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

131–140 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#131

Post by maxlybbert »

Domenic_S wrote: post #66
maxlybbert wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

That makes a lot more sense for orchards (which are widespread in California) than for grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. (which are also widespread in California).

For the record, I've lived in several places with water shortages since I was a teenager. I believe every one placed restrictions on certain activities (no washing car at home, water lawns only on designated days, no water for ornamental ponds, etc.) instead of simply raising the price of water.

I believe California could fix its problem with a lot less trouble by letting the price of water reflect its supply and demand.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#132

Post by kansface »

bradleyjg wrote: post #123
kansface wrote: post #117

Scott (from slatestarcodex) suggests[1] CA buy out all of its alfalfa farmers Catch-22 style [2]. The total pay out would cost on the order of a couple of dollars per CA resident which is far far cheaper than the alternatives. Alfalfa is an extremely water intensive crop that is used to feed cows. This measure would save water commensurate to the amount we lost in the drought. This is the easily the best proposal I h…

I'd think your best bet would be to buy the land currently used to grow alfalfa and permanently fallow it rather than trying to run a program where you pay alfalfa farmers not to farm. The latter program has the obvious problem of identifying would be alfalfa farmers once no one has grown alfalfa in a while.

I agree, but this would be more expensive.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#133

Post by kansface »

dragonwriter wrote: post #127
kansface wrote: post #117

Scott (from slatestarcodex) suggests[1] CA buy out all of its alfalfa farmers Catch-22 style [2]. The total pay out would cost on the order of a couple of dollars per CA resident which is far far cheaper than the alternatives. Alfalfa is an extremely water intensive crop that is used to feed cows. This measure would save water commensurate to the amount we lost in the drought. This is the easily the best proposal I h…

> Paying farmers in the desert to not grow crops is ... unamerican. Why should the desert be special in this regard? Paying farmers not to grow crops has a long history in America.

The desert isn't special - paying a group of people to not work goes against the protestant work ethic. It may be common for farmers, but the practice certainly isn't in the limelight (as this bill would be).

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#134

Post by hauget »

wskinner wrote: post #115
hauget wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.

Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We're not talking about something like gold here, we're talking about a resource that is essential for human life. Would you really want someone who's wealthier than you to buy all the water around you just because they can?

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#135

Post by brazzledazzle »

wskinner wrote: post #115
hauget wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.

Up to a point. If the resource is the difference between life or death it should be rationed or regulated if there is a risk to those without the means or resources to acquire it.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#136

Post by vitd »

mindslight wrote: post #88
jkyle wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

While this is true for the big picture, it's still fucked up that the status quo is for most everyone to have a well-watered lawn. And the response of "cities" like Los Angeles is to subsidize people's servants completely redoing their yards! 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 comp…

I'm sorry, but have you ever been to Los Angeles? Where is this mythical place you're talking about with these mythical people?

I live in Los Angeles proper, and the majority of my neighbors already had low-water lawns to begin with. Those that don't (including me because the owners of the house I rent don't want to change it) are basically just letting the lawn die because we understand the situation and really aren't that vain.

Also, we do have watering restrictions and the city does give out fines if you don't follow them. I'm not sure what you're talking about, frankly.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#138

Post by enqk »

dragonwriter wrote: post #86
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…

> Without water, locavores will have to become televores. 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 r…

> And, still, much of the rice eaten in Japan is grown in California.

This is quite an extraordinary statement, very likely to be false. Can you source it? The first article I found says: "Japan allows imports of 770,000 metric tons of rice, about 9% of annual consumption. California farmers account for the lion's share of that amount"

From the LA times. So no more than 9%

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#139

Post by hauget »

brazzledazzle wrote: post #135
wskinner wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.

Up to a point. If the resource is the difference between life or death it should be rationed or regulated if there is a risk to those without the means or resources to acquire it.

EXACTLY. Governments and other non-market forces need to regulate and step-in when market forces fail to regulate themselves.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#140

Post by wavefunction »

wskinner wrote: post #115
hauget wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.

I disagree completely with your assertion, especially when the market forces are applied to vital natural resources tied to some sort of ridiculous notion like human money.

I'm at the point now mentally where the entire monetary system should be reset to allow a natural relationship between real value and fiat currency to exist. If that means that a bunch of wealthy people are left with nothing, then so be it.

Post reply on HN