Water and the southwest

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>The big question... are folks willing to do that?

Probably not. Nor are they willing to make changes that really _will_ make a difference, like switching crops or eating less meat.

If you're referring to crop rotation, farmers have been doing that since after the dust-bowl. For some reason, which I do not understand, it seems as though there is a faction in this country to do away with farmers and ranchers.


Chuck

[Amazon 7]

masterrig

***>The big question... are folks willing to do that?

Probably not. Nor are they willing to make changes that really _will_ make a difference, like switching crops or eating less meat.

If you're referring to crop rotation, farmers have been doing that since after the dust-bowl. For some reason, which I do not understand, it seems as though there is a faction in this country to do away withSMALL farmers and ranchers.


Chuck

Corporate Farms that get billions in farm subsidies while their GOP owners go to Congress are doing just fine.

[grue 1]

DanG

Because it takes something like 20 years to grow a new one. If they let all the almond trees die for a short term drought, then the world won't have almonds for 20 years, and all those farmers will be completely out of business.

So they can let it die, it'd just be bad for business

cavete terrae.

[Rick 67]

billvon

>I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for
>conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools.

While it uses less water than grass (in other words, if you replace your grass lawn with a pool of the same size, you save water in the long run) I agree that it should be part of water restrictions. Several counties have already implemented "no new pool" and "no draining/refilling pool" rules.

However, it should also be noted that if a county restricts pool construction and still allows grass, then overall water usage will go up. Xeriscaping requirements could solve that problem.

I am a big fan of Xeriscaping here is a family in Florida that is trying to have an environmently friendly yard and the homeowner's assoc. is fighting them.

You can't be drunk all day if you don't start early!

[Elisha 1]

billvon

>I do think that the most effective way tk get anything goes done with water policy in
>California would be a credible threat to restore Hatch Hatch Valley.

Did you mean the Hetch Hetchy? I've been seeing plans for that for decades; nothing will come of it. SF needs the water too much.

What's weird to me is that ISTM that most that harp on this issue think that Hetch Hetchy actually contains a lot of water. It doesn't. The reservoir only has around 350K acre ft capacity - only a tenth the size of Oroville, the #2 size reservoir in the state. It's all about environmental/beauty restoration and not water capacity.

[billvon 2,400]

>If you're referring to crop rotation, farmers have been doing that since after the
>dust-bowl.

No, I am referring to a switch away from high-water crops to low-water crops. Black-eyed peas and okra take a tiny fraction of the water that alfalfa and almonds do, for example. It is nuts to grow high-water crops in the desert.

>For some reason, which I do not understand, it seems as though there is a faction in
>this country to do away with farmers and ranchers.

I don't think anyone wants to "do away" with farmers and ranchers. They just want them to make better choices about what they do with our water.

[Elisha 1]

billvon

>If you're referring to crop rotation, farmers have been doing that since after the
>dust-bowl.

No, I am referring to a switch away from high-water crops to low-water crops. Black-eyed peas and okra take a tiny fraction of the water that alfalfa and almonds do, for example. It is nuts to grow high-water crops in the desert.

>For some reason, which I do not understand, it seems as though there is a faction in
>this country to do away with farmers and ranchers.

I don't think anyone wants to "do away" with farmers and ranchers. They just want them to make better choices about what they do with our water.

Bill, stop being so logical and concise! Sheesh!

[masterrig 1]

billvon

>If you're referring to crop rotation, farmers have been doing that since after the
>dust-bowl.

No, I am referring to a switch away from high-water crops to low-water crops. Black-eyed peas and okra take a tiny fraction of the water that alfalfa and almonds do, for example. It is nuts to grow high-water crops in the desert.

>For some reason, which I do not understand, it seems as though there is a faction in
>this country to do away with farmers and ranchers.

I don't think anyone wants to "do away" with farmers and ranchers. They just want them to make better choices about what they do with our water.

Farmers are trying to grow the crops that people are demanding. People don't care about water volume necessary to grow crops... they just want what they want. It is nuts to try to grow high volume water consuming crops in the desert. What about the way Calexico and that country there in California did it, the farmers who changed a desert into a 'garden'? That was to meet the wants and needs of the public. Farmers throughout the West are in drought conditions and still trying to meet the demands of the public and work within conditions. That's a pretty tall order for less than 1% of our population.


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>Farmers are trying to grow the crops that people are demanding. People don't
>care about water volume necessary to grow crops... they just want what they want.

But people DO care about the price. If almonds were twice the price far fewer people would buy them, and that would give farmers an incentive to switch to water-saving crops. But farmers can sell almonds for cheap because their water is subsidized - which is why they are having to decide which farms to not give any water to.

