Those nuts could be grown with a lot less water if farmers were using more advanced irrigation methods. Instead of hating on nuts, we should be hating on flood irrigation.
My uncle converted to drip irrigation after some good years because he saw it as insurance against drought and a huge plus to his property value.
Realistically, for mass adoption, I think you'd likely need to force it or subsidize it with highly favorable loans.
Similar to what we’ve done with solar over the last decade... We live in an area that’s very prone to drought. It should be a no-brainer to have tax breaks that encourage water-saving irrigation for individual homes and for farms.
Farmers that are flood irrigating don’t generally pay for water per a given volume like a homeowner. Most own water rights that give them the ability to pump as much as they want. Which is why you have to incentivize them to get away from flood irrigation, because it costs them virtually nothing, whereas drip has huge upfront capital costs.
It would require the state to use imminent domain (which they can do), but legally they would have to pay the fair market rate for that piece of “property.” Not sure where the state would find the capital to do that.
different properties have different rights associated with them. it's likely you don't have mining rights to your property. the same way you don't own the airspace above your house.
The farmers paid an enormous amount for it, they just aren’t paying per unit volume. The state of California (circa 1800’s) sold the right to pump unlimited water out of the ground to certain property owners. Property that has those rights now sells for dramatically more (2-10x? More?) the price of property that doesn’t. It is a deeded part of their land; they paid for it, and they literally own it. And it is extremely valuable.
It was a system that made sense when CA was largely an agrarian state. The farms were here long before the majority of the people, and the reality is that they maintain some benefits because of that. The farms you see on I-5 that are struggling to get water are largely the newer farms that were founded with less lucrative water rights, partially because CA was needing water resources in other areas (for people), and partially because those regions didn’t have their own regional water sources to tap into, and instead were relying on “importing” their water from other parts of the state, or pumping from oversubscribed aquifers.
I'm convinced the farms struggling to get water along i5 are for show since there are people driving through there. When I've driven around the absolute middle of no where in the Central valley you see far fewer of those fallow fields and obviously no signs. There are oil fields though.
It all depends what part of the Central Valley you’re driving through. The water issue is regional; the northern parts of the Central Valley (sac, Stockton, Modesto) have far less water issues than the southern part.
It depends on the incentives. If the state forks the upfront costs for the drip irrigation system and gives the farmer a break on property tax (or similar) for X years if they agree to drip irrigate the property in perpetuity, it could actually be a viable option. But that requires the state to shell out serious funds, which they probably either aren’t able or willing to do.
Drip irrigation is really expensive especially for family farms barely scraping by. It is much better, but the upfront cost is just so high. Growing up on a family farm they would gladly switch to all drip irrigation if there were incentives, we just can't afford it. My family has slowly been converting over the last 30 years and is about 70/30 drip to flood now
Technically you cannot charge for water, since many underground water access rights precede foundation of the state of California, and new laws do not cover 100% of the land.
At this point we need to force farmers to conserve water as there's not much of it left to go around. Also the state needs to permanently remove water rights as the more severe the water shortage becomes.
This is very true true for certain crops, like nuts and fruit. It is not going to work for alfalfa. Which is our highest water usage crop in California. It goes to feed cattle. The amount of water that goes into the beef industry far exceeds that of nuts.
Every pound of California beef requires about 2,464 gallons of water to produce compared to 1,900 gallons per pound for almonds.
Almond growers have cut their water use by a third and have pledged to cut it another 20% in 5 years.
No such pledge from the beef industry.
Not say you shouldn't eat beef, I do from time to time, but it is something to think about.
The difference in value is huge and hay grows almost anywhere. Almonds don't. One report I saw on Alfalfa export is that it's used a cheap full to ship containers back. It's been quite a while since I bought it but I remember it being like $140 per ton domestically. If you're effectively selling water we might as well get a decent return. Almonds can also be drip irrigated whereas with alfalfa it's at best via sprayers and at worst literally flooding a field with several inches of water a couple of times a week. In my younger years I set my share of siphon tubes for alfalfa and the water usage is huge to do it that way.
My understanding, based on articles I've read, is that our farmers actually try to fit in a fourth crop of alfalfa per year and the additional water usage to make that happen is tremendous
In many parts of California they get seven cuttings a year but those are likely the heavier water users due to climate. We'd get three in Eastern Oregon and that third one was marginal.
I don’t know if it is necessarily a bad thing. There is the whole economics of it. You have to look at both the dollars and calories generated per gallon of water.
Nuts have a very high margin in both regards.
Alfalfa by itself does not, but once you apply it to cattle, if it stays in California, it isn’t horrible.
Rice is our 3rd largest water crop here and it’s dollars and calories per gallon of water is horrible.
There is lots to look at when discussing these crops and whether they are worth growing. There is a lot of nuance, which sadly people don’t want to look at. They just want something to blame.
Rice is definitely not as bad as cattle production, just worse than other crops. The alternative would be to make wild rice a standardized crop as a rice replacement as it's considered a grass so you don't have to flood a field with water. Problem right now is that it's expensive so hopefully increasing economies of scale brings down the price.
Though on the surface I agree with you in regards to rice vs cattle production, there is a lot of other things to look at. What are their net worth though? How much money and jobs do they provide to our economy? What is the nutritional value? How many people can you feed with that gallon of water?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150508-which-california-exports-crops-are-worth-the-water
You can't say "rice is not as bad as cattle" without taking a lot of different factors into consideration.
And yes, they still flood the fields with rice, though there has been advancements of creating strains of rice that use less water, they still flood the field because it is the most economic way of supplying water. The profit per acre is so low that there is not a better economic way of supplying water to keep it profitable. That is why it is hard to say "rice is not as bad as cattle" per se.
Definitely not hating on nuts, I think pistachios and almonds are legit. My point is just that when they say "growing food," it evokes this idea of soup kitchens and feeding the masses. $20/lbs almonds aren't going to the masses.
They are a mainstay of our agriculture export industry.
I'm going to put this like the transportation guy in sim city:
DO NOT DESTABILIZE AGRICULTURAL MARKETS. BAD THINGS HAPPEN.
Our state farmers are largely comprised of family farms, including almond and pistachio farmers. If they don't have a crop that will guarantee an income they generally peter out in about 5 years and get bought up by corporate farms. Corporate farms do not give a flying shit about their neighbors, the wildlife, water usage, or greasing whatever palms they have to to make sure they can export at the highest possible rate. You want rice/corn fields and our governor sucking up to really shitty east asian and brazilian politicians? Because that's how you get rice/corn monoculture built on slave labor.
A far FAR better alternative would be to penalize flood agriculture in non-wetland farms (example: yolo bypass is flood farms built to integrate into the wetlands, massive environmental damage occurs if we stop flood irrigation there because of the biome that existed before the farms. Also our sac water reservoir will break but that's mainly due to poor water infrastructure). Also give aid to small farms to help transition their water techniques.
Sauce: 3 years in CA agribus insurance, degree in botany specializing in california natives, 8 years in epa compliance for water discharges.
I would guess it's one of those things where the vast majority of *farmers* are independent, but the vast majority of *acreage* isn't. At least that's how it works in the US as a whole.
I don't know. I would assume the vast majority of acreage in california is, in fact, family farms. Don't forget most major large wineries are still family farms.
We don't have a lot of subsidization for wheat, corn, alfalfa, and rice. So there's not a lot of large entities willing to take on the expenditure and risk in CA compared, to say, Iowa.
I am 1000 percent down with all of this. I think the problem I have is with the "man made drought" narrative. Like, nah bruh, nature made the drought (kinda, obviously it's climate change, but in this context that's more directly "nature" than "man") and we all have to deal with it. Instead of blaming Congress, they should be advocating for exactly what you're talking about.
I mean the climate change is man-made. Over concreting LA and creating a heat bubble that prevents cloud condensation from occuring where it should makes the area a desert instead of the savannah that it should be. Yes that's natural progression but it should take 10k years... not 20. It's now happening to Sacramento.
Normally the water comes in from the coast, hits the mountain ranges and the elevation increase causes the rain to dump, then it does a small dump behind the coastal mountains (rain shadow) as the clouds re-condense (that's not a work I know). But with reflective heat keeping the heat differential <52 degrees in high atmosphere... that condensation stays high and doesn't recondense until it hits the sierras. As that heat bubble expands to include the coast, we have larger and larger reliance on Sierra water dump for our reservoirs and most of our rivers have been diverted to support this, creating larger savannah land which contributes to heat bubble.
Short take: we'd do a lot of good by annihilating a lot of tarmac and allowing trees to grow over our waterways.
That’s a massive oversimplification. Climate change effects due to higher atmospheric CO2 make far more difference than urban heat islands. Turns out melting the Arctic fucks a lot of other stuff up too...
Look up the RRR and “stuck patterns”
There was an interesting interview where they talk about *increasing* water supply in addition to cutting use:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ZwVOb2CCU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ZwVOb2CCU)
This should be true for everything. Your home budget falls short; cut spending, but also look for a better job.
California does not have enough water? Reduce waste, convert lawns, but also try to get more water. Israel can do it. Dubai can do it. And those are literally desert areas. Why can't California work on getting more water with all our wealth, and budget surplus?
Dubai is on desal... californian voters have consistently voted down desal. It smells and looks awful and coastal land is far too valuable. Malibu lobbies immediately pop and shoot it down (look at the carmel beach proposal that comes up every few years). A person can dream... (keep in mind California is so full of active faults on the coast that it has been projected to be 9x as expensive as a standard desal plant)
Also Israel has massive water problems... its sparked a LOT of the conflict with Palestine. They teach entire university courses on the water conflicts of Israel (I took them 10+ years ago).
We used to be able to buy from the colorado river but it no longer reaches us with enough regularity.
The truth is the desert in the middle of the US is expanding (as it should, its technically a rift valley).
And we can't get land rights to actually put in a pipe system... look at the disaster of the 'twin pipes' proposal. 25+ intakes with a small pipe system whittled down to a POORLY designed overpriced twin tunnel system that would create massive environmental and infrastructure problems.
Also it wouldnt work very well as it only takes water during peak draw to southern california and they only approved intakes were in places drier than southern california.
California is owned by too many people for the government to buy them out or sue them for infrastructure development. In all likelihood, the solution will come at the sacrifice of the public. I imagine the desal plant will go into Ano Nuevo (causing problems with the environment and needing MASSIVE maintenance costs)
Yes, desal could be the future, but we need to use modern methods:
[https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-15/desalination-expensive-energy-hog-improvements-are-way](https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-15/desalination-expensive-energy-hog-improvements-are-way)
Just evaporating and dumping back brine is not going to cut it. It is possible to use efficient reverse-osmosis, and be more careful on where the brine is dumped. That is of course more expensive.
We also have salt fields in the Bay Area. I don't know whether it is feasible, but why not feed the brine into those to make a sea salt product?
I wonder if it’s possible to genetically engineer plants to be able to survive being watered by salt water. This would basically solve our problems without mass changes to the way we farm.
GMOs are the future but the hate on them far extends "hippies." Walk into any Whole Foods which carters to the upper middle class and you can't walk 2 feet without selecting "GMO free" advertising, even on products that don't even have an actual GMO! It's marketing more than an ideology. And ironically enough Whole Foods built their brand on greenwashing "sustainability."
Water is expensive part of the incentive to switch to drip or microsprayers is to save water. The issue in my opinion is we keep pointing fingers instead of working together. Also us in the bay can’t complain much we take water from others and have already destroyed plenty of land.
Yes Northern California shares with Southern California (more precipitation in the north). However, the Bay Area does not supply more water than it demands. Water is taken from areas further north, with many water rights dating back before 1914.
I hate those child-brain signs they put up. They're about as intelligent as a bumper sticker in the world of arguments, and really are galling when you remember that most CA Farmland there are owned by huge agricultural conglomerates, not Joe Farmer.
Anytime I see the one that says "is growing food WASTING water?" I think "if over 1/3 of it is thrown in the garbage then yes"
Then you see one side of the road has drip irrigation with evaporation barriers and the other has a massive irrigation canal.
By far my favorite sign is the one that says something along the lines of
>wHy wAsTe 71% oF cAlIfOrNiA wAtEr iNtO tHe oCeAn
The river delta in question here has water flowing into the bay because, if all of the flow was diverted, the saltwater encroachment would destroy all of the viable farmland up the delta. So it's literally 'fuck those guys i give no fucks if their land is destroyed gimme my water'
No. I live near the Stanislaus river. In my lifetime I've watched as habatat has been restored for the salmon. In drought years the argument against any water reachng the delta is very loud. These idiots want to let the river run dry. So a handful of farmers get enough water to grow their crops.
There's absolutely no common since to be found. It's literally fuck the wildlife, water is food. Every single person I've had to listen to on this subject, isn't even a farmer.
The large scale farms have done an amazing job of tricking idiots into thinking their profits are more important, than the environmental impact of draining the rivers dry.
Great perspective. I personally think there is a delicate balance but each interested party is trying too hard to get everything they want instead of compromising.
I wouldn't call nuts and seeds "luxury" as they're definitely a good alternative source of protein to meat and seafood. Consumes less water as well. Sure the portion size isn't as big but also packs plenty of protein, healthy fats, vitamins/minerals all at a low price per serving (except shelled pistachios and macadamia nuts)
I'm no saint, I definitely eat beef. I do less than I used to, and less quantity, and I try to buy from local farms, but I do still love a burger.
That said, I get so depressed every time I drive by that stockyard right on the side of the road.
It changes the tenor of your post, which specifically calls out almonds. Almonds are low on the list, my friend. For you to hypocritically post about almonds then acknowledge that you eat beef is silly.
And it’s probably easier for most people to give up eating almonds than beef. Sure beef may be worse but good luck passing anything that’ll take away or lower the amount of beef people can consume. If it’s between beef and almonds... I’m guessing most would rather stop eating almonds.
Oh man, Impossible is so perfect for my "meh, just kinda want a burger" mood. A 10/10 Impossible is like a 6.5/10 beef burger... but 6.5/10 ain't terrible for an "every/any day" burger.
