[apcragg]

There is plenty of water in the south west, we just use most of it to grow animal feed in the desert. Even worst, much of that water is subsidized by the US Government which allows farmers to grow that animal feed in the high plains where it would be economically infeasible otherwise. We have engineered this problem to the benefit of a small number of ranchers and farmers and seem determined to blame it on everybody else.

[salmonfamine]

We agree here. By "consumption," I'm not just referring to residential consumption.

There is enough water in the Southwest for a sizable population, of course. The problem ahead is how to distribute a constrained resource to that population without deferring to lobbied interests, wealthy landowners, golf-course owners, etc. That's an uphill battle, to say the least.

[apcragg]

For sure! Even Buy-and-dry schemes seem to be struggling with political backlash and those landowners are being fairly compensated in voluntary transactions. It's not going to be pretty when the junior water rights holders are cut off for good.

[ianai]

Agree. In LV they’ve got huge water works to recycle all water. It’s a known that the water almost exclusively leaves the system when it’s evaporated or used to water plants. And there are tight restrictions on residential use.

[freeopinion]

The benefit is arguably not just to a small number of ranchers and farmers.

The U.S. went all-in on globalization. That includes globalization of food production. For 50 years the typical USian has taken bananas and coconut for granted. Coffee is a staple in every kitchen.

Produce and dairy of countless varieties are produced in California for consumers around the country and indeed around the world.

Would you argue that globalization of the food supply chain is a mistake? Do you propose that Chicago grow its own spinach? Should Saudi Arabia grow its own alfalfa? Should apples and grapes consumed in Oklahoma be grown in Oklahoma?

I suppose many people are rethinking this whole globalization strategy. From microchips to mozzarella. Economics: the spectator sport with real spectator consequences.

[rurp]

The fact that the US grows a lot of food domestically seems completely counter to what you're saying. Growing food within the US has a lot of benefits but doing so in the middle of the desert is the worst possible spot.

[freeopinion]

Prove it. Start a tomato farm in Tennessee and challenge Musk and Bezos with your fortune. Replace tobacco with carrots in North Carolina and see how it goes.

[heartbreak]

Here’s a list of almost exclusively tomato farms in a single county in TN. Your globalization take is bad, but the tired repetition of the only-California-grows-food trope is also bad.

https://grainger.tennessee.edu/grainger-county-farmers-page/

Literally famous for tomatoes, man.

https://farmflavor.com/tennessee/tennessee-crops-livestock/w...

[freeopinion]

Thank you for those links. I'm very glad to see them. I wish them all success. I really do think it is important to not concentrate food production.

That said, all 70 growers combined total less than 500 acres. It's a good start.

But it doesn't prove that California "desert" is the worst place to grow produce. What is the total yield of those 500 acres? What is the price per pound? How well do they compete in the market?

Again, I hope they compete well. But I know that the tomato in my back yard cost me 5x the one coming off the truck at the local grocer.

[justin66]

> The U.S. went all-in on globalization. That includes globalization of food production.

"Globalization" would include an elimination of domestic agricultural subsidies and tariffs such that everyone is on a level playing field, which is something we have not done in our agricultural sector.