How do we save water: Stop growing alfalfa in Imperial County

https://www.desertsun.com/story/opinion/contributors/valley-voice/2023/02/05/growing-alfalfa-in-imperial-county-and-california-wastes-water/69860506007/

by cute_boi • 3 years ago

299 254 3 years ago

desertsun.com

catchnear43213• 3 years ago

In fact, alfalfa has become an instrument for exporting subsidized water.

efficient, too. why would anyone want to ship the supplies half way around the world when you can just ship the product? especially when the supplies are sold to you at a discount compared to the locals?

fnordpiglet3• 3 years ago

I do wonder how much or that discount is due to it being non potable water with no treatment or complex distribution network. Not saying it’s a good idea but comparing canal water for irrigation with fluorinated chlorinated potable water piped directly to your house doesn’t seem reasonable.

ethbr15• 3 years ago

You can turn canal water into potable water at some cost.

It's much more difficult to turn no water into potable water.

seemaze• 3 years ago

It's worse than what you propose. In Arizona at least, the existing water rights allow agriculture to pump fresh, clean, ancient ground water as a less expensive alternative to surface water transported via canal. Because agriculture won't use it, the canal water has to be made potable and distributed in the municipal water supply.

lokar2• 3 years ago

In this case alfalfa is the supply, the product is milk and dairy products

catchnear43213• 3 years ago

in this case alfalfa is both product and supply, and those producing alfalfa in conus are avoiding having to transport water.

to grow alfalfa.

to feed animals.

hot_gril5• 3 years ago

Ship the product (alfalfa) instead of the supply (water), is the point of the comment. You need water to grow alfalfa, but not much water is contained inside it.

intalentive• 3 years ago

If water is scarce then the price should reflect it. These “outrages” all seem to be about outsized private profit from too-cheap public resources.

ajmurmann4• 3 years ago

This is true and unfortunately more complicated. I've long been saying "just price it at real market value and the issue will be solved", similar to what you are saying. The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc. We'd need to reform those water rights and I bet no politician has enough interest to fight a dirty media battle with "the people who provide your food" who I also would expect to likely get physically violent at some point.

throw0101b2• 3 years ago

The problem is that farmers don't get the water from the faucet, but through archaic water rights to rivers, lakes, wells, etc.

By "archaic" do you mean they got there first? Because farming has been around in (e.g.) Arizona for >100 years, and there weren't any problems back then when there was mostly a whole lot of nothin' in the region.

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h...

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real...

Then folks decided that building large population centres in the middle of the desert was a good idea, and here we are.

It should also be noted that Native Americans were also living and farming before white settlers arrived:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix,_Arizona#Early_history

Though it's not like having large civilizations living in a desert is unique to the American (South-)West: see Mesopotamia and Egypt. They're just usually huddle around rivers.

hot_gril5• 3 years ago

Maybe there's a market-based solution that works well for them too. Let them keep the water rights, but also let them resell the water. It's probably worth more to someone else. I'm sure there's some obstacle to that too.

HDThoreaun3• 3 years ago

Water rights in california are so entrenched that taking them away from farmers would certainly lead to massive court battles and probably many billions in takings clause payments. There's just no political will for that when combined with the pr/media battle the farmers will put up.

zackkatz• 3 years ago

Same in the west slope of Colorado. So much water is used to grow alfalfa, in part because there is a “use it or lose it” water rights policy:

Failure to apply a water right to beneficial use when water was available for a period of ten or more years results in a rebuttable presumption of abandonment.

This leads to huge amounts of wasted water and alfalfa growing.

https://dwr.colorado.gov/services/water-administration/water...

troyvit• 3 years ago

Man this fact just points so heavily to a natural part of human nature. If we're given more than we need, but are threatened to lose some or all of it if we don't use it, we'll find ways to use it whether we need it or not. Seems like it's also human nature to make those threats.

peteradio2• 3 years ago

If we're given more than we need, but are threatened to lose some or all of it if we don't use it, we'll find ways to use it

Not really.. without stupid legislation we'd let it rot which in the case of water would be exactly what we'd want.

colechristensen• 3 years ago

Solution: tax irrigated alfalfa in particular regions starting small and having yearly rate increases.

bgentry• 3 years ago

Or just charge a fair rate for all water resources in the state, one that is representative of its scarcity and cost, without massively subsidizing inefficient agricultural use in the process.

The alfalfa situation would correct itself if the water being used was fairly priced and not heavily subsidized.

llbeansandrice2• 3 years ago

You still have issues of “use it or lose it” water rights in many places so even if it is expensive there’s a massive incentive to still use all of it somehow.

drc372• 3 years ago

You can't just charge the farmer based on a particular crop because they can easily change that from year to year. Alfalfa usually last 4-5 years before they replant. So they would have to basically raise the prices of water for all farmers.

