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

61–70 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#61

Post by iwwr »

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?

Homeowner's Association rules or even town planning/zoning may actually prohibit someone from using arid-friendly grasses or perhaps replacements like artificial turf or pavement.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#62

Post by cbhl »

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.

I feel like such a pricing system would spell the end of water fountains (in parks, malls, stores, and whatnot).

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#63

Post by Lawtonfogle »

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.

Feeding people can be done in many areas. Why should one area sacrifice a limited resource when another area can do the same but with more of that resource? If they aren't compensated for the sacrifice of that resource, there is no reason for that resource to be sacrificed. Charity to big business will lead to being left destitute.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#64

Post by zaroth »

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?

GDP is simply a measure of the value of this product which is "feeding people". Similarly, parks and landscaping, the cost of upkeep and the resulting increase in property values, are also accounted for in the notion of GDP.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#65

Post by Lawtonfogle »

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 costs means it becomes more viable to produce elsewhere where water isn't as limited, thus in turn easing the burden where it is limited.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#66

Post by Domenic_S »

maxlybbert wrote: post #45
Domenic_S wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You simply don't understand the scale of the water we use. > 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. Urban direct water usage (ie., showers, watering lawns, flushing the toilet, etc) only accounts for 4% of the State water budget. FOUR PERCENT. [0] Cutting your shower from 15 mins to 5 is utterly meaningless compared to agricultural use. [0] PDF…

The point isn't about whether cutting home use would make a meaningful difference, just that it's much easier for a household to reduce water use than for a farm. Yes, we need water efficient farms (or, perhaps, farms in places that aren't so hostile to agriculture). But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient.

> But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient.

Kind of a sweeping statement. Here's an inexpensive product that reduces water usage by 90%, aimed to farmers and especially good for citrus: http://treetpee.com/ttp-u/

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#67

Post by jkyle »

hn9780470248775 wrote: post #38
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?

CA is a major exporter of agriculture. It can grow enough food to supply itself even with aggressive curtailing of agricultural output.

If CA cities start running out of water supply, businesses will be affected. The ones that carry our GDP.

If you're implying that cutting back CA Ag production would be a national harm, then the nation needs to pull it together and help CA support the industry.

But in the end, this is just simple math. You can't solve CA's water crisis by only targeting residential usage. It's simply not a big enough slice of the pie.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#68

Post by mentat »

jkyle wrote: post #41
WillPostForFood wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping..... 10% In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win. Targeting residents to curb the water…

Well said. Thank you for arguing with facts and numbers.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#69

Post by WillPostForFood »

jkyle wrote: post #41
WillPostForFood wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The point is watering your lawn is a drop in the giant reservoir. If only 20% of the water is being used by residents (in reality, it's a bit less) and you pass super aggressive water conservation laws targeting residential use such that it's reduced by 50% then you've conserved a whopping..... 10% In contrast, a mere 12% increase in agriculture efficiency gets you the same win. Targeting residents to curb the water…

Sure, but you were touting GDP as the way to target water reduction, which doesn't make sense. I agree water should be priced based on supply, which would bring more efficiency to use in farming, lawns, or whatever.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#70

Post by [deleted] »

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/…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN