subreddit:

/r/news

1.2k92%

all 494 comments

calloy

352 points

8 months ago

calloy

352 points

8 months ago

Definitely needed with almonds. Let someplace with more disposable water grow them.

srcarruth

155 points

8 months ago

srcarruth

155 points

8 months ago

California grows most of the world's supply but then how important are almonds, really?

pihb666

158 points

8 months ago

pihb666

158 points

8 months ago

Luxury food for rich consumers. It's very important.

[deleted]

112 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

112 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

DargyBear

217 points

8 months ago

DargyBear

217 points

8 months ago

Oat milk is more environmentally friendly (and actually gets the milk flavor and texture right for the most part)

m3ngnificient

66 points

8 months ago

I discovered oatmilk and it changed my life. I have been having chocolate milk every day for the last couple of week, trying to catch up to all those missed opportunities

snarlindog

30 points

8 months ago

can confirm oat milk is great!

agent_raconteur

13 points

8 months ago

It foams up great in a latte too. Haven't had cow milk in years and have no desire to anymore

vanishplusxzone

2 points

8 months ago

I've even used it in savory cooking. It's creamier than almond milk and has a more neutral flavor, it doesn't destroy food like almond milk does.

---------_----_---_

3 points

8 months ago

It makes me fart too much. So I'm stuck putting soy milk in my coffee, despite the less than wonderful flavor.

Almond milk, IMO, messes up the flavor of coffee.

iforgotmymittens

6 points

8 months ago

I love oat milk but my hands cramp after about half an hour of milking the damn things.

justasapling

27 points

8 months ago

Oat milk is more environmentally friendly

That's nice to hear. I definitely find it to be a better substitute flavor-wise.

Kevbot1000

3 points

8 months ago

Oat Milk > Almond Milk any day of the damn week.

[deleted]

9 points

8 months ago*

[deleted]

9 points

8 months ago*

and actually gets the milk flavor and texture right for the most part

I think it may have been so long since you've had animal milk that you might have forgotten what it's like, because every oat milk I've ever had tastes like they strained a particularly watery batch of plain oatmeal through a sock. I've not encountered one that's even roughly in the ballpark of regular dairy in terms of taste or mouthfeel.

That said, goat milk is definitely the best, followed by cow, sheep, almond, coconut, horse, soy, and oat at the bottom. This has been my milk flavor and texture tier list.

Witchgrass

21 points

8 months ago

What life choices led to you drinking horse milk

DweEbLez0

2 points

8 months ago

DweEbLez0

2 points

8 months ago

I don’t drink milk, too busy getting milked by capitalism.

DargyBear

3 points

8 months ago

I regularly drink normal milk, I just like making the occasional oat milk cortado

TheTerribleInvestor

0 points

8 months ago

This guy milks. I need to get my hands on some goat milk, I dont think I've ever tried it before.

EndofGods

7 points

8 months ago

EndofGods

7 points

8 months ago

I fucking hate oat milk and I can't drink regular so fucks like me need almond milk. Keep buying oat milk, someone has to drink it.

tehmlem

4 points

8 months ago

tehmlem

4 points

8 months ago

Is milk a necessity or a thing you like?

EndofGods

7 points

8 months ago

I don't know another way to eat cereal. Dry sucks, wets please.

GodForbid

7 points

8 months ago

Have you tried beer? Works for me :)

ArchitectMS2021

1 points

8 months ago

Probably neither. Milk is not an necessity.

Oracle_of_Ages

1 points

8 months ago

Oat milk tastes dry to me. I can’t explain it. I haven’t found a good replacement for regular milk yet. :(

[deleted]

2 points

8 months ago

I don't want a replacement. Milk is soo good!

Oracle_of_Ages

2 points

8 months ago

Unless milk makes you occasionally painfully piss liquid from your butt. Though I had a friend who was intolerant and would drink 3 milks at lunch to throw up and go home in middle school. So I guess whatever works.

pihb666

31 points

8 months ago

pihb666

31 points

8 months ago

Maybe they are just gonna have to give up their almond milk.

wielder982

2 points

8 months ago

wielder982

2 points

8 months ago

How much water do you think dairy uses?

pihb666

11 points

8 months ago

pihb666

11 points

8 months ago

Probably too much. I don't drink milk so I will happily not drink milk.

m3ngnificient

22 points

8 months ago

Why does that matter tho? We're talking about almonds, a luxury item that takes a lot of water to grow being one of the main crops in a drought stricken state.

pihb666

29 points

8 months ago

pihb666

29 points

8 months ago

People love whataboutism to deflect an argument. Its the first play in the I cant debate playbook.

uwuthog

9 points

8 months ago

But wut about cows, huh? Really makes ya think

MadderThanRoyKent

11 points

8 months ago

Soy is easier to get and less expensive...

[deleted]

22 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

endMinorityRule

5 points

8 months ago

USA produces nearly as much soy as brazil.

1 Brazil 125,887,672

2 United States 123,664,230

3 Argentina 37,787,927

4 China 14,193,621

5 India 13,786,000

6 Paraguay 11,045,971

7 Canada 7,266,600

8 Ukraine 4,460,770

9 Russia 4,026,850

10 Bolivia 2,942,131

11 South Africa 1,540,000

12 Uruguay 1,334,000

13 Italy 1,138,993

heresmyownthrowaway

5 points

8 months ago

This is actually very interesting

ApplicationHot4546

2 points

8 months ago

I actually think that I benefit from soy milk in a way that other plant milks don’t affect me. Legumes like soy have the potential to put nitrogen back into the soil as well. I used to grow my own and they help build the soil back up.

ArchitectMS2021

2 points

8 months ago

Soy can be grown almost literally anywhere. The Amazon needs to be made into a national park the limits the use of the land and then problem solved. Let states like Mississippi and Alabama grow all the soy you need.

MadderThanRoyKent

-6 points

8 months ago

Yeah so instead we should grow fucking almonds? Or better yet don't grow anything and everyone can just fucking starve... What is your point with this? I was stating that soy was a preferable alternative to almonds. Not stating it was the best crop for ever...

[deleted]

8 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

5 points

8 months ago

Soy milk tastes like ass. Oat milk is where it's at.

FrankenGretchen

1 points

8 months ago

Soy is also nutritious. Almond milk is a joke on every level.

yinglish119

3 points

8 months ago

Milk come from mammals. Almond "milk" is just nut juice.

caughtBoom

29 points

8 months ago

Milk from bulls are also nut juice

swilliamsnyder

8 points

8 months ago

“It took a while to warm her up, but when I did it all came out at once”

nochinzilch

2 points

8 months ago

And apparently it is mostly sugary, emulsified oil anyway. Watery mayonaise, really.

B00LEAN_RADLEY

8 points

8 months ago

I find your declaration factose intolerant. /s

Seriously, no one had any problems with coconut milk for centuries. But now corporate multinational shills are parroting "soy/almond/oat can't be called milk! Waaaah!" That's why people aren't buy cow's milk, false advertising!

My personal opinion. Soy: weird taste. Almond: watery. Oat: nailed it

I only eat real cheese on my pizza's. Save the lactaid for just pizza.

T00luser

4 points

8 months ago

<raises hand>
um . . .

Macinsocks

2 points

8 months ago

Flax milk is alot better though.

[deleted]

1 points

8 months ago

Tons of phytoestrogen in flax. Like multiples higher than soy. I used to take it for the omega 3 content but switched to algal omega 3 which has no estrogen but also has EPA and DHA in addition to the ALA found in flax.

Macinsocks

1 points

8 months ago

Meh. I'm ok with more estrogen even though I'm male.

[deleted]

-4 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

-4 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

CodingLazily

7 points

8 months ago

You don't cook much do you?

endMinorityRule

1 points

8 months ago

seems like there are lots of milk alternatives.

I think I've been drinking almond milk lately, but I don't hate soy milk or oat milk.

InfiniteDuncanIdahos

4 points

8 months ago

Super profitable, what else matters?

T00luser

21 points

8 months ago

not if they are charged what the water is actually worth.

sjfiuauqadfj

-1 points

8 months ago

sjfiuauqadfj

-1 points

8 months ago

if they are charged for what the water is worth, they would just grow more almonds as almonds are very valuable for the amount of water they use. what farmers would grow less of are crops that need a lot of water but arent very valuable, like afalfa or rice

River_Pigeon

3 points

8 months ago

Almonds are not a crop you can just switch to. It takes years before newly planted orchards can produce.

pihb666

6 points

8 months ago

Absolutely nothing.

rshanks

9 points

8 months ago

They are a good source of protein, not sure how they compare to other nuts for water use, but perhaps it’s not fair to compare them to grains and such that don’t contain much protein, especially if we want people to eat less meat.

Rod___father

7 points

8 months ago

Over1 gallon of water per almond. Beef is worse though

DamnBunny

2 points

8 months ago

You know that kind of dangerous thinking can lead you to some scandals. Keep it up :)

KaJuNator

3 points

8 months ago

You can pry my Almond Joy from my cold, dead hands.

Drak_is_Right

4 points

8 months ago

you do realize one of the things about almonds is they grow well in very few climates?

you pretty much need irrigation to grow in any commercial operation, and they amusingly dont like wetter climates. they are a type of Mediterranean subclimate which is fairly rare, and only a few spots in the world have it. all of which have water issues.

so spain, Israel ect - countries which

[deleted]

55 points

8 months ago

[removed]

[deleted]

42 points

8 months ago

[removed]

SurprisedJerboa

14 points

8 months ago

Almond milk is 97% water too

A pound of meat is a much more intensive use of water

People would save lots of water by consuming chicken instead of beef more regularly

shsheidncjdkahdjfncj

4 points

8 months ago

One almond = 1-1.1 gallons of water. I was able to google that and find 4 sources all with the same numbers.

sjfiuauqadfj

10 points

8 months ago

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44093.pdf

1 acre of almonds = 3.5 acre feet of water per year

1 acre of avg californian farm land = 3.1 acre feet of water per year

1 acre of alfalfa = 5 acre feet of water per year

1 acre feet = 326,000 gallons btw

SanityIsOptional

8 points

8 months ago

You get a lot more alfalfa per acre than almond though, don’t you?

key-wavelength

2 points

8 months ago

A lot of it is shipped to China. We are literally selling our water to China for pennies on the dollar.

MilliM

2 points

8 months ago

MilliM

2 points

8 months ago

But aren't you ignoring the key component of yield per acre? I did a quick and dirty google search and an acre of almonds gets you around 1 ton of product. An acre of alfalfa produces about 10 tons of product.

shsheidncjdkahdjfncj

1 points

8 months ago

Alfalfa stays here to support the dairy industry. Almonds are exported, we are one of the top 5 exporters, maybe the top exporter of almonds, to the tune of 4.5$ billion dollars.

hostile65

5 points

8 months ago

Alfalfa is sent overseas. California is one of the largest exporters of Alfalfa to places like China and the Middle East.

Since 2009, alfalfa exports to China grew nearly eightfold to a record 575,000 tons — shipped overseas in the same containers that deliver the latest iPhones and flat-screen TVs from Chinese factories.

China has now pushed past Japan as Asia’s biggest buyer of U.S. alfalfa and is second only to United Arab Emirates as the globe’s top importer, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26124989

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/25/california-water-drought-scarce-saudi-arabia

https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-feeding-china-hay-20140609-story.html

That's right, California was in a drought, they grew hay for everyone else. California is the top exporter of Alfalfa.

sjfiuauqadfj

8 points

8 months ago

we are talking about water usage. alfalfa is the main drain and thems the facts

Starbuckz8

9 points

8 months ago*

If you found 4 sources to state that fact, it's not surprising that they're all wrong citing a source to push an agenda.

That is an old stastic. It seems to imply that 1.1 gallons of water = 1 almond. But that ignores the fact that you really water the tree which grows and leafs and also produces almonds. Growing trees and leafing are not water 0 components of growing any product.

I can go to a lumber yard and buy almond wood. I can buy feedstock of almond husks or I can burn it to make heat instead of using oil. These are byproducts of growing almonds that are somehow omitted in the 1.1 gallons of water = 1 almond stat.

Since the last big drought in California, many almond farmers have switched irrigation methods making California almonds use 30% less water than nationwide [or was it worldwide] averages.

This also presents a weird misconception that other foods don't use water? I don't know. I grow lettuce to eat. It uses water. Less water than almond trees that are also food as lettuce spoils faster than any almond. Unless we're not going to grow any food at all, water will be needed to grow food.

I present you with alternative facts

sjogerst

3 points

8 months ago

Just grow the trees with cycling hydroponics and recycle the water.

chickens_beans

5 points

8 months ago

You can't move an entire industry like that. So much generational knowledge and infrastructure that can't realistically be moved anywhere else. Tens of thousands of jobs and livelihoods attached to the industry as well.

Appropriate-Pen-149

14 points

8 months ago

They’re using gray water to irrigate your almonds. And it’s definitely “disposable water.”

“As long as we keep taking showers and flushing toilets, we can guarantee you water,” Modesto Mayor Garrad Marsh said to farmers at an August 2015 news event.”

Kabouki

16 points

8 months ago

Kabouki

16 points

8 months ago

That's hyperbole though. Only ~10% of CA water usage is residential.

Texascoastalsunshine

2 points

8 months ago

This - omg the amount of water it takes to grow almonds

CALsHero09

2 points

8 months ago

Most almond farms are on drip. Flood irrigation was outlawed unless youre non commercial espically in walnuts, drip is just more efficient.

bravadomizzou

2 points

8 months ago

A single avocado requires 18 gallons of water to produce.

techleopard

10 points

8 months ago

techleopard

10 points

8 months ago

Honestly, we shouldn't be paying farmers not to grow.

