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

211–220 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#211

Post by malandrew »

ars wrote: post #135
malandrew wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where? I'm talking about more than a plot of land. Farmers also need all the institutional support features in agricultural regions that help moving their crops from farm to table.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#212

Post by beowulfey »

noobermin wrote: post #169
ars wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm curious which places these are and why such areas were abandoned for farmland in the first place.

I can't speak for most places, but New Hampshire is almost all new-growth forest. If you roam the woods you'll find miles of ancient stone walls demarking the edges of long-gone farms. Of course, there's not much LAND in New Hampshire so it definitely can't take on California's role (even disregarding all the other problems), but I wanted to give an example of abandoned farmland.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#213

Post by dataker »

I must be cursed.

I spend my time between San Francisco and Sao Paulo(Brazil). Although Brazil has natural resources, Sao Paulo has been experiencing a severe drought for several months. Many residents only have water between 7am-1pm and it doesn't seem to get any better. Actually, regulators have been trying to come up with water rationing and limit its usage to two days a week.

I hope CA doesn't have to go through the same thing.

http://www.citylab.com/weather/2015/02/no-one-is-quite-sure-...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#214

Post by ThrustVectoring »

acdha wrote: post #118
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…

I think simply phasing out water subsidies would be a huge win. I've read a fair number of reports suggesting that, while not great, the situation would be considerably improved if farmers had an incentive to invest in more efficient irrigation techniques or switch to more drought-tolerant crops. The catch is that it costs money and that's risky if you're the first one in the industry doing it – if the government ann…

There's a related issue of perennial, tree, and more orchard-like agriculture rather than seasonal crops. These farmers cannot reduce their water consumption without suffering massive losses - they're price insensitive on water to a large extent, and their choices are irrigate or go bankrupt.

IIRC, avocado trees are a big culprit for California's future commitment to consuming water for agricultural purposes.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#215

Post by throwaway344 »

happyscrappy wrote: post #189
angersock wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then we let them suffer. What's the problem here?

The market will decide and it will be more profitable to sell American almonds in the American market.

The underlying problem is that the scarcity of water is not being taken account into what farmers pay for it.

That underlying discrepancy distorts the market and prevents Ricardo's comparative advantage from being done.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#216

Post by malandrew »

beowulfey wrote: post #212
noobermin wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious which places these are and why such areas were abandoned for farmland in the first place.

I can't speak for most places, but New Hampshire is almost all new-growth forest. If you roam the woods you'll find miles of ancient stone walls demarking the edges of long-gone farms. Of course, there's not much LAND in New Hampshire so it definitely can't take on California's role (even disregarding all the other problems), but I wanted to give an example of abandoned farmland.

How competitive is NH with a region like California weather-wise? I would imagine that the growing season is much shorter in NH, making it way less attractive. Farming in New England is either specific to the climate or exists mainly because that's where many Europeans first colonized America. Just because farming made economic sense there 50-100 years ago, doesn't mean that it makes economic sense there today.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#217

Post by protomyth »

Smushman wrote: post #182
protomyth wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as an intellectual exercise, if the Los Angeles and San Francisco metroplexes simply vanished, would there be enough water?

It is hard to tell if you are trolling, a California farmer, or just being plain obtuse. tl;dr - NO. It would not make a difference. Google your question. The answer is below for you. Source: KCET article. February 10, 2014. California's water budget is skewed heavily toward agriculture. The conventional estimate is that 80 percent of the water used in California flows into the state's multi-billion-dollar agricultur…

No, I'm actually asking the question since Wikipedia's quote is "In an average year, about 40% of California's water is used for agricultural purposes". Which makes me wonder about how far down California is that it is now 80%?

Re: California has about one year of water left

#218

Post by happyscrappy »

JimboOmega wrote: post #157
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 net outcome of this drought will probably hurt those in less developed countries more than Americans. Californians will not go thirsty or not be able to take showers; there's enough water for municipal supplies. Agriculture will, however, take a hit. While the valley produces a huge amount of produce, it is still a small part of the overall California economy. Prices will go up for vegetable…

That is not a very satisfying answer for people hoping for America's demise.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#219

Post by gdulli »

ziyadb wrote: post #129

Just to add my 2 cents. I'm based in Saudi Arabia, and considering the deserted climate and environment, there are literally no persistent water sources (aside from a few select wells that are over-exploited by bottled water manufacturers). Desalination is currently (as of 2015) being used to supply 50% of Saudi Arabia's water needs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_... So yes, it's feasibl…

They'll have enough salt to last forever!

Re: California has about one year of water left

#220

Post by lotsofmangos »

sandworm wrote: post #165
bcherry wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 commerci…

I made no claim that it was a huge contributor. I use it as an example of needless waste. Only once we are willing to deal with the truly frivolous uses of water (golf, fountains etc) can we hope to deal with more utilitarian uses. And I totally dismiss logic dictating that we must only deal with the largest and most contentious contributors to a problem before all others. That is only a delay tactic.

And I totally dismiss logic dictating that we must only deal with the largest and most contentious contributors to a problem before all others. That is only a delay tactic.

If I have a limited budget and am trying to reduce water use in California, pissing off a load of rich executives, judges and lawyers who can prove, in court, that their contribution to the problem is negligible, would not be my first move.

edit - and fountains? Are you the reincarnation of John Calvin?

Post reply on HN