
California Goes Nuts - DamienSF
https://medium.com/mother-jones/california-goes-nuts-daa3632e5c55
======
raldi
According to the following op-ed written by an almond farmer, they're paying
$1000 per acre-foot for their discount water. That works out to three gallons
for a penny. And that's 40x what they were paying quite recently.

To put that in perspective, if you were paying $1000 per acre-foot for the
water in your home, you could flush your toilet 42 times a day for a month and
your bill would come to less than $5. Remember that the next time someone
tells you to let it mellow.

[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-
fa...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-
farmer-20150326-story.html)

~~~
chatmasta
I pay comcast almost $100 a month for shitty Internet, throttled at peak
times, max 20mbps one direction if I'm lucky, and I think there is even a cap
on the bandwidth I can use.

I can pay Layer3 or HE $0.50 per mbps and get 200mbps to my server for the
same price. The difference is that layer3 only needs to lay cables between a
few dozen datacenters. Comcast needs to lay them between the data centers, and
then millions of homes.

Economies of scale, etc.

~~~
lsc
>I can pay Layer3 or HE $0.50 per mbps and get 200mbps to my server for the
same price.

I find this unlikely, or at the very least, exaggerated

If you buy several gigabits from he.net, you can get around $0.50 per mbps.

As of last year, for the same quantities, you are looking at about 6x that for
Level3 (I assume you mean Level3, not Layer3)

Level3 is probably the most expensive major bandiwdth provider you are likely
to encounter (they also have the largest network... if I _was_ going to spend
three bucks a megabit, and to be clear, I'm not, I'd spend it with Level3.)
He.net is one of the cheapest, and only approaches "largest network" if you
are counting IPv6 peers.

If your provider is charging you the same for both, most likely they have a
he.net link for normal traffic, and then a burstable Level3 link, and they
only use the latter as a backup.

(Also note, the pricing I'm talking about is only valid for the "one to five
gigabits" level... bandwidth is one of those things that gets dramatically
cheaper as you buy more. Dramatically.)

Also interestingly, if you want comcast in the datacenter... their pricing is
closer to Level3 than it is to He.net. Even if you want to do 'paid peering'
and only want to send data to/from comcast over the link. (Of course, no sane
person would send traffic other than the traffic to/from comcast customers out
said comcast link.)

(Of course, none of this has anything to do with your point, but someone was
wrong on the internet, etc...)

~~~
chatmasta
I've bought transit for $0.50 per mbps from small providers where they made
money from markups on the vm and promise of future higher quantities.

Yes, I meant level3. Also did not know Comcast had transit in datacenters? Is
that global or only in US?

~~~
lsc
>Also did not know Comcast had transit in datacenters? Is that global or only
in US?

I only have experience of the US... this was in silicon valley, in fact.

------
rb2k_
I never quite got what "it takes x gallons" actually means. Where does the
water go? Does it get sucked up by the plant somehow? Does the plant split the
water into oxygen/hydrogen and those get bound to some other atom? Does it
just disappear into the ground and end up as groundwater? Does it just
evaporate and rain down somewhere else? Does it end up going to a river and
ending up in the ocean as saltwater?

(Actual question)

~~~
pmorici
This USGS website explains the various forms of water loss...

[https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html](https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html)

Assuming the farmers are irrigating efficiently then most of the water is
being lost to evapotranspiration aka the plants sweating it out through their
leaves. Almond trees let more water escape through their leaves than say a
cactus might and that is why it takes more water to keep them healthy.

~~~
rb2k_
So I guess the main problem is that the rain might fall somewhere else that is
not California and we now have to move that water back there because otherwise
they'd run out.

~~~
tracker1
I still think that water desalinization improvements should see a lot more
funding... and that cross-country water pipelines from the areas that commonly
flood over, to the southwestern US should be started.

Combined with wind and solar power, this can be used as a fuel source
(hydrogen storage)... it's rather short sighted that such efforts haven't been
made in this country starting years ago.

------
vskarine
I am going to think twice before buying nuts again...

It takes 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond! How many almonds' worth of water
does it take to:

* Flush a toilet: 1.6

* Run a dishwasher: 8

* Run a garden hose for 2 min: 20

* Take 10-min shower: 25

* Do a load of laundry: 45

How much water per year does it take to (in billions of cubic meters):

* produce all of the almonds in California: 3.6

* provide water to all Los Angeles homes and businesses: 0.86

* provide water to all San Francisco homes and businesses: 0.11

~~~
marricks
Nope. Don't stop buying nuts. Stop buying meat & dairy:

Almonds -- 350-500 gallons; (added in an edit by popular demand, not in
source)

Eggs -- 573 gallons;

Chicken -- 815 gallons;

Cheese -- 896 gallons;

Pork -- 1630 gallons;

Butter -- 2044 gallons;

Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons;

(gallons of water per pound of food)

Source:

[http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-Waterfoo...](http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-WaterfootprintFood.pdf)

And the meat & dairy industry takes up a whopping 47% of California's water.