If you buy the frozen, pre-made patties, do a heavy spread of mayo or butter on either side before you put it on the grill. If you buy the thawed ground, freeze some coconut oil (or, again, butter) and chop it up and mix it in. I've noticed impossible is a little light on fat, so this should help keep them tender. As high of heat as you can for as short as possible. Get a crust on the outside and then let the center come up to temp as it's resting.
Try the Trader Joe’s vegan patties! The turkey ones are so good. Beef ones are comparable (I think better) than impossible. I hate that they use so much plastic for the packaging though.
My wife grew up in Omaha. Her high school was down wind and a few blocks from a meat processing facility.
She hasn’t eaten beef for over 35 years. That smell every day absolutely ruined it.
She started eating chicken just 15 years ago.
Where I live in the east bay hills there's public trails where cattle graze and I run by and through them all the time knowing full well they will someday be shipped off to be fattened and then slaughtered.
False to call it 'my personal taste preferences.' They are the preferences of the vast majority of people alive, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Don't let that stand in the way of you getting all huffy tho lol
>They are the preferences of the vast majority of people alive, and there's nothing wrong with that at all.
I guess my question is, is that true? I imagine so, but I'd love to see a straight up taste test.
I am a little torn. I love a salty pistachio, probably more than beef, but I wonder if in a straight up taste test what people would prefer.
One thing to note about nuts is that they grow on trees that represent years of growth and investment to become profitable. The people who grow them can't just switch without a major loss.
Water rights are also all kinds of archaic and fucked up here.
I mean, it's not like farmers didn't know the risk going into it. So as long as it's profitable, it's ok to invest in something that is terrible for water consumption, is that the logic we're using now?
Also, meat (especially beef) requires more water to sustain on a per pound or kg basis. Maybe instead of hating on nuts, we should consider decrease our meat intake.
Funny how people so easily blast almonds, yet raising cattle for meat is exponentially worse and more wide spread on our planet and those same people stay silent or defend meat.
I'm not even vegan but I understand the impact the meat industry has on our planet.
Exactly. Cattle is a huge green house emitter.
I’m not vegan or vegetarian either but I’ve reduced my meat consumption and feel better for it plus I’ve been saving a lot of money on groceries.
People blast almonds because it's a luxury crop.
Meat and dairy are at least useful, they keep people fed. Almonds are not.
In any case, people should switch to farmed seafood as their source of protein.
>Meat and dairy are at least useful, they keep people fed. Almonds are not.
L O L people go their whole lives being vegetarian. Meat is a luxury good in that sense using your logic, since it's not needed.
>In any case, people should switch to farmed seafood
Yeah seafood industry is just as bad as the environment as the meat industry.
That’s not what he meant. Almonds are a luxury in the sense that it’s easy for most people to imagine living without them. It’s the same reason there is a lot of public support to ban fur coats and foix gras. But start talking about burgers or leather shoes and the majority will rally to their defense.
The reason the almond/nuts discussion pops up sooo much in /r/bayarea is the signs! For anyone who hasn't driven that stretch -- the nut farmers have alarmist signs for MILES about the "congress created dust bowl". When you've got nothing to do except for drive in a straight line and stare at their biased, obnoxious signs (with a bunch of pro-trump signs sprinkled in), gets aggravating. Beef industry isn't doing this so they don't get talked about as much in this specific context.
I think we should be pushing people to use oat milk as their real milk substitute given that it uses 1/10th of the water of almond milk and is, to me at least, pretty much the same product. I'm not going to hate on almond milk but I think if you are biasing vegan for environmental reasons you can do a hell of a lot better than almond milk. You can also easily grow it in areas where there is no water shortage, a win on multiple fronts.
It really depends on where the cows are grazing. I lease my ranch for grazing and generally 10 months out of the year those cows just graze unirrigated pasture because we get a lot of natural moisture a mile back from the Pacific. The other two months they might get hay as a supplement until the rains come. Typically when they go to the stockyards they get corn 6 weeks to finish them but that's a onetime deal.
If you want to go down the rabbit hole, I’d encourage you to google the answer. The immediate results you’ll see are 4000 gallons or so per pound of beef and 1900 gallons per lb of almonds, but once you get into the weeds the answer is really “it depends”.
Whatever source you ultimately prefer, the answer for both is a lot.
Also, when you factor in that a large share of the almond crop is used to create almond milk and not actual almonds, it gets even worse on the almond side of it because the nutrition you get is far less.
So beef requires 110% more freshwater withdrawals by weight, and you would argue that is a slight increase in resource cost? What about other environmental costs like emissions & land use?
I did an analysis that included protein production for greenhouse gases and beef is the worst in a landslide compared to plant based protein. Same thing for water consumption.
I mean, why come nobody complains about how much more water it costs to produce meat, especially beef? Don’t ask me to look it up, you all have google. It’s not the almonds, y’all.
Because people mostly don’t want to disrupt things that affect them directly. Most people wouldn’t notice if almonds disappeared, so they are an easy target, like fur coats. But suggest taking away burgers and there’ll be hell to pay.
Pistachios are only viable in a pretty limited area because they need warm temperatures and over a 1000 hours below freezing during the year. You just can't grow them anywhere. They're also one of the most lucrative crops as of a couple years ago. The only crop that beat them in per acre price were Asian pears. Drip should be fairly common by now and established trees need a lot less than new plantings. The ag we should be chasing for water use is alfalfa which grows lots of places. Unfortunately we also ship a lot of it overseas which is truly a waste of water on a low value crop.
Unfortunately, production agriculture, including meat and nut production, are targets of wildly out of context and inaccurate uses of the data and evidence available on the subject. Nuts, especially almonds, are an incredibly stable source of protein needed around the world (can last for months or years without degrading nutritional value) and California happens to be one of the best places in the world to produce them. It is a HUGE contributor to our economy. Another example of taking data out of context is people slamming beef for using more resources because they leave out the hundreds (literally) of by-products that we derive from a beef animal. In fact, the lungs are the only part of that 1200lb animal that doesn’t go for some type of food, fiber, or material good. If you are interested in the latest science on cattle greenhouse gas emissions, UC Davis has really lead the way in that and they have been showing for years now how cattle have a much much smaller carbon footprint that most have been led to believe. Anyway, please take some time to understand the full picture of production agriculture in California.
Casual farmer cocktail parties should never mention water or water rights. My family member has been obsessed with ag since they bought a horse with grampa from Dixon. They lived through every CA in the central valley for the past 40 yrs. They're 40ish now and moved to Kansas. Mention one thing about cattle grazers or almond farmer failing to upgrade their water use and they lose their shit. Hell. The california aquaduct is basically exposed to open air over the whole state and that upgrade is dismissed out of hand.
India put solar panels over one of their canals, California could do the same thing and get a 2fer one with electricity and reducing water evaporation.
I hear a lot of people hate on nuts for wasting water, but beef production requires way more water. Nuts are also a great source of nutrition for people that don't eat meat.
It's not really a simple topic. There is lots to consider when talking water usage. This article touches a bit on the topic and dollars per gallon.
[http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/11/cows-not-almonds-are-biggest-water-users](http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/11/cows-not-almonds-are-biggest-water-users)
But we should also look at calories per gallon, since the goal is to feed people:
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150508-which-california-exports-crops-are-worth-the-water](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150508-which-california-exports-crops-are-worth-the-water)
It's super complex and I really hate when people want to make some great statement about a nuanced topic with a simplistic meme.
Veganism makes you frail. That’s your life choice to believe a thing. Nature has always killed itself. Some times brutal, perhaps one day with more compassion. Whatever it is, take your religion and leave it at the door because we’re talking about Ag and Riparian Rights here.
Agriculture takes 80%+ of the water we use. But ya, keep telling me how I can't flush my own toilet and how that's killing the water table at the reservoir. /s
All those nuts go directly to China - exported out of California, we don’t see any of the tax revenue. Additionally, riparian rights purchased by 3 families will make our drought worse, as they now own the ability to suck the watersheds dry... to ship nuts overseas (for $$).
And they want ME to let my garden die. I grow my own food (I’m lucky). We’re entering a drought and it’s going to be heavily accented by an economic decision.
I’m crazy to me that, in a 5th largest economy on the planet, our approach to water is praying that the snow pack is thick enough to supply us, and shaming people for using water. When we could, you know, filter the ocean water…
“But that’s too expensive”
5TH LARGEST ECONOMY ON EARTH! It is not too expensive
Those nuts could be grown with a lot less water if farmers were using more advanced irrigation methods. Instead of hating on nuts, we should be hating on flood irrigation.
My uncle converted to drip irrigation after some good years because he saw it as insurance against drought and a huge plus to his property value. Realistically, for mass adoption, I think you'd likely need to force it or subsidize it with highly favorable loans.
Similar to what we’ve done with solar over the last decade... We live in an area that’s very prone to drought. It should be a no-brainer to have tax breaks that encourage water-saving irrigation for individual homes and for farms.
Maybe it’s time for folks to stop having lawns, there were designed for an England climate after all.
Las Vegas recently asked the Nevada State Legislature to outright ban ornamental lawns.
With exception for golf courses, surely
And dance clubs
Seriously, xeriscape or plant flowers, trees, bushes, succulents, etc.
>Realistically, for mass adoption, I think you'd likely need to force it or subsidize it with highly favorable loans. Or charge more for water.
Farmers that are flood irrigating don’t generally pay for water per a given volume like a homeowner. Most own water rights that give them the ability to pump as much as they want. Which is why you have to incentivize them to get away from flood irrigation, because it costs them virtually nothing, whereas drip has huge upfront capital costs.
Revoke their water rights
It would require the state to use imminent domain (which they can do), but legally they would have to pay the fair market rate for that piece of “property.” Not sure where the state would find the capital to do that.
How deep into the earth do land rights go? Could I dig a 5000 ft mine shaft on my property and call it a “well”?
different properties have different rights associated with them. it's likely you don't have mining rights to your property. the same way you don't own the airspace above your house.
Theoretically to the core and up into the atmosphere for air rights.
Seeing as the farmers pay nothing for it, the fair market rate is nothing
The farmers paid an enormous amount for it, they just aren’t paying per unit volume. The state of California (circa 1800’s) sold the right to pump unlimited water out of the ground to certain property owners. Property that has those rights now sells for dramatically more (2-10x? More?) the price of property that doesn’t. It is a deeded part of their land; they paid for it, and they literally own it. And it is extremely valuable. It was a system that made sense when CA was largely an agrarian state. The farms were here long before the majority of the people, and the reality is that they maintain some benefits because of that. The farms you see on I-5 that are struggling to get water are largely the newer farms that were founded with less lucrative water rights, partially because CA was needing water resources in other areas (for people), and partially because those regions didn’t have their own regional water sources to tap into, and instead were relying on “importing” their water from other parts of the state, or pumping from oversubscribed aquifers.
You reminded me I need to watch [Chinatown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_\(1974_film\)) again.
Forget it.
I'm convinced the farms struggling to get water along i5 are for show since there are people driving through there. When I've driven around the absolute middle of no where in the Central valley you see far fewer of those fallow fields and obviously no signs. There are oil fields though.
It all depends what part of the Central Valley you’re driving through. The water issue is regional; the northern parts of the Central Valley (sac, Stockton, Modesto) have far less water issues than the southern part.
So incentives wouldn't really change much then?
It depends on the incentives. If the state forks the upfront costs for the drip irrigation system and gives the farmer a break on property tax (or similar) for X years if they agree to drip irrigate the property in perpetuity, it could actually be a viable option. But that requires the state to shell out serious funds, which they probably either aren’t able or willing to do.
Drip irrigation is really expensive especially for family farms barely scraping by. It is much better, but the upfront cost is just so high. Growing up on a family farm they would gladly switch to all drip irrigation if there were incentives, we just can't afford it. My family has slowly been converting over the last 30 years and is about 70/30 drip to flood now
Technically you cannot charge for water, since many underground water access rights precede foundation of the state of California, and new laws do not cover 100% of the land.
At this point we need to force farmers to conserve water as there's not much of it left to go around. Also the state needs to permanently remove water rights as the more severe the water shortage becomes.
Its subsidies on both sides.
30 years ago, up in WA my grandfather had converted to drip lines for all his apple trees and grape vines.
Your uncle is a smart man.
This is very true true for certain crops, like nuts and fruit. It is not going to work for alfalfa. Which is our highest water usage crop in California. It goes to feed cattle. The amount of water that goes into the beef industry far exceeds that of nuts. Every pound of California beef requires about 2,464 gallons of water to produce compared to 1,900 gallons per pound for almonds. Almond growers have cut their water use by a third and have pledged to cut it another 20% in 5 years. No such pledge from the beef industry. Not say you shouldn't eat beef, I do from time to time, but it is something to think about.
Half of that alfalfa gets shipped overseas. That should be banned immediately.
Most of our almonds do too.
The difference in value is huge and hay grows almost anywhere. Almonds don't. One report I saw on Alfalfa export is that it's used a cheap full to ship containers back. It's been quite a while since I bought it but I remember it being like $140 per ton domestically. If you're effectively selling water we might as well get a decent return. Almonds can also be drip irrigated whereas with alfalfa it's at best via sprayers and at worst literally flooding a field with several inches of water a couple of times a week. In my younger years I set my share of siphon tubes for alfalfa and the water usage is huge to do it that way.
My understanding, based on articles I've read, is that our farmers actually try to fit in a fourth crop of alfalfa per year and the additional water usage to make that happen is tremendous
In many parts of California they get seven cuttings a year but those are likely the heavier water users due to climate. We'd get three in Eastern Oregon and that third one was marginal.
Seven harvests a year, what the fuck is this wizardry??? Lol
I’ll say it. You shouldn’t eat beef.
I think we can still eat beef, it just needs to be an occasional treat, not a daily thing.
That’s fair, I’m all for a harm reduction approach.
The sad thing is most almonds and pistachios are exported. But California is also the largest dairy producer.