A huge portion of our nation's food supply is grown in CA. It would/could drastically raise the prices of food worldwide because some tax hungry politician wants a larger tax base.

mrguyorama6• 3 years ago

Well yes, that would be a great solution, but it's difficult legally. Those farmers have those water rights fair and square. It pretty much would have to be eminent domain the water rights to make things sane, and the farmers can afford great lawyers with all the money they haven't spent on water.

mabbo2• 3 years ago

I'm not disagreeing with the author- water is being sold at a discount to agribusiness and with an extra price for normal consumers. And something must be done about it.

But, it's never just that simple.

Is that $800/foot-acre just the cost of the water? Or does the bill for the consumer household water use also include the incredibly expensive infrastructure to pipe water to each little suburban house across California? Low density housing (pervasive because NIMBYism) also means high infrastructure costs. Someone has to pay for all the work to build and maintain those water lines down each street. (And yet, people living in a condo where one pipe serves hundreds pay the same rates!)

Agricultural use often requires just dropping a hose into the river, and they business will handle those costs themselves.

In short, the water problem in California is more than just "blame China for stealing our water". It is that too, yes, but there isn't just one problem.

... Or I'm completely off base and that $800 figure is just the water and includes none of the other costs...

llbeansandrice2• 3 years ago

I’m not quite sure how that matters much when the primary problem with water in the western US is simply that there is not enough.

If infrastructure costs are higher that’s not that big of a deal when 80% is being used to grow thirsty crops in droughts.

mabbo2• 3 years ago

I don't disagree with you: there is an issue with "we don't have enough water here".

But when we criticize a problem, it's important that we are very accurate in the size and scale of the issues. Over-stating the costs to consumers by ignoring other components of the price tag runs the risk that those who are on the other side of this issue will use your oversight as a defence. "Oh clearly you aren't being honest, as you're hiding this other fact".

What if the agri-business now publish a report that shows that in actuality, when you factor in infrastructure costs, they are actually paying more for water? (I doubt it, but it's entirely possible).

mike_d3• 3 years ago

I believe that number is for the water alone. My water bill includes all sorts of fees for the infrastructure, in addition to the $40k I paid for a 3 foot pipe to be installed to hook up to service a few years ago.

hn_throwaway_993• 3 years ago

This is basically classic arbitrage. Water in the American West is badly mispriced, so ranchers in China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are essentially buying this water for a very low price because their own water price is very high.

I'm hoping there is eventually enough outrage in these areas to change policy. Especially in California, where they are forcing people to rip up their lawns and trying to guilt folks into feeling horrible if they take a shower a minute too long, meanwhile they're doing nothing about what is actually the biggest cause of the problem.

davidw5• 3 years ago

It drives me absolutely bonkers when I see someone complain about some new apartments "because water". I live in a city in the west where there's a pretty severe housing shortage, and water is also a concern.

But when you dig into the water issue... it's all agriculture, and even there they have so much leeway to eliminate waste. I saw an exhibit at the airport of a "pipe" they dug up less than 5 years ago that was made of wood squeezed together with bailing wire.

The "Total Water Use" chart here is pretty similar throughout much of the West:

https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug...

And denser housing tends to use water more efficiently.

Edit: dug up a picture of that pipe I took. https://photos.app.goo.gl/PisNhiA81Rsw45Rx8

ajmurmann4• 3 years ago

It's frustrating that there is no political way to prices water at real cost rather than use archaic water rights. I can't even see a reform to water rights major conflicts in those communities given the very real impact on people's lives and the common "don't tread on me"-attitude.

kedikedi• 3 years ago

That wooden pipe looks very cool actually :) Do you know when did they make it/installed it? And how did they joined them, more wood?

innagadadavida• 3 years ago

The other issue is that California is taking away jobs of farm workers south of the border and uprooting their lives and causing the influx of migrants to exacerbate. Farm owners here are wealthy and have the politicians in their pockets and it will be very difficult to change the status quo.

offsign• 3 years ago

Water infrastructure in the west is highly fragmented and locally rate limited -- you can't just reroute water from large swaths of the state like you can with electricity. Additionally, the water consumed by agriculture is often different than the 'treated water' needed to serve residential communities.

So yes, water is major a bottleneck for residential development out west. But to solve this you need new means of transport (pipes / channels), storage (reservoirs), and treatment (plans)... infrastructure that doesn't currently exist, is hard to get approved, and would likely need to be paid for by increasing the cost of living for existing residents.

Agree that we should be smarter about how water is allocated / used out West, but 'taking from ag' isn't going to make it any cheaper for you to buy a home.

RoddaWallPro• 3 years ago

As someone who also lives in Central Oregon (and was born and raised here), I will say this: this article is profoundly misleading.

