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

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#41

Post by jkyle »

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 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 crisis in CA is like targeting SNAP benefits as a solution to the deficit.

It just plain won't work.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#42

Post by mc32 »

Domenic_S wrote: post #17
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…

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…

My objection is not with the goal towards conservation, but rather the tone, the method and the lack of leadership from gov't. The way its framed is unfortunate. It seems political rather than practical.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#43

Post by adventured »

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?

It's not inane. Look up how much of California's water is exported to other countries in the form of agriculture products.

See: China's consumption of the California almond crop.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#44

Post by nsxwolf »

Domenic_S wrote: post #17
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…

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…

Parent's point is simply that in the home you can drastically cut water usage without it affecting your life much, but in farming the consequences are large.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#45

Post by maxlybbert »

Domenic_S wrote: post #17
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…

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.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#46

Post by mcsheffrey »

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/…

Cutting agricultural water usage doesn't just affect California.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#47

Post by raldi »

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.

If we instead, e.g., mandate that all showers be painfully low-flow, that hosing down sidewalks is illegal (and thus, they'll often be covered in human poop in the area around Twitter), and other such things that make it less pleasant to live here, workers will be less eager to live here, and thus, it'll be harder to keep the best ones (or even the average ones) from moving to another state or country.

And thus, yes, it would make California's tech and other industries less productive, and less competitive with their counterparts elsewhere.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#48

Post by baddox »

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.

That sounds reasonable enough, but is it even necessary? How much of the cost of residential water service has anything to do with the market cost of the water itself? My guess is that the vast majority of a residential water bill is for covering infrastructure costs, and that even a large increase in the market price of the water itself would barely be noticeable to residential water bills.

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#49

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]

Re: California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers

#50

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