452
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Treczoks@lemm.ee 51 points 1 year ago

So they get the water for free and get paid for from tax dollars to conserve water?

Maybe if they actually had to pay for it, conserving water would be something they would do on their own just to to save money...

[-] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 32 points 1 year ago

They probably also get paid by the federal government to grow certain crops instead of others. The whole rural US is heavily supported by federal welfare.

load more comments (24 replies)
[-] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If I understand correctly from the article, it sounds like they're caught in a loop (sans Abattis family) and need something to change in order to further cut water usage (sans Abattis; because it sounds like they just don't give a fuck).

Basically if I got this right:

They grow a combination of food for humans and feedstock for animals; and most of the water is being consumed by feedstock.

They (sans Abattis family) are aware that they use a shitton of water and have been trying to take steps to reduce their water consumption, but doing so is expensive because of the equipment that's required.

They're able to grow feedstock because water is cheap enough for feedstock to be profitable, which is necessary to reduce their water consumption because growing food alone isn't as profitable enough.

Food isn't profitable enough because apparently the wholesale market value of food is so low that it's hard to make ends meet on food alone, which is why they also grow feedstock using cheap water.

However doing so means they consume a lot more water than they need to, which means they need better ways of getting water for their crops, which is something they're aware of and trying to address, but they need money for that, which comes from feedstock grown using cheap water, which means they consume a lot more water than they need to, and so on.

Then you have the Abattis family who appear to use significantly more water than the rest of the major families and just don't care.


Note: I'm not trying to excuse or justify their excessive water usage, but the article makes it sound like it's more complicated than "just cut their water access".

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

Maybe, they just need to not try to farm in the FUCKING DESERT.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 3 points 1 year ago

Farming in the desert is as old as humans writing shit down.

[-] Kbobabob@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

That doesn't mean keep doing it.

[-] jaspersgroove@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Yes but taking so much water from the river that it no longer reaches the fucking ocean is not.

[-] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 year ago

You're right about that; that is an industrial era issue.

[-] GONADS125@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

That's an appeal to tradition; a logical fallacy.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

That’s an appeal to tradition; a logical fallacy.

it's just a statement of fact. it made no argument at all, and is not, in itself, fallacious.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

So, not that old.

[-] skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago

Also, factor in why the water became cheap and/or free. The Department of Reclamation ran around the west over the last century building dams and selling cheap water. These are now generations of family later doing what they have always done. Not apologizing for the behavior of the families, but the US government built this house of cards, they even knew as early as the 1950s that the water wasn't going to support the growth rate, and basically decided, "Eh, that's 50 years from now's problem." Even earlier on they realized the estimation for average Colorado River flow was incorrect. Capitalist "let's just worry about this quarter" mentality led to where we are now, thanks government!

Some arbitrary "fun" facts throughout these learnings:

  • There was actually a plan to build a series of 6 nuclear reactors and a pipeline from the Mississippi River to New Mexico to supplant their water usage.
  • The Ogallala Aquifer that spans from the Dakotas to CO/NM/TX was predicted to run out in a similar 50 year timeframe. Many wells in NM now pump brine instead of water, because spoiler alert: it's tapped.
  • The Great Salt Lake's water level has dropped so low now, that they have heavy metal dust storms. Unfortunately, this does not sound as good as it sounds.
[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Heavy metal dust storms do sound pretty fucking cool tho

[-] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Wish we could just grow food and sell at-cost while we all pitched in to subsidize the wages of those involved, but I guess wasting more water than some states use just to make a profit is a good alternative system.

[-] Smokeydope@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I bet we will see more and more farmers turn to pot and hemp as the industry grows. I bet that the wholesale margins on good pot are a lot better than that of food

[-] Noodle07@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Land of the free water

[-] Madison420@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Alright I'm dyslexic but I never saw the reznicks mentioned and they have to be a top family. Iirc they still own the California water Bank.

[-] Greyghoster@aussie.zone 5 points 1 year ago

Yet again irrigating to feed cattle which apparently only 10% of people eat.

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

It's 12% of Americans eat half the beef consumed every day. Of course, that 12% is mostly people 50-65.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Is gen X addicted to steak? Wtf?

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Idk, but it really is a crazy stat. Especially when you take into account that the US only exports 11% of domestically produced beef and we import additional beef. 12% of the population appears to be subsisting off pretty much just beef.

[-] SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es 2 points 1 year ago

Strange to imagine. I think I have beef once every two weeks or so? I wonder where that puts me on the scale of beef eaters.

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Far from that group, for sure.

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't know how to resolve this kind of issue without it looking like a transfer of wealth from us fellow tax-payers to these big farm families:

  • Pay to purchase their water rights, and provide a place in a wetter area of California to resume growing,
  • or let them stay in place, pay to reduce their water usage

Or we spend real money and quality of life to illegally deny them water, but all our food prices go up, nevermind the legal costs.

At some point it won't matter what's legal or not, we need water to drink.

This is seemingly an expensive problem to resolve, but two key items need to be cared for, no matter the decision: skilled farmers who knows how to produce need to be kept working if they choose, and we need to start thinking in a more than quarterly manner to plan for long term success. Who thought growing food in the desert was a good idea?

[-] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

C) charge them the for the water they are pulling out of a river they don't actually own.

They decided to farm in a desert because they could pass the enormous cost of doing so to other people. They aren't owed shit.

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, that's a given. But longer term.... I think we gotta get people out of the desert in terms of farming. Trade forests for farms? I dislike the hell out of that. There's gotta be something else.

These farms produce alfalfa for animal feed, almost exclusively. We just don't need the amount of meat that we currently consume, it's just about the least efficient way to turn water into food. We could just lose these farms entirely and it would just make steak and dairy products a bit more expensive, which they probably should be given the massive environmental impact from producing them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

All valid points in my opinion, I'm just trying to think of what we need to set as goals for California's farming operations long term. I'm a resident here and I want this place to succeed.

Success could certainly look like cheaper fruits and veggies vs meat and byproducts if the land were guided to being food producing vs feedcrops.

[-] TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Meanwhile, the government pays farmers where it rains and hay grows well to leave fields barren. It gives farmers welfare payments and increases grain prices.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
452 points (98.3% liked)

News

23320 readers
3372 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS