81–90 of 222 posts
Can someone explain to me why we don't just build a pipeline from Seattle or some rich water source up north down to California?
"A widespread lack of snowfall this season has left Washington state in a deepening drought, and the prospects are grim: threats to crops and fish and increasing worries about wildfires."
Unfortunately 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…
Not quite. Without farmers you starve. Japan doesn't need the rice farmers to be theirs.
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/…
When you say "exported" and "local" are you referring to California, or the United States?
States need to be responsible for different resources, but as a whole, the United States must be self sufficient. No reasonable geopolitical strategy would require importing vital resources like food and wter.
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/…
Unfortunately 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…
Eating local has always meant moving where the conditions support the food you want to eat. The idea that you can be a "locavore" without being sensitive to shifts in water availability and other things that directly affect the viability of food production in the local area is silly.
> Calif produces food for the whole nation.
California exports food for the rest of the world, not just the nation. But it also competes with lots of other places to do so, and the opportunity cost of delivering water to farmers may far exceed the benefit from continuing to do that.
> The Japanese expend enormous resources on keeping their rice farmers viable in the face of cheaper alternatives
And, still, much of the rice eaten in Japan is grown in California.
> Without your farmers you starve.
Without sufficient farmers somewhere willing to take your money in exchange for food, you starve. There's no reason they have to be in your immediate area, though, as California's agriculture -- which is largely for export -- demonstrates.
> 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.
This isn't about vilifying farmers (and, in fact, the presentation of this action as being about farmers is inaccurate -- its about senior water rights holders, some of which are farmers, some of which are not.)
Can someone explain to me why we don't just build a pipeline from Seattle or some rich water source up north down to California?
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…
Implementing water restrictions is incredibly easy - you declare "no outdoor water usage except on these two days of the week after 5pm" and issue fines to people who don't comply. But it is incompatible with Californian entitlement, because gasp the grass might get a little brown.
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]
Agriculture is fine. Subsidizing corporate behemoths in the Central Valley while wrecking our environment is not.
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/…
> usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries. When you say "exported" and "local" are you referring to California, or the United States? States need to be responsible for different resources, but as a whole, the United States must be self sufficient. No reasonable geopolitical strategy would require importing vital resources like food and wter.