If you charged what the water cost on an open market, then they'd be more likely to grow beans and peas rather than almonds - and more farmers could stay in business.

>What about the way Calexico and that country there in California did it, the farmers
>who changed a desert into a 'garden'?

They can do that if they want. And if they have their own source of water, then they don't have to worry about droughts. But if they expect someone else to supply them with water in the desert during droughts - from the same sources that everyone in the state relies on - they might have chosen a poor site for their farm.

The system used to allocate water to farmers in California is ancient and byzantine, with "senior" water rights taking precedence over "new" water rights, farms losing water rights if they don't use all their water etc. Last time I was in Yuma, for example, there was a catfish farm right next to the DZ there. Why? Because they had to use the water they'd been allocated.

[grue 1]

HOAs are the devil anyway. I hope that when the time comes for me to buy a home, I can buy one that doesn't give some group of uptight assholes the ability to tell me what I do with my property. Around here, though, it's kinda tough…

cavete terrae.

[masterrig 1]

In far west Imperial, Texas, there is a shrimp farm where some folks took advantage of the brine water source.
Also, your tune has changed drastically from a similar conversation we had a year or so ago.


Chuck

[headoverheels 291]

masterrig

I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools. To me, that is the biggest waste of water going. Seldom used and seems like they are for mostly bragging rights or a gaudy display of one's wealth. Meanwhile, Lake Tahoe water levels drop to near zero.


Chuck

My pool, which had a solar cover on it when not it use, dropped in level about one inch per month. In the winter, accumulated water had to be drained out. Lawn, on the other hand, uses many times that, and most lawns are a heck of a lot larger than my pool.

[masterrig 1]

headoverheels

***I've been all through this thread and have seen mention of various ideas for conserving/procuring water but absolutely no mention of 'no' swimming pools. To me, that is the biggest waste of water going. Seldom used and seems like they are for mostly bragging rights or a gaudy display of one's wealth. Meanwhile, Lake Tahoe water levels drop to near zero.


Chuck

My pool, which had a solar cover on it when not it use, dropped in level about one inch per month. In the winter, accumulated water had to be drained out. Lawn, on the other hand, uses many times that, and most lawns are a heck of a lot larger than my pool.

Thank you for that. I learned something.


Chuck

[billvon 2,400]

>In far west Imperial, Texas, there is a shrimp farm where some folks took advantage
>of the brine water source.

That would be a great use of a water source that isn't very useful for anything else. If they expanded it into a tilapia farm - and demanded thousands of acre-feet of fresh water for it - it wouldn't be such a good use of water.

[rhaig 0]

grue

HOAs are the devil anyway. I hope that when the time comes for me to buy a home, I can buy one that doesn't give some group of uptight assholes the ability to tell me what I do with my property. Around here, though, it's kinda tough…

Our HOA, as shitty as they are about some things, declared they wouldn't cite people for lawn maintenance while we are in drought conditions. That started a few years ago. The way it's going, we might actually come off of watering restrictions for a month or two before we go back on them this summer.

--
Rob

[airdvr 197]

Everyone hates the HOA until Festus tries to park his double-wide next door.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[grue 1]

airdvr

Everyone hates the HOA until Festus tries to park his double-wide next door.

If people don't want the neighbors to do shit they don't like, they should have bought the property themselves. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are happy to put themselves in debt for 20 years to have some shitlord dictate what colour their house may be painted, but I'm not one of them.

cavete terrae.

[kelpdiver 2]

grue

***Because it takes something like 20 years to grow a new one. If they let all the almond trees die for a short term drought, then the world won't have almonds for 20 years, and all those farmers will be completely out of business.

So they can let it die, it'd just be bad for business

Why would expect a farmer to do something that is bad for business? The state really cannot mandate what the farmers grow, so they logically will look for higher revenue products (be it for local consumption or for export to Asia, which is the case with these nuts). So long as their water rights entitle them to nearly cheap water, there are no economic incentives to do anything but what they've been doing.

An almond tree takes 3-4 years to produce at all, and 6-7 to reach full production. Very similar to wine grapes. So again, as I wrote, your only choice for a drought year is to either give up ~5 years of normal production and kill the tree, or to keep watering it at least enough to stay healthy. No one is taking option A, since you 1) don't know the drought is a one year or multi year event and 2) you don't have any incentive to care.

Best case (and fantasy) scenario is that farmers pay the same cost of water as anyone else, but crops for state (and nearby) consumption are encouraged with subsidized rates. Then they will make economic choices that are compatible with the supply of the resource.

