Tier 1 Water Shortage for SW appears inevitable

[bilby]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)

The nuts are a much smaller fraction of the plant though. So you likely don't get many kg of nuts per sq.m of foliage, where strawberries would have a much higher mass of fruit per leaf sq.m. And leaf area is a big determinant of water use, even though transpiration per sq.m varies significantly between plant species.

 

[Bomb#20]

I picked a district at random in California, and according to Calwater, domestic consumers there pay from $3.95 up to $7.40 per 1000USgal (the low price is for the first 748USgal, then usage above that volume is more expensive), while farmers pay an average of $70/acre ft., or $0.215 per 1000USgal.

It's essentially a farming subsidy.

^^^^ This ^^^^

They keep telling us we have to conserve water more because there's a drought. I'll believe it when I stop driving past rice paddies.

 

[barbos]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)

The nuts are a much smaller fraction of the plant though. So you likely don't get many kg of nuts per sq.m of foliage, where strawberries would have a much higher mass of fruit per leaf sq.m. And leaf area is a big determinant of water use, even though transpiration per sq.m varies significantly between plant species.

OK. We need strawberry-almond hybrid. Or grow everything in completely closed greenhouses where everything circulates.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)

The strawberry bush produces an awful lot more food for it's size than the almond tree.

 

[Swammerdami]

The Blue Fever (now often called the 'Black Death') caused a world population decline that some place at as much as 20%; Population may have taken almost two hundred years, or seven to ten generations, to completely recover. That's the biggest catastrophic world population decline I am aware of, both as a proportion of total population, and in terms of time taken to recover. World population is estimated to have been about 450 million in 1340, and was 'only' around 375 million in 1400. That catastrophe could have been almost completely averted by antibiotics.

The term "Blue Fever" is new to me. Googling that term points to Cholera and a work of fiction! "Blue disease" is Rickettsia? But the Black Death is attributed to Yersinia bacteria (or perhaps an unidentified virus).

Population decline was well over 20% in Europe, and, by increasing the value of labor vs land, had a big economic effect there.

Disease is not a panacean path to population reduction! I read that countries that stayed open during the recent pandemic experienced more economic contraction than more prudent countries! (I'm not sure why that was.)

 

[Valjean]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)

The strawberry bush produces an awful lot more food for it's size than the almond tree.

By volume of product, by weight, or per calorie?

 

[Politesse]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)

Common wisdom (and science) says a gallon for an almond, so that numbers checks out though it does ignore the considerable variations that exist between both different global regions and different irrigation strategies. Almond cultivation takes up about 10% of California's water budget at present, excessive for a luxury cash crop if not a one-trick pony for solving the water shortage. The water investment in almond production does need to be reduced. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must stop farming almonds, but it does mean farmers need to stop some troublesome practices like flood-irrigating orchards in early Spring and invest in subsurface drip systems that are more efficient. The theoretical drought tolerance of the plant means nothing if the growers refuse to take advantage of those tolerances. And as with all things America, this has become a partisan battle where facts are often ignored. A substantial portion of almond growers do not believe that there is a drought, and refuse to risk more disease and less yield adjusting for a natural crisis that they believe to be an Obama-era hoax.

 

[bilby]

It takes 1900 gallons of water to grow ONE pound of almonds! It takes about 10 gallons to grow one pound of strawberries. California ag uses 80% of the water.

10 gallons per one pound of strawberries sounds reasonable. But 1900 gallons for almonds? Wikipedia says almond tree is fine with droughts (it's native to Iran)

Common wisdom (and science) says a gallon for an almond, so that numbers checks out though it does ignore the considerable variations that exist between both different global regions and different irrigation strategies. Almond cultivation takes up about 10% of California's water budget at present, excessive for a luxury cash crop if not a one-trick pony for solving the water shortage. The water investment in almond production does need to be reduced. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must stop farming almonds, but it does mean farmers need to stop some troublesome practices like flood-irrigating orchards in early Spring and invest in subsurface drip systems that are more efficient. The theoretical drought tolerance of the plant means nothing if the growers refuse to take advantage of those tolerances. And as with all things America, this has become a partisan battle where facts are often ignored. A substantial portion of almond growers do not believe that there is a drought, and refuse to risk more disease and less yield adjusting for a natural crisis that they believe to be an Obama-era hoax.

So raise prices for water. If they can save money by reducing water use, then they will whether or not they believe that there's a drought. And if they can't or won't reduce water use, the money they're now paying for the water can be used to build and operate desalination plants (and delivery systems) to provide that water without depending on rainfall.

The only real problem here is welfare queens who want to be handed for free (or at massively subsidised prices) a resource that everyone else is expected to pay for. Surely that position doesn't contradict their precious political beliefs?

 

[laughing dog]

What can be done when demand exceeds carrying capacity? In this instance, the demand for water. New technology? Better management?

Higher price for water.

Many households may be already struggling with high mortgage repayments, electricity bills, etc.

Water is under-priced in the West especially for agriculture and industry.

 

[DBT]

Many households may be already struggling with high mortgage repayments, electricity bills, etc.

Water is under-priced in the West especially for agriculture and industry.

Doesn't that depend on what the average business or household can afford to pay for utilities? Of course, some can.

 

[laughing dog]

Many households may be already struggling with high mortgage repayments, electricity bills, etc.

Water is under-priced in the West especially for agriculture and industry.

Doesn't that depend on what the average business or household can afford to pay for utilities? Of course, some can.

No. The West is running out of water. That literally means water is being used up faster than it can be replenished. That strongly suggests that water is under-priced. Raising the price of water, especially to the users for whom it is under-priced, means sending a clear signal that water is a scarce resource and gives a market incentive for users to reduce usage or face larger bills.

 

[Politesse]

Common wisdom (and science) says a gallon for an almond, so that numbers checks out though it does ignore the considerable variations that exist between both different global regions and different irrigation strategies. Almond cultivation takes up about 10% of California's water budget at present, excessive for a luxury cash crop if not a one-trick pony for solving the water shortage. The water investment in almond production does need to be reduced. This doesn't necessarily mean that we must stop farming almonds, but it does mean farmers need to stop some troublesome practices like flood-irrigating orchards in early Spring and invest in subsurface drip systems that are more efficient. The theoretical drought tolerance of the plant means nothing if the growers refuse to take advantage of those tolerances. And as with all things America, this has become a partisan battle where facts are often ignored. A substantial portion of almond growers do not believe that there is a drought, and refuse to risk more disease and less yield adjusting for a natural crisis that they believe to be an Obama-era hoax.

So raise prices for water. If they can save money by reducing water use, then they will whether or not they believe that there's a drought. And if they can't or won't reduce water use, the money they're now paying for the water can be used to build and operate desalination plants (and delivery systems) to provide that water without depending on rainfall.

The only real problem here is welfare queens who want to be handed for free (or at massively subsidised prices) a resource that everyone else is expected to pay for. Surely that position doesn't contradict their precious political beliefs?

Water rights in the Western US are not quite so simple under the law. If the federal government tried to seize total control over the "price" of water, in particular well water, I'm not certain that the situation wouldn't erupt into actual violence.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't that depend on what the average business or household can afford to pay for utilities? Of course, some can.

No. The West is running out of water. That literally means water is being used up faster than it can be replenished. That strongly suggests that water is under-priced. Raising the price of water, especially to the users for whom it is under-priced, means sending a clear signal that water is a scarce resource and gives a market incentive for users to reduce usage or face larger bills.

That is already being done in some places. The Murray/Darling region in Victoria has trade in water, buying water rights, etc. Which also causes a set of problems.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The strawberry bush produces an awful lot more food for it's size than the almond tree.

By volume of product, by weight, or per calorie?

I'm sure it's ahead in all three.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't that depend on what the average business or household can afford to pay for utilities? Of course, some can.

No. The West is running out of water. That literally means water is being used up faster than it can be replenished. That strongly suggests that water is under-priced. Raising the price of water, especially to the users for whom it is under-priced, means sending a clear signal that water is a scarce resource and gives a market incentive for users to reduce usage or face larger bills.

That is already being done in some places. The Murray/Darling region in Victoria has trade in water, buying water rights, etc. Which also causes a set of problems.

Here are some of the issues;

''The Murray-Darling Basin's $2 billion water trade — introduced to recognise the value of the resource and provide farmers with greater flexibility — is shifting economies and changing the landscape.

At the request of the Federal Government, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is about to study the trade.

Some say what is happening across the southern basin is simply the result of free trade and the commodification of water.

Others describe it as a failed experiment.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan makes it clear that the river is a national asset to be managed in the national interest.

"I think it set off with good intentions, but like any market, people work out how to bend the rules to take advantage of a system that was never meant to be like that, and certainly we're seeing that in this market in Victoria," he says.

"My biggest beef by miles is that non-irrigators can buy water and just hoard it, collect it and short the market of it.

"Every day that they are in the market bidding against the irrigator means the irrigator has got to pay more, which means they don't have as much to spend in town, which means they whole community suffers."

 

[Swammerdami]

That 10% of California's water is spent on almonds surprised me! But Google shows that almonds represent 11% (by dollar value) of the output of California farms and ranches so I guess it's not out of line. (Excepting that the general water subsidization itself may be "out of line.")

The only real problem here is welfare queens who want to be handed for free (or at massively subsidised prices) a resource that everyone else is expected to pay for. Surely that position doesn't contradict their precious political beliefs?

There, there. The right-wing has its own doctrines of political correctness which we need to respect even while they're whingeing at humane correctness. To comply with right-wing diction, a "welfare queen" is a dark-skinned woman probably with kinky hair, preferably with a brother-in-law locked up for a minor drug offense.

The welfare barons who suckle at the teat of taxpayer-bought water are heroic Job Creators™ and should be treated with the utmost respect. They deserve their hero status even if the Jobs™ they Create™ are given only to illegal migrants from Nicaragua. (This is Win-win for Job Creation™ and Profits™ if ICE can deport the terrorist almond pickers before pay-day!)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That is already being done in some places. The Murray/Darling region in Victoria has trade in water, buying water rights, etc. Which also causes a set of problems.

Here are some of the issues;

''The Murray-Darling Basin's $2 billion water trade — introduced to recognise the value of the resource and provide farmers with greater flexibility — is shifting economies and changing the landscape.

At the request of the Federal Government, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is about to study the trade.

Some say what is happening across the southern basin is simply the result of free trade and the commodification of water.

Others describe it as a failed experiment.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan makes it clear that the river is a national asset to be managed in the national interest.

"I think it set off with good intentions, but like any market, people work out how to bend the rules to take advantage of a system that was never meant to be like that, and certainly we're seeing that in this market in Victoria," he says.

"My biggest beef by miles is that non-irrigators can buy water and just hoard it, collect it and short the market of it.

"Every day that they are in the market bidding against the irrigator means the irrigator has got to pay more, which means they don't have as much to spend in town, which means they whole community suffers."

my bold

That would seem to be exactly what the law should accomplish, unless by "irrigators" we mean those intentionally and specifically meant to be privileged by the law. If that's the case what the fuck good is the law?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That 10% of California's water is spent on almonds surprised me! But Google shows that almonds represent 11% (by dollar value) of the output of California farms and ranches so I guess it's not out of line. (Excepting that the general water subsidization itself may be "out of line.")

Farmers need water! That is priority. We don't need that many almonds though. 10% is an extraordinarily large amount of water for a single crop, especially one that doesn't have a ton of uses.

 

[laughing dog]

Doesn't that depend on what the average business or household can afford to pay for utilities? Of course, some can.

No. The West is running out of water. That literally means water is being used up faster than it can be replenished. That strongly suggests that water is under-priced. Raising the price of water, especially to the users for whom it is under-priced, means sending a clear signal that water is a scarce resource and gives a market incentive for users to reduce usage or face larger bills.

That is already being done in some places. The Murray/Darling region in Victoria has trade in water, buying water rights, etc. Which also causes a set of problems.

Any change causes "problems". What is your point?

 

[Swammerdami]

Bill Maher also has some questions about California watering its almonds. (I found this video in one of my tabs. Apologies if it got there by my clicking on a link posted upthread!)
[YOUTUBE]glz-Pm6HUG0[/YOUTUBE]