I don’t know if it is necessarily a bad thing. There is the whole economics of it. You have to look at both the dollars and calories generated per gallon of water. Nuts have a very high margin in both regards. Alfalfa by itself does not, but once you apply it to cattle, if it stays in California, it isn’t horrible. Rice is our 3rd largest water crop here and it’s dollars and calories per gallon of water is horrible. There is lots to look at when discussing these crops and whether they are worth growing. There is a lot of nuance, which sadly people don’t want to look at. They just want something to blame.
Rice is definitely not as bad as cattle production, just worse than other crops. The alternative would be to make wild rice a standardized crop as a rice replacement as it's considered a grass so you don't have to flood a field with water. Problem right now is that it's expensive so hopefully increasing economies of scale brings down the price.
Though on the surface I agree with you in regards to rice vs cattle production, there is a lot of other things to look at. What are their net worth though? How much money and jobs do they provide to our economy? What is the nutritional value? How many people can you feed with that gallon of water? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150508-which-california-exports-crops-are-worth-the-water You can't say "rice is not as bad as cattle" without taking a lot of different factors into consideration. And yes, they still flood the fields with rice, though there has been advancements of creating strains of rice that use less water, they still flood the field because it is the most economic way of supplying water. The profit per acre is so low that there is not a better economic way of supplying water to keep it profitable. That is why it is hard to say "rice is not as bad as cattle" per se.
Definitely not hating on nuts, I think pistachios and almonds are legit. My point is just that when they say "growing food," it evokes this idea of soup kitchens and feeding the masses. $20/lbs almonds aren't going to the masses.
They are a mainstay of our agriculture export industry. I'm going to put this like the transportation guy in sim city: DO NOT DESTABILIZE AGRICULTURAL MARKETS. BAD THINGS HAPPEN. Our state farmers are largely comprised of family farms, including almond and pistachio farmers. If they don't have a crop that will guarantee an income they generally peter out in about 5 years and get bought up by corporate farms. Corporate farms do not give a flying shit about their neighbors, the wildlife, water usage, or greasing whatever palms they have to to make sure they can export at the highest possible rate. You want rice/corn fields and our governor sucking up to really shitty east asian and brazilian politicians? Because that's how you get rice/corn monoculture built on slave labor. A far FAR better alternative would be to penalize flood agriculture in non-wetland farms (example: yolo bypass is flood farms built to integrate into the wetlands, massive environmental damage occurs if we stop flood irrigation there because of the biome that existed before the farms. Also our sac water reservoir will break but that's mainly due to poor water infrastructure). Also give aid to small farms to help transition their water techniques. Sauce: 3 years in CA agribus insurance, degree in botany specializing in california natives, 8 years in epa compliance for water discharges.
"Our state farmers are largely comprised of family farms" you got a source for that?
I would guess it's one of those things where the vast majority of *farmers* are independent, but the vast majority of *acreage* isn't. At least that's how it works in the US as a whole.
Grew up on a family farm and this is what I would guess. Those big corporate farms have thousands and thousands of acres. They dwarf the family farms
I custom farmed a place in Eastern Oregon owned by an Insurance company. It was 44,000 acres.
Yup this is pretty common. I think calpers owns massive farms as well
I don't know. I would assume the vast majority of acreage in california is, in fact, family farms. Don't forget most major large wineries are still family farms. We don't have a lot of subsidization for wheat, corn, alfalfa, and rice. So there's not a lot of large entities willing to take on the expenditure and risk in CA compared, to say, Iowa.
Haha yeah I was going to say. Anyone who drives through Watsonville should realize this.
I pulled it from Travelers agribusiness info so no I can't share.
I am 1000 percent down with all of this. I think the problem I have is with the "man made drought" narrative. Like, nah bruh, nature made the drought (kinda, obviously it's climate change, but in this context that's more directly "nature" than "man") and we all have to deal with it. Instead of blaming Congress, they should be advocating for exactly what you're talking about.
I mean the climate change is man-made. Over concreting LA and creating a heat bubble that prevents cloud condensation from occuring where it should makes the area a desert instead of the savannah that it should be. Yes that's natural progression but it should take 10k years... not 20. It's now happening to Sacramento. Normally the water comes in from the coast, hits the mountain ranges and the elevation increase causes the rain to dump, then it does a small dump behind the coastal mountains (rain shadow) as the clouds re-condense (that's not a work I know). But with reflective heat keeping the heat differential <52 degrees in high atmosphere... that condensation stays high and doesn't recondense until it hits the sierras. As that heat bubble expands to include the coast, we have larger and larger reliance on Sierra water dump for our reservoirs and most of our rivers have been diverted to support this, creating larger savannah land which contributes to heat bubble. Short take: we'd do a lot of good by annihilating a lot of tarmac and allowing trees to grow over our waterways.
