California has about one year of water left • Hacker News Board

Re: California has about one year of water left

#301

Post by rconti » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #28

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!

It makes more sense to farm in places that have reliable sources of water. I don't see why we need to subsidize California's crops, especially when we have so much great soil wasted on corn. Farming, in general, in the US is fairly messed up. Perhaps this crisis will lead to a fix. Maintaining the status quo and pretending everything is okay via regulation and political corruption is what got us here. Lets not contin…

Define "reliable". California DOES have a reliable source of water. There's a reason the crops are grown here in the first place! The problem is, it's not a reliable source of water for the demands being placed on it. Which is something you'll find, oh, anywhere you start trying to move this agriculture project. It'll work great, and there will be enough for everyone, right up until there isn't.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#302

Post by zach » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

It's fascinating to see the many reservoirs we were supposed to have built by now. The engineers of the 1950s and 1960s had a lot of big plans that were all supposed to be in place decades ago (look at the gray squares on the map):

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

A lot of people will say "the environmentalists" stopped them, but really it was that lawmakers gave environmental concerns only one effective tool -- enforcing standards via litigation.

The task of resolving environmental concerns was pushed out of the political and economic arena into an adversarial process that takes a huge amount of paperwork, lawyer time and calendar time to resolve.

Exactly like the Republicans with Proposition 13 (a California initiative which required supermajority voter approval for taxes), once you take fundamental powers away from the legislative and executive branches, you really limit the potential effectiveness of the government. And now California's infrastructure is a mess.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#303

Post by ceejayoz » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #251

ceejayoz wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably wouldn't. Desalinization leaves a lot of salty brine to be disposed of.

Put it back in the ocean? That's where it was before anyways. It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the ocean.

> It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the ocean.

Ocean-wide, no. Where it's dumped, definitely.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#304

Post by waterlesscloud » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

omegaham wrote: post #87

waterlesscloud wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The poor and the middle class, screwed by lower food prices. Agriculture (food) actually does have benefits for nearly everyone, you know.

If you have to, you can subsidize food costs for the poor later on. Right now, the subsidy is going to the wrong place.

If you're subsidizing food costs "later on", the money is still going to the large corporations.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#305

Post by kaybe » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:00 PM UTC

jaryd wrote: post #223

bashinator wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, here's some mainstream reporting of it http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo... And here's the original research. http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report47-WaterFootprin...

Wow--thanks! The "How Thirsty Is Your Food" infographic from the first link is really incredible. Definitely makes me think differently about eating handfuls of almonds, or a huge amount of broc with dinner.

Water use is often seen as something negative. When the crops come from a wet place anyway, it shouldn't be a problem I think.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#306

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:04 PM UTC

ghettoCoder wrote: post #92

treehau5 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until new farms capitalize on the opportunity to capture the market in places where there's an abundance of water.

Spoken like a true city dweller. Like other have alluded to, farmers think in terms of years. Ever hear the expression "the best time to plant a fruit tree was 5 years ago". I wonder where that came from.

[deleted]

Re: California has about one year of water left

#307

Post by beat » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:05 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #245

beat wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. Farm crops are what works well for the soil and climate of that region. You don't see fields of corn in California because it's not an attractive climate for corn. Likewise, you don't see fields of broccoli in Iowa, for the same reasons. Midwest corn mostly goes to feed for cattle, hogs, and chickens. The corn may not be really great human food, but it gets made into great human food through an…

You don't see fields of corn in California because it's not an attractive climate for corn. Why? I've seen corn grown in California. I think the lack of corn has more to do with the ability to grow more profitable crops than corn in California. I can't see why corn wouldn't grow well here.

Oh, it would grow. It's just not optimum use of the land.

Meanwhile, nothing is worth growing in the midwest unless it can handle real thunderstorms and real winter. A lot of vegetables rely on a mild climate. Our CSA farm grows a wide variety of vegetables, but they regularly lose parts of their crop to hail, late freezes, and other situations that just don't happen in California.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#308

Post by treehau5 » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:07 PM UTC

ghettoCoder wrote: post #92

treehau5 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until new farms capitalize on the opportunity to capture the market in places where there's an abundance of water.

Spoken like a true city dweller. Like other have alluded to, farmers think in terms of years. Ever hear the expression "the best time to plant a fruit tree was 5 years ago". I wonder where that came from.

Grew up in a small town in NC. Agriculture and textiles were the biggest industries, outside of banking "in the city"

Ever heard the expression "assumptions make an ass out of you?"

Re: California has about one year of water left

#309

Post by pakled_engineer » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:13 PM UTC

bradleyjg wrote: post #141

jonnathanson wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that California is so ideal for agriculture because of its climate (with the water scarcity being the big liability, the can we've been kicking down the road for decades). Other states, either individually or collectively, do not have the year-round, Mediterranean, relatively predictable climate to take on the load that California would drop. This includes not only total square acreage of arable,…

There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music. It's a win-win.

I just read a story the other day how Iranian almond farmers were lamenting the trade sanctions sitting on tons of them while US exporters grabbed their market

Re: California has about one year of water left

#310

Post by crpatino » Fri, Mar 13, 2015, 8:14 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #248

crpatino wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Golf courses account for probably not more than 0.5% of all human water usage in California annually. Great! That's half percent point gain of a life-constraining resource at the cost of a little non-essential entertainment for a small minority of people. It's the same when you are trying to make a tight budget. First you cut off all the stupid impulse purchases. Then you figure out how much of each useful expense…

Eh, I cut out Spotify (what, $9.99/month) and saved some $120/year. Woopty do. I cut out Starbucks ($2/day since I get regular coffee) and make coffee at home I save at least twice that. I cut out fast food lunches ($6/meal) and bring cheap cold cut sandwiches (no more than $2/meal with some veggies as a side) and I save close to $1k/year. It's like profiling code. Sure there are some easy cheap gains, but when you f…

The point remains. Water consumption will be cut down either voluntarily or by lack of availability. You cannot chose not to cut down your consumption, but you can choose what type of consumption to cut first.

Drink 10% less water and you will give yourself, in a couple of years, kidney failure. Skip shower each other day and you will give yourself a rancid bodily odor. Stop playing golf and you will give yourself... a bunch of free time to use however you like???

Why is it so hard to understand that?