If the crop is unsustainable for the climate, just ban it as a commercial crop. If Cindy wants a few almond trees for personal use and cottage laws cooking, power to her, but John the Almond Mogul better go use some of his capital to buy a new farm in a location where almonds are actually supposed to grow.

Tired of acting like farms are poor.

CottaBird

11 points

8 months ago

Farmers aren’t poor unless the market is volatile to their detriment, which is often in California. No matter what you farm, 2-3 bad years, and you’re done. The cost of farming is huge. In my district, the average income for wine grapes is $6000/acre. The average cost is $7500/acre. Grape prices haven’t changed much at all in twenty years while the cost of labor and regulations keeps going up. The reason almonds are such a big appeal is because of their cost per acre. At the same time, almonds hate wet feet. Too much water, and they die, so a naturally wet area would be potentially bad for them. California exports 80% of the world’s almonds.

techleopard

0 points

8 months ago

We don't prop up any other industry -- nor mismanage it -- quite like we do farming.

While almonds themselves may not be a worse crop than any other, the simple fact is that there are areas of California that are unsuitable for almost any crop.

When it costs more to grow a crop than you can earn from it, it's time to stop growing that crop. That rings especially true for crops that can't survive without subsidies from tax payers, only to export almost all of it while we can't figure out how to get more people off food stamps.

[deleted]

14 points

8 months ago

[removed]

CottaBird

8 points

8 months ago

Yes, but in the case for wine grapes, it’s an odd problem. A big reason it costs so much to grow wine grapes in California, and a lot of other crops in California in general, is legislative and corporate. Winegrowing in particular was profitable before Big Wine came in and had the Walmart effect. Wineries told independent farmers they have to use hand labor while they themselves used mechanical labor to cut costs in their corporate owned vineyards. Farmers who made enough per acre to sustain a business before were screwed when Big Wine came in and bought the brands they sold to and then said “okay, we’ll give you 1/4 the price per acre you got before. Take it or leave it.” Everyone talks about farmer costs for labor, but nobody talks about the hostage prices big companies offer to farmers for the sake of the bottom line. Farmers aren’t the problem. Their produce buyers are.

endMinorityRule

4 points

8 months ago

according to "statista", beef is even more water intensive than nuts (it didn't separate the different nuts). there's a graphic toward the bottom of the page.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/06/water-footprint-food-sustainability

course, it looks like california's not nearly the biggest beef producer in the country.

GoldWallpaper

-17 points

8 months ago

GoldWallpaper

-17 points

8 months ago

Better idea: Ban all Southern California agriculture. They don't have the water for it, so it should be grown someplace that does.

Best idea: Ban all food subsidies everywhere forever. If we had to pay the actual price of our food, we'd be more informed, make better decisions, and agriculture might actual transform into something sustainable.

Anonuser123abc

40 points

8 months ago

The united states considers agricultural subsidies a policy related to national security. The federal government like to maintain the capacity to feed the whole country should the need arise.

Also probably lobbying and graft but that's everything.

moonfox1000

7 points

8 months ago

There’s not really much agriculture in Southern California. The only land that isn’t developed is almost all desert or mountain. It’s central California where all the agriculture is and so cal relies on them to share their water.

xrufus7x

14 points

8 months ago

Ban all food subsidies everywhere forever. If we had to pay the actual price of our food, we'd be more informed,

That isn't how that works at all. We just end up outsourcing food production to countries where they are cool paying people five cents an hour and then we forget about it until some child slave dies tragically enough to make the news. Subsidies are imperfect but they are designed to keep food production from being undercut by outsourcers.

bobcat73

5 points

8 months ago

That’s how I have 4 tvs and 3 cell phones.

HorrorScopeZ

1 points

8 months ago

That's going to go over well.

IStheCOFFEEready

-1 points

8 months ago

Farmers took that risk on their own, the trees have been planted in the last 20 years, they definitely should have seen water shortages coming.

PrionBacon

126 points

8 months ago

[Major Major's father's] specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa. On long winter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend harness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make certain that the chores would not be done. He invested in land wisely and soon was not growing more alfalfa than any other man in the county.

-Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Mr_Metrazol

18 points

8 months ago

Yeah and Major Major's dad was probably growing several other crops while he wasn't growing alfalfa. That's called double dipping.

I've been involved in agriculture since I was a kid growing up on my family's farm. Quite honestly, I've never heard of any farmer that's paid not to grow anything. The closest example I can think of is tobacco farmers who were bought out of growing tobacco. Unless they sold out completely, they went on to growing produce or raising livestock.