They state that the Upper Deschutes CFS goes from ~1200->~65, and state that is from irrigation. But they don't actually prove that. Much of that CFS decline could be observed out of irrigation season, because that section of the Deschutes dumps a ton of water into lava tubes/back into the ground. You'd have to measure the CFS at the end of that section prior to irrigation getting turned on, then after, and then the difference is what is going to irrigation. And CO Land Watch doesn't do that. Hell, they don't even state where their data is coming from.

You can get a better idea of this drop by instead looking at official US govt data where the Deschutes drops into Lake Billy Chinook: https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv/?cb_00060=on&for...

That is for the year 2021, when that article was written. You can see the drop in April, which is when irrigation starts. It's about 500CFS,or ~half the river at that point. That is NOT 95% of the river, as CO Land Watch would have you believe. (Side note: CO Land Watch has a bit of a reputation around here. This is a bit of an exaggeration, but it seems like they would gladly end all farming in Central Oregon to save a few salmon.)

RationPhantoms• 3 years ago

Who in the US profits the most from Alfafa exports to these countries?

jahnu• 3 years ago

The farmers who get this water cheap?

rs999gti• 3 years ago

Probably the governments that grant the permits and collect the taxes for these foreign farming operations

whinenot2• 3 years ago

It's illegal to grow alfalfa in Saudi Arabia. That's why Fondomonte Arizona was created by the Saudis to grow alfalfa in the unregulated and easily paid off state of Arizona.[0]

[0]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/16/fondomont...

ethbr15• 3 years ago

When agriculture uses 70+% of all water in the Colorado River system and California’s Imperial Irrigation District is the largest consumer [0], we should probably start there.

At some point, people need to vote in their own interests.

Farming is important, but it isn't the only thing that's important. Ripping up use-it-or-lose-it and grandfathered water rights (with compensation and phase-out times) should be on the table. It's a vestige of a different world and isn't appropriate for today.

Do we prioritize agriculture or human use, given modern water constraints?

Shifting policy to promote less water-consumptive agriculture and penalize high-consumption agriculture seems like a reasonable bargain.

[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/colorado-river-water-cut...

mike_d3• 3 years ago

Ripping up use-it-or-lose-it and grandfathered water rights (with compensation and phase-out times) should be on the table.

That is a battle that will be tied up in the courts for 15+ years. What we need to do right now is add a 200% export tax on high water items (alfalfa, almonds, etc) leaving the country. Incentivize farmers to divert water usage to feeding domestic animals or growing crops that feed people domestically.

LinuxBender4• 3 years ago

Do we prioritize agriculture or human use, given modern water constraints?

Aren't those basically the same things just at different stages? Where should the food production move to? I ask because there is a strong movement to re-shore everything so moving it off-shore probably won't get much traction.

It's probably a different topic all together but I would agree that most things we produce are not required for healthy well nourished people but there would probably be a diverse range of opinions on what foods those might be. My personal preference would be to nix anything that is not Paleolithic, i.e. get rid of anything that is not meat or vegetable or does not contribute to that chain so we keep the things that feed livestock and stop producing the rest

BurningFrog3• 3 years ago

Do we prioritize agriculture or human use?

All this water is used by humans. Farmers, and the people who eat the food they make, are all humans.

kolanos8• 3 years ago

At some point, people need to vote in their own interests.

By not eating? Because starvation is what is going to happen when the price of food increases by 10X or 50X. Visit your local food bank and see how many people can't afford food now.

You might say, "well, the U.S. will just have to import more food". One problem with that: the U.S. is the largest producer of food by a wide margin. What country is going to pick up the slack?

Do we prioritize agriculture or human use, given modern water constraints?

These are one and the same. Almost all agriculture is either directly or indirectly for human use (food).

johnvanommen2• 3 years ago

Seems easy to fix:

* take those water thirsty crops in California and start growing them in places like Iowa, where water is plentiful and labor costs are lower

* use that freed up land to build more housing, lowering the cost of living in CA

win-win

Dig1t• 3 years ago

A nuclear power plant + desalination plant would fix this situation almost completely. California has the resources (money), and knowhow (tons of engineers) to make this happen if they want.

Israel gets 55% of their water this way and California can too.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...

epistasis• 3 years ago

This largely comes down to "land" ownership. Water rights are real property like owning a piece of land, and just as with a vacant lot in a city in the midst of a severe housing shortage, the land owner pays no cost for hoarding a very valuable resource that many other people could make far far better use of.

Natural resources, when "owned" in this way, should also have very high taxes associated with them so that they are not squandered and instead used much more efficiently.

Cthulhu_• 3 years ago

It's mispriced in a lot of places I think; more and more countries and regions will face water shortages soon, but the prices towards industry isn't going up yet. If anything will make the large consumers finally reduce, it's going to be increasing the cost.

But the government doesn't want that, because they would just add it to the price of the agricultural produce. And governments want to keep that value low, so that one the one side, people can afford to eat, but on the other side because else the local markets will be out-competed by importing it from places that don't do as much water management.

It's protectionism at the cost of the water supply. In my neck of the wood (west Europe) we've already had instances of water pressure being reduced so that the reservoirs have a chance to refill overnight; in other places, tap water has already become unavailable.

In 10 years that will be commonplace, water will be rationed. While meanwhile, there's datacenters using tens of millions of liters of drinking water for cooling: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/drought-stricken-...

ajdude• 3 years ago

From what I'm reading, the problem appears to be growing water hungry crops and then shipping them overseas. I think we can accomplish keeping the price of US produce down by granting lower water prices for farmers to grow crops intended for domestic use while not doing the same for farmers shipping alfalfa to China?

BurningFrog3• 3 years ago

As I remember it from the California water crises some years back, a LOT of California water rights are owned by the original farms that first started using the water, and they pay very close to zero for using it.

Thus we have rice farms in the desert and other such madness.

This would actually be fine if "better" water users could buy those water rights from the rice farmer. The farmer would make a lot more money than growing rice could yield, and (say) LA could ease up on the lawn shaming.

But for some ungodly reason, such trades are not legally possible, and the madness will continue.

mrguyorama6• 3 years ago

Why would the rice farmer ever give up free water that all legal documents say they are entitled to? Why would the rice farmer ever sell?

avgcorrection• 3 years ago

I'm hoping there is eventually enough outrage in these areas to change policy. Especially in California, where they are forcing people to rip up their lawns and trying to guilt folks into feeling horrible if they take a shower a minute too long, meanwhile they're doing nothing about what is actually the biggest cause of the problem.

A classic.

1. Problem is too obvious to ignore

2. Get in front of people finding the root causes by blaming individual citizen/consumer choices

3. Less of a need to actively run propaganda on behalf of the actual entities that are making the problems (e.g. apparently alfalfa agriculture in this case)

hn_throwaway_993• 3 years ago

Yeah, this also reminded me of plastic recycling: Convince people that recycling is actually a good solution for dealing with waste, to the point of shaming people who only have a single garbage can. Then have plastic companies claim their products are recyclable, to the point of putting those 3-arrow-triangle symbols on their packaging, so people will dutifully sort out their waste into different bins. And then promptly take all those bins and dump them into the landfill anyway[1]. When the real problem is that there is too much single-use plastic created in the first place.

1. To clarify, some recycling definitely is a great idea and makes sense, like recycling of aluminum cans. But it rarely makes sense when there is not a positive economic outcome to do so.

hot_gril5• 3 years ago

It's even worse with electricity in California. No I am not going to save energy or install solar+batteries to help cover for PG&E's negligence. We live in a calm climate where there should be no problem transporting energy and no need to subsidize inefficient home power plants. Don't let them shove their problems onto us.

RC_ITR• 3 years ago

Nothing offends me more than the billboards of a young girl watering a houseplant saying “just a sip.”

Of all the water use cases to go after, they want to make children think water is so scarce that spilling one can of it is somehow a problem?

Meanwhile, eat whatever produce you want at any time of year, as long as you can’t see the water being wasted, it’s fine right?

whinenot2• 3 years ago

At least the farmers have to pay something. At least one company gets all the water it can for free in California.[0] Not a bad deal for a bottled water company!

[0]https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/la-times-today/2022/02/...

jimbob45• 3 years ago

Especially in California, where they are forcing people to rip up their lawns

Lowkey though…it’s high time for the cult of lawnship to pass. I don’t want to stop people from having lawns if they really want them but we’re to the point where people have lawns just because everyone else does or their HOA forces them into one regardless of whether it makes aesthetic sense or sense with their weather patterns.

toast0• 3 years ago

meanwhile they're doing nothing about what is actually the biggest cause of the problem.

That's because the actual problem is intractable. Urban metropolises shouldn't be built where profitable farming can make better use of the water.

But good luck evacuating the greater Los Angeles area. Or getting people to move to areas better suited for living, in general.

baggy_trough• 3 years ago

That is not the actual problem. The actual problem is a badly mismanaged regulatory system for water pricing.

g_sch• 3 years ago

As noted in the linked article, people in urban areas are paying many times the price for water that farmers are. If farmers had to pay municipal water prices, it's much less clear whether their farming would be profitable.

hn_throwaway_993• 3 years ago

Urban metropolises shouldn't be built where profitable farming can make better use of the water.

You have it exactly backwards: planting crops that are only profitable (and MUCH less profitable than comparable urban uses would be), and which make a horrible use of water, due to outdated legal ownership theories of water.

coryrc6• 3 years ago

It's because they own "water rights", but instead of buying it out, why can we not tax it? Of I barter eggs for cheese, I'm legally supposed to pay tax, so why can't we just tax water use period? Just conveniently make it high enough to make water rights net-zero value, then buy then for nothing.

Oh, right, Saudis would lose money.

kolanos8• 3 years ago

They do get taxed. It is called property tax. Land with water rights is worth a lot more than land without water rights in the same area. In my area water righted land is worth ~10x what land without water rights is worth for the same acreage.

It is the farmer's version of beachfront property.

seanp2k23• 3 years ago

Meanwhile, a drive down I5 will show many farms with political signs complaining about how water is too expensive and advocating for conservative viewpoints while they shamelessly employ underpaid illegal immigrants while enjoying the spoils of corporate welfare.

PaulHoule• 3 years ago

I went to the Nea York Farm Show this winter and there were representatives of a group in Ontario that sells hay internationally that had brochures printed in Chinese and Arabic. At least in Ontario they have water.

Gasp0de• 3 years ago

Growing large amount of edible plants, feeding those to animals for months or years, and then eating the resulting meat is in itself pretty inefficient. A lot of water, energy, and, in extension, carbon emissions could be saved by just not eating (so much) meat. Humans are perfectly capable of living from an entirely vegan or at least vegetarian diet and it is much better for the environment and the climate: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-di...

Scoundreller3• 3 years ago

Also worth adding that growing crops for bioethanol and biodiesel is incredibly inefficient too.

You get roughly 10x the energy capture through photovoltaics.

75% of US corn production goes to ethanol and animal feed: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-c...

mrguyorama6• 3 years ago

Despite the marketing, the main reason we continue to use ethanol is because it's a great octane booster, especially compared to TEL (leaded gasoline) and MTBE which was poisoning everyone around gas stations.

If you want modern engines, you need that octane, and ethanol is a great, cheap, safe way to do it. If you want to stop putting Ethanol into gasoline, you have to find a new octane booster that is dirt cheap, doesn't kill anyone, and won't require anyone change their engines.

Or just wait for BEVs to take over.

JTbane• 3 years ago

Unfortunately the agri lobby is huge and powerful, so I don't expect to see water prices increase for them anytime soon.

bix6• 3 years ago

We do the same thing with bottled water. Keep protesting, maybe someday they’ll listen :/

“However, Nestlé paid only $524 a year under a 1978 permit that expired but which the company continued to use. The U.S. Forest Service issued a new permit in 2018 for $2,000 despite local protests”

https://www.sunset.com/food-wine/bottled-water-companies-are...

Mistletoe2• 3 years ago

But how else would my Mom raise her miniature donkeys and sell them to rich people for $3,000 a piece? I wish I was kidding. There is just entirely too much money floating around and it is being spent in absurd ways.

ajmurmann4• 3 years ago

If she makes that much money from the donkeys, she'd likely be able to pay the real price off the water. This article someone posted higher up, shows that at least in Oregon an entire county loses $25 million on agriculture while wasting tons of water. All to keep water rights: https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug...

I'd bet that it's not that different in California and even if not, there would be alternatives to the wasteful alfalfa for export

wil421• 3 years ago

She needs to get into raising Swans. My wife’s uncle bought a pair for about the same price. The couple who raises them said they sell about $750,000 in swans a year.

Mistletoe2• 3 years ago

Good lord. I had no idea.

ensignavenger• 3 years ago

If we 1) Eliminate "use it or lose it" restrictions on water rights, and 2) allow farmers to sell or lease their water rights, would they really complain about these two options being added to how they manage their assets? If they choose to stop growing alfalpha because they can lease their water rights to a municipal water supply for more money, or because they aren't going to lose those water rights if they don't use them, that seems to solve the problem, and everyone wins. So why aren't we doing that?

tzs2• 3 years ago

So, next time you see a truckload of hay going west on the freeway give it a wave!
Wave goodbye to $13,000 worth of scarce water that was sold to agribusiness for just $1,000 and is now headed overseas on that truck

Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck.

Where does the other 99.995% end up? I have no idea because every single article I've seen about water use in agriculture fails to cover what happens to that water.

All I've been able to find is that almost all of it goes into the air around the farms via evapotranspiration. But what happens after that?

ceejayoz6• 3 years ago

But what happens after that?

Eventually, rain. Usually somewhere else.

Actually there is only about $0.65 worth of water headed overseas on that truck because while it takes 5 or 6 acre feet of water to grow an acre of alfalfa only 0.005% of that water actually ends up in the part of the plant that is harvested and ends up on that truck.

Apple doesn't give me a discount on my Macbook to account for the material they burned/trashed during its manufacture.

grapehut2• 3 years ago

It depends a lot on where the farm is, how much they irrigate, and when they irrigate. But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers.

It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow

Sevii• 3 years ago

That’s a good point, to be useful to plants the water has to get into the ground. From there it’s either evaporating or moving into aquifers.

MichaelZuo• 3 years ago

If that is true, then why are there so many hundreds of HN users talking about crazy water usage by farms?

(In this and the past few hundred posts related to this topic that made it to the front page.)

mlyle2• 3 years ago

It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow

It's bad enough that not only is a huge share of river water used, but that the actual ground is sinking in the Central Valley from depletion of groundwater resources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Valley_land_subsidence

mannykannot3• 3 years ago

But often something like >90% of the water goes back into the ground, where it will eventually make its way back into the aquifers and rivers.

That's not the case in the lower Colorado basin. If it was, there would not be a problem.

s0rce3• 3 years ago

Clearly not the case in the San Joaquin valley, there is massive subsidence and the Kern river and Tulare lake disappeared (notably exception is this year due to exceptional snowfall).

Aurornis2• 3 years ago

It's why often farm water usage is not nearly as bad as it superficially seems, and why farm water usage of a river can be multiples of the actual river flow

This is beside the point.

The issue is the reservoirs. If the reservoirs and sources are being depleted faster than they replenish then their levels go down.

The water crises are about the reservoirs and sources going down. We don’t care how much farmers use in absolute numbers as long as it’s not overwhelming the capacity of the systems to replenish themselves.

1234letshaveatw• 3 years ago

I would imagine some percentage drains into the soil. Not all the remaining water will be absorbed by the root system of the alfalfa plants

Justin_K• 3 years ago

Such a flawed argument I don't know where to start

spiderfarmer6• 3 years ago

I have the same kind of issue with people arguing that beef production uses to much water. In The Netherlands. One of the wettest deltas on earth. Where it rains almost daily and cattle mostly drinks surface water that normally gets drained to the sea.

I’m an environmentalist myself, but repeating statistics without asking yourself if they are relevant is useless.

In this case though, the farms are using up water that doesn’t get replenished. You don’t need any statistics to show that this is not sustainable.

ceejayoz6• 3 years ago

https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/bovine-meat/r...

In 2021, Netherlands imported $1.77B in Bovine Meat, becoming the 5th largest importer of Bovine Meat in the world.

Maybe they're talking about the global impact?

lucidguppy• 3 years ago

If I use 74 tons of 24 karat gold to create one plant - I don't care much about how much gold is in the plant. I care about how much less gold I have now.

wongarsu• 3 years ago

As far as I can tell, there are four things that can happen to the water:

- it runs off or trickles away - probably negligible here

- it evaporates before it's absorbed by the plant - mostly due to wasteful irrigation practices. Unless you're doing drip-irrigation or similar, this is where most of your water will end up

- it's absorbed by the plant and used in photosynthesis to make sugar and eventually other molecules - this is what's on the truck, but by mass it's negligible

- it's absorbed by the plant and used for nutrient transfer - this is what happens to most water plants consume. In simplified terms, capillary action drives water up the plant, bringing nutrients with it; evaporation removes water at the leaf so that new water comes in

According to Wikipedia the last effect (Transpiration) accounts for 97–99.5% of water actually used by the plant [1]

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration

mlyle2• 3 years ago

Of moderate significance: it can seep downwards and become groundwater.

kylebenzle3• 3 years ago

When we pay $1,000+ per pill for our newest cancer drug we are not paying $1,000 for the few micrograms of active ingredients. Same in agriculture, when we say, "It takes 5 gallons of fuel to produce 1 gallon of soybean oil" we don't mean of course that there is ANY fuel IN the soybean oil (WE HOPE!). Same with water, we say it takes about 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond, again, there is not actually 1 gallon of H20 in each almond.

Scoundreller3• 3 years ago

When we pay $1,000+ per pill for our newest cancer drug we are not paying $1,000 for the few micrograms of active ingredients.

My usual statement is that the first (approved) microgram costs a billion dollars, the rest of the doses are basically free. Commence pricing games to sort that out.

tzs2• 3 years ago

There's a big difference between fuel and water.

When that 5 gallons of fuel is used to produce 1 gallon of soybean oil the fuel is consumed. It undergoes a chemical transformation that results in it becoming non-fuel.

When 1 gallon of water is used to grow 1 almond, only a very tiny amount of the water undergoes a chemical transformation into non-water. The rest (over 99.9% of it) remains as water at the almond farm.

It is no longer in easily accessible pipes or storage tanks, instead becoming water vapor in the air or moisture in the soil, but it is still water. It is going to end up eventually in someplace where it will be usable.

laserbeam• 3 years ago

Well, water isn't really "used". It eventually always evaporates and falls back down to earth. It's only used if some chemical process alters the molecule in some reaction.

The problem is 100% of the original water is no longer where you need it, not that some percentage gets into the plant or not.

The cost of water is all about moving it and/or filtering it. The analogy that it's a water export oversees applies when you think that they'd have to move that water from somewhere else otherwise to grow that alfalfa. Not that the alfalfa "has" the water.

