[JumpCrisscross]

> would have provided water to several Southern California cities

It blows my mind that it's simpler to build, in one of the most water-blessed parts of our planet, a desalination plant, than it is to get farmers to quit growing literal fodder. Eighty percent of California's water goes to agriculture. Eighty percent.

[bombcar]

Meanwhile the rain here is used to make corn that's turned into ethanol and shipped to California to run the tractors farming alfalfa to feed the cows. Seems we could cut out some middlemen here.

[bruce511]

80% sounds like a lot, but is it really? Is it a lot based on land area? Ie is 80% of california land dedicated to agriculture? (honest question, I've no idea.)

What about per-species? Sounds like humans are getting a full 20% of the water, all other species (plant and animal) get the rest. And I feel like you're arguing that humans should get a bigger slice?

What should the right % be? Presumably not 0. Agriculture after all produces food for same humans. So it doesn't seem like closing agriculture is the right option.

So perhaps choosing agriculture that consumes less water? That seems reasonable - but there are diminishing returns in that direction. Sure rice seems unnecessary, but what about almonds? I'm no farmer but does it mean they should all grow the most efficient crop? A monoculture?

Ultimately is the real problem just too many humans in a place with little water? Should humans then supplement that water via say desalination? Sure its more expensive but maybe that helps reduce population growth?

[JumpCrisscross]

California's "average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban" [1]. 80% of California's discretionary water budget is used by agriculture. This is about agricultural versus urban use.

[1] https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/

[bruce511]

Thanks for the info.

[kolanos]

> In an average year, about 39% of California's water consumption, or 34.1 million acre-feet (42.1 km3), is used for agricultural purposes. Of that total, 11%, or 8.9 million acre-feet (11.0 km3) is not consumed by the farms for crop production but is instead recycled and reused by other water users, including environmental use, urban use, and agricultural use, yielding net water consumption for food and fiber production equal to 28% of California's water consumption, or 25.2 million acre-feet (31.1 km3). [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Agricultur...

[GauntletWizard]

And what percentage of those agriculturally grown calories are you going to cut out from your diet to reduce those usages? How much more do you want us all to pay for food?

"Eighty percent of California's water goes to agriculture" is very literally saying "Eighty percent of California's water feeds people". There are cash crops that use a somewhat disproportionate amount of the water, but that is in no way reflected in your comment.

[JumpCrisscross]

> "Eighty percent of California's water goes to agriculture" is very literally saying "Eighty percent of California's water feeds people"

Alfalfa doesn't feed people [1]. It feeds cows that feed people. And nobody is going to starve because almonds and pistachios are pricier.

Moreover, California's agriculture is notoriously water inefficient [2]. Why wouldn't it be? What other behavior would you expect from agricultural multinationals for whom we've effectively zero rated a commodity input?

[1] https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/specialsections/these-...

[2] https://calmatters.org/multimedia/2021/09/california-crops-d...

[GauntletWizard]

Absolutely. Great arguments. In no way reflected or referenced in the parent I was responding to.

[rcpt]

He very clearly addressed your question. I don't see the problem.

[bcrosby95]

Sure. But you can't ask California to solve "its" water problem while solving everyone's food problem. One of them has to give.

[ajmurmann]

We can solve the food problem with not efficient crops than pistachios and almonds and nobody had to eat beef either. Of water was priced at market price crops would be chosen where that strike the right balance between hope much people value the particular food vs what else we could do with the water. All that is a pipedream though, since farmers have wells and stuff instead of getting it from the faucet like I do.

[rcpt]

Water should be priced the same for everyone, there's no reason that alfalfa farmers should pay a hundredth of a percent that I do for the same resource.

[supertrope]

Nations will never stop agricultural subsidies due to national food security and rural district votes. It’s not just price supports and crop insurance but dams to deliver water and electricity.

Tap water is drinkable and plumbed into your home. That’s why it costs more than canal water that’s neither.

[matkoniecz]

Almonds are not needed for national food security.

[supertrope]

Neither is beef or cotton. Hence I alluded to rural district votes.