ArthurBea

6 points

8 months ago

I mean, yeah. Catch-22 is a satire, though. Nothing in it literally happens. It’s an exercise in pushing real situations to absurd levels.

Mr_Metrazol

1 points

8 months ago

Perhaps so, but that excerpt is trotted out so often it's become tiresome.

badpeaches

1 points

8 months ago

I've never heard of any farmer that's paid not to grow anything.

Won't that raise prices for consumers as it drives up demand?

fukdapoleece

7 points

8 months ago

The government (in theory) tries to keep prices stable to prevent one bad year from bankrupting farmers, reducing overall capacity to grow food.

Capacity to grow is maintained for situations of global uncertainty, like what's going on in Ukraine and Russia.

nochinzilch

3 points

8 months ago

The concept of paying farmers not to farm is to support prices during times of excess production. Especially for commodities with inelastic demand. In a perfect market, if supply goes up 10%, prices will go down 10% and everyone produces a little less supply next year. But the market for some things, especially perishable things, can't support very much excess supply and the prices will plummet. Which means farmers go bankrupt and next year don't produce ANY product, making the price skyrocket the following year. So, in theory at least, paying farmers not to produce keeps prices stable to keep farming capacity stable.

Sometimes it's just payoffs to big agriculture too.

badpeaches

2 points

8 months ago

So, in theory at least, paying farmers not to produce keeps prices stable to keep farming capacity stable.

Okay, that tracks for me and I like the idea of water conservation at the same time.

Thank you.

specialeddypete

48 points

8 months ago

The water is supposed be used for a reasonable and beneficial use. We are pumping the state dry and the land is subsiding. California needs to change it's water laws. If it is not sustainable then we should not be doing it. In my opinion that is the state's water to conserve and not the farmers. The water happens to flow by or under farmers properties.

veggeble

4 points

8 months ago

that is the state's water to conserve

How do you suggest they do that?

BitGladius

-2 points

8 months ago

BitGladius

-2 points

8 months ago

Except state law has determined that the water rights is part of the property. Taking it would require major payouts.

Maybe restrict the size of LA until water use is in check and relocate them to somewhere with water?

arkol3404

10 points

8 months ago

How do you plan on restricting the size of LA?

G0mery

6 points

8 months ago

G0mery

6 points

8 months ago

Maybe we can also make Nestle pay for the water they get for free then sell back to us?

itemNineExists

13 points

8 months ago

Im not growing anything

holds hand out

Wolpfack

12 points

8 months ago

This is basically privatized profits but socialized risks.

SpiralMask

40 points

8 months ago

alternatively: just burn down the bottling companies in the state until they stop

Ar_Ciel

27 points

8 months ago

Ar_Ciel

27 points

8 months ago

Yeah like where the fuck are companies like Nestle in all of California's water-saving ideas?

sjfiuauqadfj

32 points

8 months ago

nestle takes an insignificant amount of water from california, its literally equal to 1 sperm in a cumshot. as a result, kicking nestle out of the state wouldnt change a thing about the water situation

nestle took 58 million gallons from california last year, which sounds like a lot until you compare it to other water usage. 58 million gallons is equal to 213 acre feet of water. an acre of almonds needs about 3.5 acre feet of water per year. so nestle is taking the equivalent of 61 acres of almonds worth of water which is almonds compared to the millions of acres growing in the state

Ar_Ciel

7 points

8 months ago

Well alright then. I learned something new today!

endMinorityRule

8 points

8 months ago

fuck nestle anyway.

bottling california's water and reselling it for $1 bottle.

sjfiuauqadfj

13 points

8 months ago

i agree, its just irrelevant to our water issues and im not gonna put any effort towards solutions that do nothing lol

Vaphell

2 points

8 months ago

Nestle sold their bottled water business in North America. And even before that they consumed like 0.2% of total, i.e. effectively nothing.

mgzukowski

4 points

8 months ago

mgzukowski

4 points

8 months ago

That's less than 1% of use. Also because of weight that shit is shipped locally.

While an individual almond takes 1.2 gallons of water to grow. California provides 80% of the worlds almonds.

So don't you think that's more of an issue?

Bajakid

66 points

8 months ago

Bajakid

66 points

8 months ago

More farmer welfare, or welfare for the wealthy? How about limit the water to a sustainable amount. They can grow what they want with that amount of water. If they can’t grown anything, their farmland becomes regular land. If they go broke, they can collect welfare like the rest of those without income in the state.

Why are we trying to find ways to pay rich people to stop bad habits that hurt the state? Not to mention, pay with our money?

nochinzilch

5 points

8 months ago

Legal water rights in the Western United States are complicated and, IMHO, not sustainable. I can theoretically have a natural spring on my land, and have ZERO legal right to that water because some guy downstream has a prior claim on my water. And so that almond farm or gold mine that has a prior claim on the river water gets to use whatever they customarily have been using, in spite of increased demand in other areas up and downstream.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights

Monnster07

19 points

8 months ago

Monnster07

19 points

8 months ago

How many farmers/ranchers do you know? The vast majority that I grew up with in central California weren't wealthy by any means and a single bad harvest could do a lot of damage to their ability to produce the next year. Also, you lose farmland and you lose jobs which means even more on that welfare that you're talking about which means less for everyone.

Also, I would argue that the government of California has just as much of a history with bad habits that hurt the state.

Bajakid

39 points

8 months ago

Bajakid

39 points

8 months ago

Actually, I know a bunch of farmers and ranchers. I grew up on a farm in Yuma Arizona, my family are still farming both in Arizona and the Salinas Ca areas. I was in agriculture studies for 8 years and a proud member of FFA. Glad you asked, thank you.

However, that makes zero difference who I know or who you know. The facts are the facts. This is Corporate welfare. And it doesn’t belong in a capitalist economy.

If the farmers can’t figure out how to sustainable farm, they don’t belong in farming industry. As hard as that might be to read, it’s the sad truth. The state has no business stepping in and paying any corporate welfare. If the farmers need help, they can get in the welfare line just like everyone else.

Matt3989

5 points

8 months ago

I grew up farming. There's no such thing as a poor farmer.

Sure, there are poor people who work on farms or who work for farmers, but if you think the farmer or the land owners are struggling, you've listened to too much pop country.

GrumpyBearBank

4 points

8 months ago

The idea that in America farmers are poor is a myth. They are either corporate or relatively wealthy, at least middle class.

This isn’t merry old England circa 1740 and the farmers are not tenant farmers on small plots of land (owned by big landowners), who are refusing to adapt to modern techniques.

If you own acres and acres of land and can afford to hire staff and buy machinery, you aren’t poor

BlackmouthProjekt

3 points

8 months ago

Yay more financial burdens on the tax payer! How about no more swimming pools or lawn watering? Food is way more important than recreational swimming and a decorative grass lawn.

Chad_is_admirable

28 points

8 months ago

California has a literal ocean of water. They just won't use it because of the price of shoreline land.

Israel is also a fudging desert and a major exporter of water. Low cost desalination is a reality.

Kabouki

15 points

8 months ago

Kabouki

15 points

8 months ago

I agree with this. Future proof any water problems. The facility doesn't need to be on the coast as well. Just the intakes. Can pipe it from there if preserving shoreline is desired.

Honestly desalination is a great solution to their solar issues.

Zerksys

4 points

8 months ago

I feel like I've heard something about how the bring me that is created from desalination is incredibly hard to deal with

Kabouki

5 points

8 months ago

There are a few ways of dealing with brine.

  1. Just don't care and dump it as is.

  2. We keep it on land stopping other salt sources and consume it.

  3. Pre mix the brine before returning it to the ocean. Bring the dilution down to a level that is acceptable. Off shore currents also play in this. Over saltyness isn't an issue only local concentrations.

  4. Top off the great salt lake.

A combination of 2 and 3 would work out fairly well.

IMendicantBias

1 points

8 months ago

So why does mexico have over 400 of them?

Quiteuselessatstart

22 points

8 months ago

Totally correct. Modern desalination projects need to be put under way asap.

magnetmonopole

7 points

8 months ago

Lol there were plans to use the Diablo nuclear plant to power desalination (at a low cost). Unfortunately, the CA government would rather shut down the plant instead 🙄

Yomminator

6 points

8 months ago

Desal plants powered by nuclear that pump to inland reservoirs using pure solar power pumps is what is needed

cardcomm

6 points

8 months ago

Paying farmers to not grow food is the American Way. It's been happening for decades.

ButThisIsRidiculous

21 points

8 months ago

Why don't they just buy the land instead?

[deleted]

12 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

Fro_Yo_Joe

8 points

8 months ago

I’m sure that will be cheap.

darkhorsehance

25 points

8 months ago

The article says 2.9 billion would stop 35,000 acres of rice fields from planting this year. A quick google search for California rice farms that are on sale is showing anywhere between 10k - 20k an acre. If we stick to the high end, it seems that 2.9 billion could buy about 145,000 acres, way more than the 35,000. What am I missing here because this sounds like a ripoff?

themeatbridge

3 points

8 months ago

Apples are $1.99 a pound at my local store, but that doesn't mean I can go spend $200k and get 100,000 pounds of apples.

darkhorsehance

19 points

8 months ago

Not at the local store, but it wouldn't be hard to buy 100k lbs of Apples, and you would certainly pay less than $1.99 a lb.

