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

101–110 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#101

Post by analog31 »

mc32 wrote: post #5

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…

With less water, we could become herbivores. A higher price for water could be reflected in the amount of meat that we eat. And truth be told, a lot of us, myself included, could live quite well on less food overall.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#102

Post by jkyle »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #51
dragonwriter wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

You say GDP contribution to Californianis more important than supplying food to the state/country/world. I say feeding people and keeping food prices low is more important than that particular economic statistic when looking at the value of water consumption.

If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken.

We could cut our water usage in 1/2 and still produce enough nutritious food for the entire nation plus some.

This coming from someone who has favorite pass time of smoking brisket, ribs, and grilling steaks. It's just the facts.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#103

Post by adventured »

Yhippa wrote: post #39
jdlyga wrote: post #32

What a nightmare. Makes me glad I live on the east coast.

But hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, humidity, and mosquitos.

Most of the east coast doesn't suffer under a meaningful hurricane threat. For example, the average 'hurricane' that has hit Virginia in the last 40 years, had 40 to 70 mph winds.

Earthquakes of any consequence are extremely rare on the east coast (basically non-existent).

Most of California's population centers are humid in fact. Los Angeles averages around 71% daily humidity; San Diego is 70%; San Francisco is 74% (among the highest in the US). By comparison Washington DC averages 64%; Pittsburgh averages 68%; NYC averages 63%. And for contrast, Denver averages 52% daily humidity, and Vegas is 30%.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

mmanfrin wrote: post #2

Good, the gordian knot needed to be cut. 165 years of near-unrestricted use of the flowing commons needed a stop.

This isn't cutting any Gordian knot; this is just flow being insufficient to meet the demands of rights holders with certain priorities. (And its not about farmers except incidentally, not all the affected rights-holders are farmers, and its just based on the priority dates of certain senior rights holders in certain watersheds, not whether they are agricultural or other kinds of users.)

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#105

Post by jkyle »

iwwr wrote: post #61
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?

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.

There's a decent movement going to make restrictions like that from HOA's null and void if they conflict with state conservation interests.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#106

Post by millzlane »

jkyle wrote: post #72
dirtae wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which entire counties get nothing when they turn on their faucets?

Tulare ran out not too long ago.

I found a link. I wasn't able to reply to the commenter below. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/04/30/california-a-state...

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#107

Post by 0xdeadbeefbabe »

hauget wrote: post #52
monochromatic wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Water is a scarce resource in this case. You don't exactly let the "wealthy" buy off everything they can just because. Scarce resources need to be regulated my friend.

Regulation is where scarce resources go to die. Why not find a way to produce more?

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

> 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.

Farmers don't need state policy to be able to slowly adapt. Farmers (and other senior rights holders) can choose to invest to prepare themselves, or they can choose to take the risk that someday the water that they have a right to, subject to more senior rights being filled first, simply doesn't exist any more after those more senior rights are filled, and they stop getting it suddenly.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#109

Post by jfoutz »

dirtae wrote: post #54
jkyle wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Which entire counties get nothing when they turn on their faucets?

Ah, you're concerned about 'entire'. Yes. As of 2014, it's just people without the means or skills to change their situation. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/us/california-drought-tula...

It's more accurate to say, municipal water authorities can no longer meet demand.

Post reply on HN