[grue 1]

kelpdiver

******Because it takes something like 20 years to grow a new one. If they let all the almond trees die for a short term drought, then the world won't have almonds for 20 years, and all those farmers will be completely out of business.

So they can let it die, it'd just be bad for business

Why would expect a farmer to do something that is bad for business? The state really cannot mandate what the farmers grow, so they logically will look for higher revenue products (be it for local consumption or for export to Asia, which is the case with these nuts). So long as their water rights entitle them to nearly cheap water, there are no economic incentives to do anything but what they've been doing.

An almond tree takes 3-4 years to produce at all, and 6-7 to reach full production. Very similar to wine grapes. So again, as I wrote, your only choice for a drought year is to either give up ~5 years of normal production and kill the tree, or to keep watering it at least enough to stay healthy. No one is taking option A, since you 1) don't know the drought is a one year or multi year event and 2) you don't have any incentive to care.

Best case (and fantasy) scenario is that farmers pay the same cost of water as anyone else, but crops for state (and nearby) consumption are encouraged with subsidized rates. Then they will make economic choices that are compatible with the supply of the resource.


I'm not expecting them to do things that are bad for business, I was just confused by the claim that "you can't let a producing almond tree die."

Perhaps from a financial standpoint you shouldn't, but you certainly can.

cavete terrae.

[rhaig 0]

airdvr

Everyone hates the HOA until Festus tries to park his double-wide next door.

I wouldn't mind if they kept to regulating visible things.

I'm not "allowed" to put up a ham radio antenna (or actually any antenna) on my property even if it's not visible from off my property.

I have to pay $20 to apply to be able to paint my house the same color it is right now.

Yes, I signed the contract after I read the restrictions. I fully expected to be able to get an exception for an antenna that isn't visible.

--
Rob

[Elisha 1]

billvon

...

The system used to allocate water to farmers in California is ancient and byzantine, with "senior" water rights taking precedence over "new" water rights, farms losing water rights if they don't use all their water etc. Last time I was in Yuma, for example, there was a catfish farm right next to the DZ there. Why? Because they had to use the water they'd been allocated.

Add on to it that a lot of their consumption isn't even metered, so it's only an educated guess how much water they really use. Hard to even charge a "market rate" if we don't even know how much is really used.

I hope that PhD student at UC Davis finishes their dissertation soon so we can find out how much is really consumed (I read about something of the sort a year or so ago).

[kelpdiver 2]

grue

I'm not expecting them to do things that are bad for business, I was just confused by the claim that "you can't let a producing almond tree die."

Perhaps from a financial standpoint you shouldn't, but you certainly can.

Are you really confused, or are you being literal just to be argumentative?

I mean, I could let you sit outside by doorstep, getting beaten to death by thugs without bothering to call 911. I *could* do nothing. But the odds of that are about 10,000:1, so it's accurate to say I *can't*.

Farmers could choose to kill the children and use the bodies to fertilize the almonds trees as well. But why don't we stick to reality. New and existing almond trees represent a long term water use commitment. Single season crops do not.

[grue 1]

kelpdiver

***
I'm not expecting them to do things that are bad for business, I was just confused by the claim that "you can't let a producing almond tree die."

Perhaps from a financial standpoint you shouldn't, but you certainly can.

Are you really confused, or are you being literal just to be argumentative?

I mean, I could let you sit outside by doorstep, getting beaten to death by thugs without bothering to call 911. I *could* do nothing. But the odds of that are about 10,000:1, so it's accurate to say I *can't*.

Farmers could choose to kill the children and use the bodies to fertilize the almonds trees as well. But why don't we stick to reality. New and existing almond trees represent a long term water use commitment. Single season crops do not.

I'm a big fan of linguistic precision.

cavete terrae.

[turtlespeed 212]

grue

******
I'm not expecting them to do things that are bad for business, I was just confused by the claim that "you can't let a producing almond tree die."

Perhaps from a financial standpoint you shouldn't, but you certainly can.

Are you really confused, or are you being literal just to be argumentative?

I mean, I could let you sit outside by doorstep, getting beaten to death by thugs without bothering to call 911. I *could* do nothing. But the odds of that are about 10,000:1, so it's accurate to say I *can't*.

Farmers could choose to kill the children and use the bodies to fertilize the almonds trees as well. But why don't we stick to reality. New and existing almond trees represent a long term water use commitment. Single season crops do not.

I'm a big fan of linguistic precision.

And yet you frequent this forum. Hmmm.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Elisha 1]

This looks like a pretty good article summarizing the (California) situation.

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/10/8379221/california-drought-water-crisis