
California Cuts Farmers’ Share of Scant Water - jstreebin
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html?_r=1
======
rayiner
It was a big government mistake to ever irrigate the southwest in the first
place. It distorted the economy, encouraging people to build unsustainable
industries and communities in the middle of the desert. We laugh at middle
eastern countries for trying to make agricultural industries in the desert
(see: Salmon Fishing in the Yemen), but we're doing the same thing in
California.

I'm sympathetic to the individual farmers, of course, but the solution is not
to allow these unsustainable practices to continue. We should charge market
rates for every drop of water, and let welfare take care of the farmers who
can't profitably pay those rates. If our welfare isn't enough for them, then
it's not enough for anyone else and we should increase it. Ironically, rural
California keeps voting against that.

~~~
me2i81
People have been growing food in dry valleys with rivers that bring water down
from the mountains since the dawn of civilization. California is no exception.
Calling it "unsustainable" in the context of agriculture is a bit simplistic.
When less snow falls in the mountains, water deliveries to agriculture gets
reduced, and some acreage goes fallow. "Market rate" sounds easy but is a bit
of a red herring in this context. If you're a farmer contracted to get a
certain share of a water system (as farmers are, in byzantine agreements that
were set up decades ago and could probably only be unwound via acts of U.S.
Congress and probably years of litigation) you take what you get, and then you
have to buy more at market rate. If you grow nut trees, that's what you do
both because the crop can still be profitable and because it costs you tens of
thousands/acre if the trees die. If you grow alfalfa, you might just wait
until next year.

~~~
rayiner
Unlike people at the dawn of civilization, those farmers didn't build those
dams on the Colorado River, the Army Corps of Engineers did. As to the water
agreements, they were a stupid idea that never should have happened, like lots
of other stupid ideas people have had over the years (e.g. unsustainable
pension agreements for public workers). The common theme is that it's
essential that people today have the power to undo the mistakes of their
predecessors.

Will that result in a lot of litigation? Sure. But the state has a lot of
leverage on its side to push for a better result.

~~~
me2i81
Yeah, we have a common government that sometimes builds things, which is maybe
more efficient than farmers shooting at each other over who diverted the
river. Water rights are considered property, and you can't just go take them
without recompense. But really, what are you after? California is going to use
the collected water it has allocated for agriculture for that purpose, and the
only thing you're going to accomplish by increasing what farmers pay for water
is change the water usage patterns, so you'll replace a lot of alfalfa and
rice with more almonds, pistachios, and wine grapes. Is that good or bad? I
don't know.

~~~
rayiner
Sometimes the government builds things in stupid places which encourages
people to do stupid things, like try to farm in the desert. And yes, water
rights are property rights, but the answer simply cannot be "now you're stuck
spending 80% of your water on something that makes up 2% of GDP."

There has to be a way for California's current government to fix its old
mistakes. The government could tax water per gallon, or impose steep property
taxes on water rights. Both would solve the problem and side-step any
Constitutional takings claims by farmers.

~~~
me2i81
The battles over water rights have been going on in the west for at least a
century, so I'm not all that optimistic that you're going to radically change
how it works. But I still don't see what you're hoping to accomplish with this
talk of "farming in the desert" as folly. What would you possibly do with the
30+ million acre feet that currently goes to agriculture? More golf courses?

~~~
rayiner
Farming in the desert is folly because that water could be put to much better
uses (e.g. allowing more growth in the cities). Farming only happens in
California because farmers don't pay for the real cost of that water. We don't
have to do anything with that land. We have plenty of land in the U.S. Water,
not so much.

~~~
Natsu
> Farming in the desert is folly because that water could be put to much
> better uses (e.g. allowing more growth in the cities).

Do we really want more growth in the cities where water is scarce?

------
rmason
California's problem with regulating water for farmers is that they have
always used the stick instead of the carrot.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick)

In other words if I invest in drip irrigation and cut my water use say 80% I
not only don't receive help for doing it but I have the same water cut back
percentage as my neighbor who is using water less efficiently.

------
pimlottc
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9708211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9708211)

------
tsotha
The real problem here is runaway population growth. In California we've seen
our population double in the last forty years or so, and there just isn't
enough water in the American Southwest to accommodate that kind of growth.

~~~
sigzero
That's only part of it. California had water issues back into the 70s. I used
to live there and remember all the rationing then. The big part of the problem
is California never really did _anything_ about it.

~~~
me2i81
It is helpful to look at how water is actually used in CA. I thought this blog
post was a decent attempt: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-
water-you-do...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-
doing/)

~~~
ojbyrne
The revelation that we could just pay the alfalfa farmers to not farm should
probable get more publicity/support.

~~~
sriram_sun
Are you trolling? Here is a classic paragraph from Catch-22. _“His specialty
was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government
paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he
did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny
he didn 't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not
produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On
long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he
sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the
chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing
more alfalfa than any other man in the county. Neighbours sought him out for
advice on all subjects, for he had made much money and was therefore wise. “As
ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he counselled one and all, and everyone said
“Amen.” _

~~~
pja
The existing situation is even _more_ stupid than paying alfalfa farmers not
to grow alfalfa.

If you’re forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, paying alfalfa
farmers is where it’s at. Obviously better water management would be the
sensible choice, but that hasn’t been on the table for decades.