Also, moving insane amounts of water to the desert for an incredibly water hungry plant, because desert land is cheap, and the moving of that water is underpriced... is kind of insane.

nonameiguess• 3 years ago

In Imperial County, a lot of it ends up in the Salton Sea, where the nutrients it carries from the farms eutrophicate the water, the resulting algal blooms kill most of the fish, leaving rotting carcasses all over the shoreline, and also downstream killing a bunch of migratory birds that normally stop there to eat and now have no food.

downrightmike• 3 years ago

They use flood irrigation. How Efficient is Flood Irrigation? Flood irrigation is 50 to 60% water efficient, meaning 50 to 40% of water released in a flood irrigation system is lost either to runoff or rapid soil infiltration. Flood irrigation is the least water-efficient irrigation system.

https://www.agrivi.com/blog/modern-management-of-centennial-....

And then you have to imagine that these places are hitting 110+ degrees recently, so they lose even more water.

Aurornis2• 3 years ago

It’s simple: It starts the journey back to rainwater and then reservoirs, but it takes a long time.

If you deplete the reservoirs and sources faster then the cycle replenishes them, you eventually have a problem when they get too low.

Abnormally hot or dry years become disasters if you’ve depleted your reservoirs too much.

That is the problem.

mrguyorama6• 3 years ago

Also, water evaporating off a plant in California is not guaranteed to make it back into the Californian water system.

appleflaxen• 3 years ago

It's an irrelevant distinction.

If the water went into the alfalfa and 100% of it evaporated, leaving bone-dry hay going to the middle east, then the hay is still the only remaining symbol of $13,000 worth of water you used to have, and sold for $1000.

Where the exact losses are within the industry is entirely unimportant.

drc372• 3 years ago

This article is very short sighted. This is CA. You know once they ban one crop or start charging more for that crop, then they will start charging more for everything else. CA likes to suck companies dry through regulation and taxation. Once they go down this slippery slope, it won't end and prices on all foods will increase as a result.

mjhay4• 3 years ago

The water is being subsidized. Other people are paying for it. Alfalfa is a low-value crop. It's a stupid and economically inefficient crop to grow in a desert.

You can't waive away actual physical constraints as being due to "big government" or whatever.

throw0101b2• 3 years ago

Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast recently had two episodes on the topic:

"An Arizona Farmer on How to Grow Alfalfa in the Middle of the Desert"

Due to a combination of drought, climate change and booming growth, Arizona is facing looming water scarcity. But for all the sprawl and population increase, the overwhelming amount of water used in the state is not consumed by residences, but rather farmers. So naturally, many argue that we should be doing less agriculture in the desert and move the production of cotton, alfalfa and various vegetables towards places with more rain. On this episode, we speak with Trevor Bales, the proprietor of Bales Hay Farm & Ranch in Arizona about his family’s history in the state and why he thinks this dry desert is a great place to grow alfalfa.

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/an-arizona-farmer-on-h...

"Understanding the Real Fight Over Water in Arizona"

Arizona recently announced new constraints on housing development in the areas around Phoenix. At issue is water rights and scarcity, which have been a challenge for the US Southwest for as long as people have been living there. That being said, the region is currently in the midst of a 25-year megadrought and when you combine that with booming growth, difficult choices may have to be made. But how do water rights get divided? Who holds them? How much is water worth to the housing developers, farmers and semiconductor manufacturers that have flocked to the state? To learn more, we speak with Kathryn Sorensen, director of research at the Kyl Center for Water Policy at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University. We discuss both current and past water management practices in the state.

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/understanding-the-real...

(Episode available on most of the major platforms (including YT?), Apple just came up first in the search.)

rajbot• 3 years ago

The alfalfa growers and the industries they support, such as the beef industry, have successfully convinced Californians that their water issues are entirely due to growing almonds. There have been so many news stories about growing almonds in the California desert, but almost none about alfalfa.

haliskerbas• 3 years ago

Isn’t this capitalism working as expected?

chasd002• 3 years ago

no not really. If it were then the cost of water would be driven by market forces. Here it isn't, it's driven by old water rights. The price of water for agriculture is staying constant but demand has greatly increased. If things were working as they should be the higher demand (and constant or decreasing supply) would result in increasing price. Increasing price would drive agriculture to make more efficient use of the water but price isn't rising so there's no incentive to be more efficient.

fnimick• 3 years ago

Monopolization of resources (water) by rich business interests is also an inevitable part of capitalism.

freeopinion6• 3 years ago

"We can do one simple thing and our water supply crisis will be over."

I don't think this was written as a parody. I think the author really thinks like this.

They seem to ignore some pretty obvious things. I will assume they are fairly intelligent and educated, so the ignorance is suspicious. For example, they seem shocked that treated potable water delivered via an expensive network of sanitary pipelines would be more expensive than untreated water delivered via a ditch. They gloss over the "10 or even 12" crops of alfalfa a year, but don't seem to realize that 10 or 12 cuttings a year is phenomenal and a big part of why Imperial County is special. Other places struggle to get four cuttings per year.

