Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by wudangmonk 1521 days ago
What is the tactic here? we know the cause is agriculture and blaming grass lawns and car washing can easily be disproven by a quick superficial google search. Pitting people against each other by being water snitches may work unless any actual restrictions are placed. As soon as any restrictions are placed, the whole show gets exposed.

So...what is the whole point of the show in the first place?.

5 comments

>So...what is the whole point of the show in the first place?.

Cities have limited water and can't get more/don't want to buy it from farmers that have it.

Therefore, they need to cut usage or they will run out.

The show is to distract us from the fact that Sacramento doesn't have a solution to this problem.
You can't easily divert ag water to cities in most cases, so efficiency of end use in urban water systems is important, not irrelevant. You could cut the urban water use of Los Angeles by 20% just by replacing the remaining old toilets. That is worth doing.
I can think of three possibilities(there easily could be more)

1. There are contracts in place that cannot be broken.

2. Money comes first, then life and limb.

3. Restrictions on agriculture use will lead to higher food prices, and this is considered the lesser evil.

4. Farmers are historically a cossetted political class that politicians are rarely wont to cross.
> we know the cause is agriculture and blaming grass lawns and car washing can easily be disproven

Agriculture is where your food comes from. Unless you're eating your lawn? 40% of the water going to food production is precisely where it should go. Mass starvation is bad.

It's frankly insulting that people still push this line of thought. No, we will not starve to death if California stops growing almonds and pistachios. We will it run out of livestock feed if we stop growing alfalfa and other hay grass in California that is then exported overseas.
How is alfalfa being exported relevant? Only 0.005% of the water used to grow alfalfa ends up in the alfalfa itself. Almost all of the water used for growing alfalfa ends up in the local atmosphere via either evaporation from the soil or transpiration from the plants.

Before one can reasonably discuss the impact of alfalfa growing one needs to figure out what happens to that 99.995% of the water that ends up initially in the local atmosphere. What places does it end up? How long does it take to get there? How much of this process is a loop?

I've not been able to find answers to those questions.

Most of the alfalfa grown in California is in the San Joaquin Valley. Overdrafting is a well understood phenomenon at this point. No, there is not an efficient loop to be found here without significant investment in recharge infrastructure that we currently do not have.
> California produces over 13% of the nation's agricultural production value. California's top 20 crop and livestock commodities account for more than $25 billion in value. [0]

How do you plan to replace the $25 billion a year in food California produces?

And as for your alfalfa export claim...

> Based on USDA data for 2021, only 3.9% of all U.S. hay produced and 6.4% of all alfalfa hay entered the export market. [1]

[0]: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/10cafacts_v3.pdf [1]: https://hayandforage.com/article-3825-year-end-hay-exports-s...

Show me where I said we need to stop growing all crops in the state. I'll wait.
I was addressing your belittling of California's food production and its importance.

> No, we will not starve to death if California stops growing almonds and pistachios.

California is effectively the sole source of: almonds, olives, peaches, artichokes, dates, pomegranates, raisins, sweet rice, pistachios, plums and walnuts. [0]

[0]: https://www.ocregister.com/2017/07/27/california-farms-produ...

> I was addressing your belittling of California's food production and its importance.

Again, show me where I did this. I'll continue to wait.