Source (page 3 [pdf page 9]):

[http://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft...](http://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf)

I actually made an account to comment on these posts. No one else seems to be
putting things into perspective. We aren't draining ourselves of water from
small things like produce and nuts..

~~~
astrocyte
Here's an idea for California : Stop trying to hog the economic output of the
world. Your state can no longer support it.

California : > 3 million illegal immigrants and growing (California policies
welcome it) > Continuing to cram people into the major cities (stop) > Stop
producing so much water demanding products.. Let another state that has a more
adequate water supply and conditions do it > Stop trying to produce 80% of the
nation's agriculture. Let other states do it.

^ Solutions that put things into perspective. Why are none of them being
pursued? because it attacks tax revenue and money. Money from other sources >
people's comfort who live in California. All of that money ($115 billion in
annual tax revenue and still in debt up to their ears and no money to fund
water solution projects .. corruption, waste)

Perspective : California doesn't give a rats ass about its residents. It
exists and makes policies to further grow its tax base .. consequences be
dammed. Residents always put up with the idiocy. So, screw them (over and
over)

~~~
eclipxe
If only "California" was a living, breathing entity that could make decisions.

------
ghshephard
The photography in this article is gorgeous, the material is great, and the
presentation is almost flawless. I continue to be impressed with the output on
Medium - I wonder how they manage to get outlets like Mother Jones to grace
them with such awesome content.

------
lr
The images of California reservoirs remind me of images of the Aral sea in
Uzbekistan which was drained during Soviet times in order to grow cotton in
the middle of the Central Asian desert. Humans really are greedy and stupid.

~~~
astrocyte
and myopic and self-centered ..

> Not planning ahead for a foreseeable event

and

> 33.8 million people not batting an eye for over 5 years while their state
> runs completely dry of water

People have to face personal consequences in today's society before they wake
up. Notably, that's when you hear the most yapping and observe the most
activity : When something is too far gone and its too late.

------
crazy1van
Sounds like the state needs to let the price of water rise naturally according
to its increased scarcity. That should raise the price of nuts, which will
lower demand and bring water consumption back to equilibrium.

Hold the price down on a resource that has its supply drastically cut and
we'll end up with scarcity.

------
sologoub
This is why we should be looking seriously at desalinization for both drinking
and irragation water.

With proper designs, we should be able to mitigate a lot of the bad side
effects while protecting more of the land based ecosystems.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Costs a lot of money. We can always make water given enough energy, and we
have enough uranium to last us a few centuries if we want to build expensive
nuclear plants. But no one wants to pay the cost.

When we say: there is a shortage of X, what we really mean is that there is a
shortage of cheap X, and we aren't yet ready to pay the cost for expensive X.

Like almonds, they are yummy, but if the price went up by 10 because they had
to use desalinated water, we might not eat so many.

~~~
astrocyte
Last I recalled, California has some of the highest taxes in the U.S and has
the highest Gross State product. So, where's the money going? I guess everyone
is so busy working their faces off that they don't have time to ask such
important questions. O'well, no Desalinization plants for you.

California Tax revenue : $115,089,654,000 (115 billion). I think this issues
can get a hellavuh lot worse than it is right now before any serious action is
taken. When I start seeing billion dollar steps being made to address the
issue, that's when I'll consider that they take it seriously.

~~~
dude3
Exactly. No high speed train ($68 billion) for now. More desalination plants
and irrigation.

~~~
thrownaway2424
That's a bit of a false choice. If you don't build the trains you are either
willing to forsake future mobility, or for equal mobility you are going to
have to build roads and airports of far greater total cost than $68B.

------
physcab
As a fun thought experiment I tried thinking about this issue as if it
affected my profession (software development). Imagine if electricity was
going scarce. Yet prices are pretty cheap in the kWh such that I don't really
notice it. I just pay my monthly bill (actually it auto-pays itself) and I go
on my merry way. But what if the electricity problem was real such that at a
certain point we wouldn't have any light. Would I change my profession to "do
my part"? Probably not. This is why you can't expect almond farmers to stop
pumping ground water. This is their livelihood. They have families to support
too. They need to pay their rents and buy food and maybe have some fun from
time to time. That raises the question...who is going to be first? How does
the government even begin to regulate? What a mess.

------
gorachel007
To put this in another perspective; 1 gallon = 128 ounces. If you're supposed
to drink 6 to 8 8oz glasses of water a day, for the same amount of water you
could either remain well-hydrated for 2 to 3 days or eat a single almond.

------
lurchpop
meanwhile california residents are lectured about watering lawns

------
dspeyer
> [H]e’s heard ... that I’m a magazine writer looking into California’s almond
> boom. He demands to know what my angle is. Am I going to blame almonds for
> the state’s mounting water woes, like other articles have?

> When I assure him I’m after the whole story, he softens.

And yet, is not blaming almonds _exactly_ what the author proceeds to do?

I'm not saying they aren't to blame, but this seems a bit dishonest.

------
vvpan
"Low in carbohydrates and high in monounsaturated fat and protein, these nuts
are buoyed by a rising wave of nutritional consensus and diet fads (gluten-
free, paleo, low-carb, etc.)."

Important point. The dietary fads seem to completely disregard environmental
concerns and general impact on the production area.

~~~
eclipxe
The more important point is China consumption, which doesn't seem to be tied
to any dietary "fad" as you call it.

------
mapt
I'm curious:

How do the following compare in water utilization, in typical preparation?
Bonus: since we're comparing gallon of water to gallon of caloric beverage,
you get to use a dimensionless quantity! Or you can be boring and call it
"Gallons of water used per gallon of ____".

-Almond milk

-Peanut milk

-Soy milk

-Cow milk

~~~
mapt
Quick googled + calculator estimates:

Cow milk seems to be around 1000 gallons per gallon. Soy milk comes in around
130 gallons per gallon. Almond milk, around 400 gallons per gallon. Peanut
milk is less popular than I thought, but should come in somewhere close to
soy.

