[jkimmel]

Only ~10% of California's water use is residential/urban (varies a little bit year to year) [0].

The majority of non-environmental water is used to grow cash crops in the central valley, like almonds, which take 1 gal/almond.

Overall, urban residents have far less impact on climate than exurban residents who drive around in SUVs. It is in the best interests of everyone on planet Earth to make our cities denser and more inviting [1, 2].

[0] - http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108

[1] - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/

[2] - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/23/city-dwe...

[r00fus]

Forget about almonds - livestock (and to a lesser extent dairy) takes the most water per pound.

Want to prevent the central valley sinking [1]? Maybe we should have less cows and pigs and selling a lot of the meat abroad.

[1] http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drough...

[wfunction]

Wouldn't you need to grow more food supporting the growing in-population though?

[jkimmel]

CA exports a large portion of its agricultural products, including several top exports that are very water intensive to grow (again, almonds, walnuts, dairy & beef).

Moreover, current irrigation methods in the valley are not ideal for water conservation. Many farmers have water rights dating to the 19th century allowing nearly unfettered access to whatever water they can find, providing no economic incentive to invest in conservation infrastructure.

There is no Californian Malthusian crisis, just a story of poor resource management.

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

[wfunction]

Yes but please see my reply on the previous comment saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14305121

[stevenwoo]

California exports food so it would just have to stop exporting so much. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/

[wfunction]

Yes but please see my reply on the previous comment saying the same thing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14305121

[mbillie1]

That's not really how food distribution works, in the US or most other first world countries, so no.

[SamReidHughes]

You can be sure California exports a ton of its food.

[wfunction]

I feel like I can also be sure the export isn't really going to drop much with people coming in, but the domestic usage will rise if you keep letting people in. So the mere fact that we export doesn't really seem to help things.

[jkimmel]

There is a set of assumptions in your argument that I believe are false.

1. Unregulated water use that allows for production of export cash crops will continue

This could easily be fixed by regulating water use properly, such that farmers have economic incentive to grow crops that are less water intensive given that CA is not water rich.

2. Market prices of current export and current import crops will hold constant regardless of growth

That's not how markets work.

If there was a sudden surge in lettuce demand, farmers in Salinas would respond to increasing prices by switching some fields currently used for export crops to lettuce, which would be consumed locally.

This is aided by point (1) above, where we could push this shift with water regulations.

On the whole -- your concerns seem best addressed by sensible regulation of water in CA, which is a long term political problem. Opposing the farm lobby is well known third rail in the CA Leg.

Nativist population control programs are not the solution to a market failure of water distribution, however they might be implemented. Opposing housing construction is even a really poor way to implement a nativist population control program.

[AnimalMuppet]

One gallon per almond? But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar. I know there's packaging and transportation, but there's packaging and transportation for the almonds, too. And almonds are not one dollar per almond.

Do the almond growers receive subsidized water? I don't know how else the economics of this works out. (Unless the water used to grow almonds isn't up to the purity standards of drinking water, and they're counting on the tree to filter it...)

[pfooti]

Yes, they do. Water is a lot less expensive for farmers, always has been.

This [0] is a pretty good analysis of how California spends its water. One interesting point: instead of carefully installing low-flow fixtures and rationing showers and letting your lawn die, you could pay the california alfalfa industry about $2 to grow $2 less alfalfa for a year.

0: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/05/11/california-water-you-do...

[WillPostForFood]

I think people (especially urban dwellers) are disconnected from how agriculture works. It takes lots of water to support plants, and even more to support animals (including people).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprin...

some highlights:

1 gallon of coffee - 1056 gallons of water

1 pound of chicken - 518 gallons

1 pound of beef - 1847 gallons

1 gallon of wine - 872 gallons

1 gallon of lentils - 704 gallons

[jessaustin]

The disconnect is with whoever decided that desert farms should receive water that could instead be used by cities. No one has a right to farm the desert. Quit subsidizing that, and agriculture will move back to areas that have plenty of water. Dairy, in particular, should be concentrated in the Midwest.

[jkimmel]

Agricultural land is often connected to 19th century water rights in CA, allowing nearly unlimited access to ground water and a set allocation of running streams at very low cost.

Access to ground water is so unrestricted that the entire Central Valley is sinking! https://www.revealnews.org/article/california-is-sinking-and...

[ceejayoz]

> But... one gallon of bottled water is more than a dollar.

A gallon of tap water isn't, and a gallon of agricultural well water is even cheaper.

[mangodrunk]

Water is typically very cheap, when it's not bottled. So I imagine they aren't using bottled water, which would be outrageously priced, but hopefully it deters some people from buying it.