California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
1–10 of 222 posts
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#2Good, the gordian knot needed to be cut. 165 years of near-unrestricted use of the flowing commons needed a stop.
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#3[deleted]
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#4But rather than reducing, even a little, the giant water subsidy that agriculture gets (senior members of the agribusiness establishment pay pennies on the dollar), it sounds like we're just telling some unlucky farmers they now have a cap on their usage.
This is not an economically-optimal approach.
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#5Unfortunately for farmers, urban dwellers far outnumber them. Of course farmers need to devise more efficient ways to water their crops, but I think it's strange urban dwellers don't understand the inelasticity of water for farming.
At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acres that year.
Without water, locavores will have to become televores. Calif produces food for the whole nation. So while as a percentage of economic output farming is relatively small, as a percentage of food production it's high and thus critical to maintain viability.
The Japanese expend enormous resources on keeping their rice farmers viable in the face of cheaper alternatives, but, in some ways they have a point. Without your farmers you starve.
Yes, farmers should try to use water more efficiently and the gov should encourage that adoption via stick and carrot, but vilifying farmers is not the way to go.
And, this should have been started years ago. Not just now. Surprise, your water is cut, sorry for not preparing you for this via policy!
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#6But rather than reducing, even a little, the giant water subsidy that agriculture gets (senior members of the agribusiness establishment pay pennies on the dollar), it sounds like we're just telling some unlucky farmers they now have a cap on their usage. This is not an economically-optimal approach.
A free market fix is not a right-now fix, right? The market is a powerful force but usually takes a little while to adapt. The optimal fix would probably involve short-term regulation and long-term market solutions?
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#7But rather than reducing, even a little, the giant water subsidy that agriculture gets (senior members of the agribusiness establishment pay pennies on the dollar), it sounds like we're just telling some unlucky farmers they now have a cap on their usage. This is not an economically-optimal approach.
Hmm, yeah I'd say what we really need is for farmers to just pay for what the water should actually cost. If it means almonds and beef get more expensive, so be it.
And before anyone tells Californians "just consume less", the problem is that California exports a lot of what is produced. I can't think of a better way to tell outsiders to consume less than to raise prices on exports.
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#8About time.
Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1].
There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2015/04/03/ag...
edit
For clarification, mentioning the GDP is meant to show that cutting back on agricultural usage will not affect our economy catastrophically even if the industry sinks a bit. Will food prices go up? Perhaps.
Further, if the point is food production and not food profit for the nation then the focus should be on producing the most water efficient foods (per calorie) not the most profitable foods produced under an assumption of free or near free water. So yeah, that might mean less prime rib and more black eyed peas for Americans (figuratively speaking).
The cost of the product should reflect the cost of the resources required to produce. This is not the current case.
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#9But rather than reducing, even a little, the giant water subsidy that agriculture gets (senior members of the agribusiness establishment pay pennies on the dollar), it sounds like we're just telling some unlucky farmers they now have a cap on their usage. This is not an economically-optimal approach.
Wouldn't that simply cause increased costs to be passed to the consumer (or just accept lowered profit), as opposed to doing what is necessary, which is reducing water consumption?
Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers
#10Unfortunately for farmers, urban dwellers far outnumber them. Of course farmers need to devise more efficient ways to water their crops, but I think it's strange urban dwellers don't understand the inelasticity of water for farming. At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acres that year. Without water, locavores will have to become televores. Calif produces food…
When you try to optimize your programs for performance, do you focus on the code snippet that is responsible for 4% of runtime, or the snippet responsible for 80% of runtime?
Even if water demands in farming are relatively inelastic, cutting statewide water use by 25% is literally impossible without cuts to farming use, and at the end of the day the rainfall doesn't care how much water you think you need to farm.