to compete with OPEC is there no water or just no drinkable water? Can they just "ship" or "pipe" the water in from neighboring states or are they too on the edge of a draught. Is this country-wide, just Western states, or just California and can other states…

My understanding is that under most scenarios water for humans is fine, but agriculture will be totally dead in California.

Because humans don't eat, right?

Re: California has about one year of water left

#137

Post by bcherry »

sandworm wrote: post #114

I blame golf. Really. I learned to play on an OIL course. They mixed oil and sand to create a fairway and we carried around a piece of astroturf to place under the ball (see http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833 ). A grass course in a desert (ie most every course in california) is a totally unnecessary waste of water. When they stop spending water on golf, THEN we can talk about rationing water for household use. (…

Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water usage in California annually.

Human water usage in CA is about 80% agricultural, 20% "urban". "Urban" covers all residential, (non-agricultural) commericial, landscaping, etc. Of the "Urban" usage, about 60% is residential, with indoor usage as the majority. Residential landscaping (lawns, pools, etc) uses at least 3 times as much as all commercial landscaping (golf courses, parks, etc).

Re: California has about one year of water left

#138

Post by JimboOmega »

emodendroket wrote: post #37
joshstrange wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ahh, ok they hinted at that in the article but for some reason it didn't click in my head. I wonder if the farmers will just move to neighboring states (not that it's easy to pick up and move a farm....) losing farms in California would be a huge loss: > California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percen…

It's not as though the drought just stops at the border of California, so that probably won't be practical.

But the agriculturally impacted area is, essentially, the central valley, which is entirely in California.

There are areas of Oregon and Arizona impacted by the same general drought, but they are a drop in the bucket (pun partially intended).

Re: California has about one year of water left

#139

Post by chrisBob »

malandrew wrote: post #116
j_baker wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Midwest would make a good alternative place to grow. It won't be as prone to droughts and will have a longer growing season due to climate change. Either that or giving farmers a subsidy for growing crops that require less water. Our huge Almond industry is a giant water-guzzler.

Almond Trees at maturity seem to be small enough to be movable to new locations (12-33 ft high, 12 in trunk)

You can move a tree. Moving a tree successfully is completely different. If you are in a race to grow a 20', you are generally better off starting with a seedling than a 10' tree because they handle the move so poorly.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#140

Post by wnissen »

protomyth wrote: post #130
rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…

If the rest of the country could grow the same crops as "America's Salad Bowl" we would. California is ideal for those crops and without the large population would be fine. It is probably past time to actually push desalination plants or convince a lot of people to move somewhere else.

The people consume only a fraction of the water and it's dishonest in the extreme to say that things would be "fine" without them. Each ton of alfalfa in California consumes more water than a family uses in a year and yet sells for $200. There were 13 million tons sold last year. If we got rid of the low-value forage crops, the people (who would pay a hell of a lot more than $200 a year) would have more than enough water.
Post reply on HN