About water in California

[SHRED]

I heard this on the California Report (KQED) last Wednesday:

Agriculture in California contributes only 2% to the state's economy and is just 3% of the employment yet consumes 80% of the water.

Something is horribly wrong with this picture.

[Auggie]

1. The $64,000 question: As a state do we regulate what can and can't be grown here?

Farms plant without oversight. And that's the way I guess one would ideally want it, until one realizes a high percentage of those crops are ones like almonds that require huge amounts of water to cultivate.

Should we cap the production of crops like that?

[procon]

2. farms that own their own wells have no incentive to conserve water.

They use the cheapest method of irrigation. If that is wastefully flooding a field and letting water stream off down the road, they loose nothing. The use of high wheel sprinker systems that allow the wind to blow the water away before is ever hits the crops is still cheaper than buying more efficient watering equipment and hiring more workers to move it. Those outdated methods won't change without tougher laws to regulate water use.

Water loving crops like rice and nuts mean high profits when water is cheap, and that won't change without new laws on water consumption.

[Nitram]

3. California agriculture is a $42.6 billion a year business.

Need I say more?

[SHRED]

4. And heavily subsidized

[NV Whino]

5. California also produces about 80% of the nation's food

Taking away or limiting water for agriculture is not a good solution. Revising the way the water is distributed is. Covering the aqueduct is. Changing some crops (hemp for cotton, for instance) is.

[Nitram]

6. But the nation would survive without almonds in their diet.

there probably would be a better way to use such a valuable resource. I was suggesting that the profit for the crop is overriding any common sense about the future of the water supply.

[NV Whino]

7. You might want to talk to the vegans and vegetarians about that

Almonds are a source for protein and all kinds of things.

The problem lies in the method of watering.

[Nitram]

9. No, the problem lies in the fact that trees requires enormous amounts of water...

... compared to a field soy beans.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Let me add this to the discussion since there is something

wrong with that picture after all we have been digging

http://reportingsandiego.com/2015/04/09/effects-on-state-agriculture-from-the-drought/

And I will add this... Agriculture is the 800 ton gorilla, but they are already getting hit. The feds for a second year in a row have not renewed water for San Joaquin, and some watersheds are already getting hit.

Part of this is the urban-rural, and somewhat less the north-south divide in California.

Moreover water rights in California are bizantine, some go back to 1848, and yes, we need to change how we water crops... and from a lot of the reading, it will almost be generational. (Should be ten years), and it is the method. Yes, you could potentially continue to grow almonds in the state. But if we made micro drip and root irrigation (don't ask me if this is possible with trees, a worthy question to ask), that would reduce water use greatly.

I promise to try to wrap my head around water rights by the way. They will become the issue if this continues for one or two years.

As to subsidized, US agriculture is subsidized, it is part of the cheap food policy, and if the drought continues for much longer will not be sustainable. Did I mention a sudden spike in food prices would be disruptive to society and that part of the reason for the mess in Syria and Egypt is a ten year drought? Nice food for thought.