[opinion-is-bad]

I agree that tree crop farmers can really benefit from access to this type of product. I am a little concerned that this will only encourage even riskier nut development when the aquifers are already stressed as much as they are. I am still hopeful that California will consider something similar to cap-and-trade for water rights, but for now I guess we just have to wait and see what all those little SGMA districts come up with instead.

[eru]

Why do they even need cap-and-trade? That would at most be a second best.

Just make water rights fully tradeable.

Of course, you might also want to remove grandfathered water rights. Good luck getting that past the lobbyists.

But even with the existing silly initial distribution of water rights, making them fully tradeable would increase efficiency:

The almond farmer would still get lots of water, but at least he'd turn into a former almond former and just sell his water on the market to someone with a better use.

[an_opabinia]

> that this will only encourage even riskier nut development

What risks?

Farm income this year has tripled entirely because of subsidies. It is obviously completely and utterly irrelevant how you structure water markets or who's buying and selling what nuts, in a world where a 10 minute decision in an afternoon can 3x profitability.

[opinion-is-bad]

The risks are to the water table in California. The current rate of ground water depletion is unsustainable. Sorry for being unclear about what avenue I meant by risk.