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

California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#31

Post by sliverstorm »

mc32 wrote: post #20
sliverstorm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True but the state well knew this was coming _some day_ but did not institute policies allowing farmers to slowly adapt to a new reality. That's bad leadership.

I suspect the reality goes more like, farmers defended their water rights with absolutely rabid ferocity, and it was utter political suicide until now to make any cuts or regulation at all.

The agrilobby is incredibly powerful, and lobbies are famously uncompromising even to the point of working against their own best interests.

Hell, it might still wind up ruining several political careers.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#33

Post by ajmurmann »

bdcravens wrote: post #9
raldi wrote: post #4

But 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?

Increased product prices would likely lead to reduced demand and in turn smaller farm output and water usage. Same is true for industry that also uses enormous amounts of water.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#34

Post by kolbe »

I recently read East of Eden, and even though it was written about 19th century California, some topics resonated very well today. This quote, in particular:

"And it never failed that during the dry years the people forgot about the rich years, and during the wet years they lost all memory of the dry years. It was always that way."

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#35

Post by jkyle »

monochromatic wrote: post #25
jkyle wrote: post #8

About 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/…

Why is that a comparison that makes sense? If we doubled the water available to tech companies, that wouldn't make them any more productive.

We're literally running out of water [1]. As in no more.

There are entire counties who get nothing when they turn on their faucets. Nothing. No more.

Not to mention the ground is sinking.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-droug...

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#36

Post by mc32 »

jkyle wrote: post #26
mc32 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, so long migrant workers. Thanks for your labor, but, having low skills, and no jobs in the fields because water is cut, time to face reality! There are lots of farm hands who'd be negatively affected. They are at the margins of society as it is.

Ideally, farmer's should be charged for water usage instead of water access. Many of the water rights mentioned in the article are access rights. Meaning they can pump and use as much as they want. Make inefficiency come with a cost and watch an entire new industry spring up around water efficiency. Water is a limited and precious resource. Prices should reflect that. Anything less is a subsidy padding the profits of…

Agreed. The whole system needs to be updated and optimized differently, at least optimized towards efficient water usage, relative to the crop. My objection is the vilification of farmers. I.e. Farmers use 80%! Yet we urbanites are the ones first asked to conserve! The framing is very questionable.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#37

Post by dragonwriter »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #30
jkyle wrote: post #8

About 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/…

The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. What does watering one's lawn contribute to?

> The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP.

The primary value to California of exporting food (which is what most California agriculture is) is the economic activity produced.

(Given a global food market with largely equivalent substitute goods, one could argue that the same is true of agriculture that is used for local consumption, as well.)

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#38

Post by hn9780470248775 »

jkyle wrote: post #8

About 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/…

What an inane comparison. You can't eat apps.

Well, actually we can, in the same way we can "grow cars in Iowa" (to borrow an example from economist Steven Landsburg). But do we want to?

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#40

Post by Balgair »

ajmurmann wrote: post #11

Why can't we just have a 2 tier water pricing system? Tier 1 is very cheap, so that everyone can afford water to drink and wash themselves. Anything over that amount in tier 1 get's priced at something more realistic. That incentivizes industry to be economic about their water usage and private people are deterred from being wasteful.

Most people in LA-city and the myriad of others don't pay for their water, their landlord does, and by law, it can only be added to rent (updating once a year at the earliest). This was originally a measure to help families out in dire times of drought to begin with, and is going to be used as such again here. The rent is supposed to reflect the usage of water included, much like garbage or power surcharges negotiated in the lease or rental contract. Additionally, most place will not update the rent yearly as is.

It is then obvious that since no-one in SoCal is incentivized to save water by the market on a timely basis, this scheme to have people pay more as they use is not a good way to keep thirst down. If you listen to radio/TV you see a lot of ads trying to get people to use less voluntarily. This is because it is very difficult for people to even know how much water they are using in the first place.

Post reply on HN