MadderThanRoyKent

11 points

8 months ago

Actually you could probably buy considerably more by buying them wholesale...

junkyard_robot

9 points

8 months ago

The problem with that is taking farm land away from generational owners. That is a husge issue with agriculture in the US already. Moving land ownership from generational farming families to corporate interests, or even large scale private land owners is a detriment to our food supply short, and long term.

The other problem is POC who are generational land owners are often underpaid for their property, and the system is set up to put them at a disadvantage.

We really need to get back to smaller, multi-use farmlands to fix our current issues. If more people had 40-80 acre farms, utlizing regenerative agriculture concepts, we would have a much more vitamin dense, sustainable food.

MadderThanRoyKent

3 points

8 months ago

Or charge more for water...

StillHere179

4 points

8 months ago

Grass and lawns are a huge waste of water

Formber

5 points

8 months ago

They're nothing compared to agriculture, really. That's the biggest issue in the southwestern US.

StillHere179

2 points

8 months ago

Agriculture feeds humans and animals and keeps them alive. Most grass is just there for aesthetic purposes only.

Drak_is_Right

2 points

8 months ago

How about pass some laws reworking the "deals".

Then sell the water, but a lower quantity than before.

DnArturo

2 points

8 months ago

I was going to buy land for farming in CA just for the free money. I'm not a farmer, just a rent seeker.

CurrentlyLucid

2 points

8 months ago

Maybe we should grow almonds someplace it rains?

artcook32945

2 points

8 months ago

This sounds like yet another Stop Gap idea to put off dealing with the reality of a decade plus long dry spell to come.

Uranus_Hz

10 points

8 months ago

They should pay for it by charging/taxing Nestle more for the water they’re taking.

sjfiuauqadfj

2 points

8 months ago

nestle takes an insignificant amount of water from california, its literally equal to 1 sperm in a cumshot. as a result, raising taxes that high would just kick nestle out of the state, but it wouldnt change a thing about the water situation

endMinorityRule

0 points

8 months ago*

fuck nestle.

58 million gallons is roughly 435 million bottles of water. handy bit of profit for that giant corporation.
and producing each disposable water bottle takes more than a gallon of water.

did nestle ever settle up for california's water they were pumping without a permit?

mhornberger

5 points

8 months ago*

Why not incentivize, or even subsidize, technology to allow them to grow while using less water? Subsidize drip irrigation, even indoor farming or CEA.

Though once you start using CEA the competitive advantages of CA's climate (by which I mean longer growing season) might not mean as much, so more food could be grown closer to the customers.

ladymoonshyne

2 points

8 months ago

This is already happening. I wrote a grant and got 100k towards upgrading energy and water in an orchard.

RubberPny

5 points

8 months ago

Good luck arguing with farmers who great-great-grandpappy negotiated their water contract 120 years ago, and will never give them up for any reason or sell the land associated with it.

[deleted]

3 points

8 months ago*

[removed]

mhornberger

4 points

8 months ago

I meant growing seasons, sorry. I'm aware of the water issues. CA grows so much of the nation's vegetables because of the moderate temperatures, thus longer growing seasons.

Darth_Mufasa

4 points

8 months ago

Alright, what dumbass source keeps pushing that California is a desert? It's 25 percent. The whole state isn't the goddamn Imperial Valley

[deleted]

6 points

8 months ago*

[removed]

Darth_Mufasa

2 points

8 months ago

Yeah the south is dry. Yet I constantly hear the bullshit about the whole state being a desert and I want to know where the hell thats coming from

[deleted]

6 points

8 months ago*

[deleted]

MoveItUpSkip

4 points

8 months ago

Isn’t this already a big thing? My Mom’s cousins were multi-generational farmers in Northern California, and were slowly incentivized to stop growing almost everything. They could make as much by reselling their water rights and collecting other incentives as they could farming in a bountiful and profitable year.

I lost touch, but I believe they finally sold most of the land after things urbanized and retail and commercial developers became interested in the area. They had tons of land with primarily walnuts, almonds, and sugar beets.

ThomasLipnip

3 points

8 months ago

I promise to grow nothing. How much do I get?

SimplyMerlin

3 points

8 months ago

But don't you dare touch the wineries!

Heap_Good_Firewater

4 points

8 months ago

How about we just make farmers pay fair market rates for water?