I think the author almost hits the right target even though they are aiming at the wrong target. We don't need to stop growing alfalfa. We need to have a rational pricing system for water. If somebody can buy water for $1/unit right out of a well, then spend $3/unit to treat that water and $1/unit to transport that water to market, and can sell it for $6/unit to the public, they might get outbid by somebody who can buy the same water for $2/unit out of the well, spend $0/unit to treat the water, spend $0.5/unit to transport the water to market and be able to sell it for $3.50/unit. In any efficient economy, this is a no-brainer.

It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana.

If the argument is that the world is running out of water (which does seem to be the author's argument) then we have bigger problems than alfalfa. Eliminating farm land so we can fit more humans will not solve the water shortage. It will compound it.

I am not proposing that we cut back on humans on the planet. I think there are plenty of resources for both. The author is right that we have to balance the demands we put on those resources. But I think we should be more thoughtful about it than the author proposes.

jmcqk6• 3 years ago

It could be more rational to argue that we need to stop growing humans on our most productive agricultural real estate. We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana. We can't get 12 cuttings of alfalfa per year in Montana.

You're just trading problems here. If you push everyone into Montana, now you have a resource moving problem. And the assumption "We can grow humans by the bushel in Montana" seems especially suspect. Have you been to Montana? It's the least populated state for a reason. Many of them actually.

You seem to think your thoughts are obviously right, but you ignored massive complexity. Not to mention, I don't think anyone is actually arguing to "eliminate farm land so that we can fit more humans on it." The problem is the water usage, not trying to change farmland into apartment buildings.

cboswel1• 3 years ago

Nearly 85% of ALL water used in Utah is for Agriculture, with 45% specifically used for Alfalfa farming...less than 1% of the state's GDP comes from Agriculture.

DrThunder• 3 years ago

We don't need Alfalfa? Is the claim here that this agriculture is unnecessary. If so, then why is it happening. It seems to me that they'd go out of business if that's true at all.

Just do it somewhere else is not an answer. How about just don't live in a dry desert climate at all?

slantedview• 3 years ago

There's a lot that's wrong with farming and water use in California - alfalfa is just one of the many things. California also uses flood irrigation to grow rice, and open ditch irrigation is widespread. There are more efficient water delivery systems California could be using.

w10-1• 3 years ago

It's hard to imagine that shipping alfalfa across the Pacific makes economic sense -- perhaps only to fill otherwise empty container ships? Subsidizing water for this is crazy, but it's also driven by the desire of China to avoid depending on the U.S. for food.

So crazy, sure, but WHY do we have this kind of crazy?

Yes, agri-business lobbyists are more concentrated than consumer (i.e. have lower coordination costs and higher stakes), but that's not the main reason.

Democracies that geographically distribute representation are subject to hostaging, so e.g., every district has defense spending, midwestern states get ethanol mandates and California's central valley gets decades of bullet train investment, and water allocation is majorly messed up.

That's essentially the picture of politics in the US today, and it has less to do with capitalism than with how we agreed to agree (though none of us actually agreed to that).

The only thing moderating that tendency is when national political party discipline overrides local -- in war (before, during, and after), or in periods of ideological fervor. Not a solution.

So the real question is: why can we make exponential progress in teraflop systems, but not moderately rational governance?

smsm42• 3 years ago

Finally people start paying attention to the politics of water subsidies. That has been going on for years and was one of (many) weird things in California that everybody is talking about water crisis and nobody is talking about alfalfa.

1lint• 3 years ago

I don't think this article raises an actual issue (if it even exists).

If we take up the author's call to action in the title and introduction to "stop growing alfalfa" (presumably by outlawing it), then the corporations that grew alfalfa would obviously just find some other crop/product through which to effectively export water, albeit less efficiently, in which case the preexisting problems still exist but are even worse.

The real question is why these farmers/corporations are using their water to grow crops in the first place, when they could presumably be selling their water to consumers at much higher retail rates.

An immediately obvious answer would be that the costs of transporting/distributing this water from the source to the consumer is greater than the profit margin, in which case there isn't even a problem to begin with.

If the issue is regulation restricting corporations from selling/distributing their water to consumers, then it should be an obvious win for the politicians to fix: their corporate lobbyists get more money selling water at higher rates, while their voters get to buy water at cheaper rates. Either way, the article doesn't even mention any regulations at issue.

silexia• 3 years ago

We need to find an alternative system to using water rights... Perhaps some sort of geo based mass market? Maybe a more geo based version of how we price electricity?

ccorcos• 3 years ago

And while this is happening, that slow-moving ecological train wreck, the Salton Sea, continues to dry up.

Very odd comment at the end considering that the only reason the Salton Sea exists today was due to a different “ecological disaster” in 1905.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea

How do we save water: Stop growing alfalfa in Imperial County

Related Stories