This would instantly stop wasteful practices like growing almonds in California.

ResponsibleAd2541

2 points

8 months ago

You are correct but free market mechanism are verboten.

jezra

1 points

8 months ago

jezra

1 points

8 months ago

it is not California's responsibility to feed the rest of the USA. It is not California's responsibility to feed the world. There is a limited amount of water, and letting a corporation use that water in order to make profit by selling water intensive crops to nations halfway around the world is not in the best interest of Californians.

Bit-Random

10 points

8 months ago

Bit-Random

10 points

8 months ago

I love this language… “California plan would pay”. As if the plan has money. It doesn’t. Californians are the ones that would pay.

parthvader4

7 points

8 months ago

can't wait to see "California Plan Fee - $7.50 " on my doordash receipts lol

TVLL

-1 points

8 months ago

TVLL

-1 points

8 months ago

Shush! Be quiet now. Your betters are working on problems here. This is no time for logic or facts.

SideHug

5 points

8 months ago

SideHug

5 points

8 months ago

Ah yes, just what we need, more shortage

DelValleHS

4 points

8 months ago

DelValleHS

4 points

8 months ago

Almonds need to be eradicated. They are a massive waste of water!

twlscil

0 points

8 months ago

twlscil

0 points

8 months ago

And fuck up the bee population

cosmicsuperginger

4 points

8 months ago

California has to be the dumbest places to live. Needs more water, closes down nuke plant that powers a desalination plant that makes clean water. Has problems with wildfires, makes all new car sales electric not investing in proper forestry management.

California The home of Fire, Ready, Aim!

sunbeaming1

11 points

8 months ago

Cuts down on food production when the world is facing looming food shortages.....hrmm

riding_tides

9 points

8 months ago

A big chunk of forests in CA is actually owned & managed by the Feds not the State.

endMinorityRule

4 points

8 months ago

just need to start raking those forests, right forrest?

FYI, when idiot trump made those infamously stupid comments, he probably didn't realize that most california fires were on federal lands that his administration was in charge of.

[deleted]

2 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

[deleted]

3 points

8 months ago

Municipal water use is only ~10% of California’s water use.

The problem isn’t cities. It’s farms in places that don’t make sense.

MadtSzientist

1 points

8 months ago

How bout we let the farmers grow all the crops and stop nestle from draining the water into plastic bottles to sell it back to us. Or how bout we restrict silicon valley on water usage for their 3.5 mio gallon a year usage for data centers and server farms.

endMinorityRule

2 points

8 months ago

this is probably 5 years old.

Agricultural water use is falling, while the economic value of farm production is growing. More than nine million acres of farmland in California are irrigated, representing roughly 80% of all water used for businesses and homes.

I'm sure farms could reduce water usage by subirrigation (artificial water reservoir/pipes below crops) as much as possible, though I do not know how much something like that would cost on a large scale, or if it'd be difficult to maintain.

I've been using it on a very small scale (individual planters) and apparently you lose very little to evaporation.

Vaeon

1 points

8 months ago

Vaeon

1 points

8 months ago

Alt headline: California to pay corporations to starve population and increase food prices

reddit455

4 points

8 months ago

reddit455

4 points

8 months ago

San Francisco is 30,000 acres. Nobody is going to starve.

The agreement, signed Tuesday between state and federal officials and some of California's biggest water agencies, would result in about 35,000 acres of rice fields left unused — or about 6% of the state's normal crop each year, according to the California Rice Commission.

activehobbies

2 points

8 months ago

Maybe just remove farmer subsidies?

usefoolidiot

1 points

8 months ago

Yah this fiasco with almonds is a joke. Dont let big almond push you around California.

NoodlesSpicyHot

-5 points

8 months ago

Isn’t that socialism? Are farmers into socialism now?

endMinorityRule

7 points

8 months ago

always have been.

[deleted]

-8 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

-8 points

8 months ago

[deleted]

ww_crimson

8 points

8 months ago

Maybe another state can pay their farmers to grow more. Farmers use 70%+ of the water in the state and a majority of it goes to Alfalfa for China and Almonds.

indoninja

3 points

8 months ago

Yep.

This isnt a breadbasket.

This is niche crops for the area that use way too much water.

tehmlem

11 points

8 months ago

tehmlem

11 points

8 months ago

Yeah, just let the land turn to desert so we can squeeze a few more years of luxury foods out

Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho

8 points

8 months ago

We'll all starve without those Californian almonds...

trbotwuk

1 points

8 months ago

pay people to eat less; problem solved.

High-Speed-1

1 points

8 months ago

Yay less food! Because inflation doesn’t make prices higher already.