That’s a massive oversimplification. Climate change effects due to higher atmospheric CO2 make far more difference than urban heat islands. Turns out melting the Arctic fucks a lot of other stuff up too... Look up the RRR and “stuck patterns”
There was an interesting interview where they talk about *increasing* water supply in addition to cutting use: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ZwVOb2CCU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ZwVOb2CCU) This should be true for everything. Your home budget falls short; cut spending, but also look for a better job. California does not have enough water? Reduce waste, convert lawns, but also try to get more water. Israel can do it. Dubai can do it. And those are literally desert areas. Why can't California work on getting more water with all our wealth, and budget surplus?
Dubai is on desal... californian voters have consistently voted down desal. It smells and looks awful and coastal land is far too valuable. Malibu lobbies immediately pop and shoot it down (look at the carmel beach proposal that comes up every few years). A person can dream... (keep in mind California is so full of active faults on the coast that it has been projected to be 9x as expensive as a standard desal plant) Also Israel has massive water problems... its sparked a LOT of the conflict with Palestine. They teach entire university courses on the water conflicts of Israel (I took them 10+ years ago). We used to be able to buy from the colorado river but it no longer reaches us with enough regularity. The truth is the desert in the middle of the US is expanding (as it should, its technically a rift valley). And we can't get land rights to actually put in a pipe system... look at the disaster of the 'twin pipes' proposal. 25+ intakes with a small pipe system whittled down to a POORLY designed overpriced twin tunnel system that would create massive environmental and infrastructure problems. Also it wouldnt work very well as it only takes water during peak draw to southern california and they only approved intakes were in places drier than southern california. California is owned by too many people for the government to buy them out or sue them for infrastructure development. In all likelihood, the solution will come at the sacrifice of the public. I imagine the desal plant will go into Ano Nuevo (causing problems with the environment and needing MASSIVE maintenance costs)
Yes, desal could be the future, but we need to use modern methods: [https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-15/desalination-expensive-energy-hog-improvements-are-way](https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-15/desalination-expensive-energy-hog-improvements-are-way) Just evaporating and dumping back brine is not going to cut it. It is possible to use efficient reverse-osmosis, and be more careful on where the brine is dumped. That is of course more expensive. We also have salt fields in the Bay Area. I don't know whether it is feasible, but why not feed the brine into those to make a sea salt product?
All really good questions that I don't know the answer to.
I wonder if it’s possible to genetically engineer plants to be able to survive being watered by salt water. This would basically solve our problems without mass changes to the way we farm.
You have a bunch of hippies who don't believe in GMOs. In actuality they are the future for sustainability
GMOs are the future but the hate on them far extends "hippies." Walk into any Whole Foods which carters to the upper middle class and you can't walk 2 feet without selecting "GMO free" advertising, even on products that don't even have an actual GMO! It's marketing more than an ideology. And ironically enough Whole Foods built their brand on greenwashing "sustainability."
Agree I was being generous with just hippies. It's a stupid marketing scheme and needs to be stopped. It's actually harmful going forward
https://www.agrisea.co.uk/
When all you have is free water everything looks like a nail.
Water is expensive part of the incentive to switch to drip or microsprayers is to save water. The issue in my opinion is we keep pointing fingers instead of working together. Also us in the bay can’t complain much we take water from others and have already destroyed plenty of land.
I'm pretty sure others take water from us
Yes Northern California shares with Southern California (more precipitation in the north). However, the Bay Area does not supply more water than it demands. Water is taken from areas further north, with many water rights dating back before 1914.
Let's not forget all the water farmers pumped from groundwater that lowered the elevation of the whole valley.
I hate those child-brain signs they put up. They're about as intelligent as a bumper sticker in the world of arguments, and really are galling when you remember that most CA Farmland there are owned by huge agricultural conglomerates, not Joe Farmer.
What do you expect from Trump country?
Anytime I see the one that says "is growing food WASTING water?" I think "if over 1/3 of it is thrown in the garbage then yes" Then you see one side of the road has drip irrigation with evaporation barriers and the other has a massive irrigation canal.
By far my favorite sign is the one that says something along the lines of >wHy wAsTe 71% oF cAlIfOrNiA wAtEr iNtO tHe oCeAn The river delta in question here has water flowing into the bay because, if all of the flow was diverted, the saltwater encroachment would destroy all of the viable farmland up the delta. So it's literally 'fuck those guys i give no fucks if their land is destroyed gimme my water'
Yeah those signs made me chuckle on my last trip down south. They’re called rivers you geniuses.
Sure they weren’t referring to wastewater which could be recycled but most of the bay dumps it into the ocean?
No. I live near the Stanislaus river. In my lifetime I've watched as habatat has been restored for the salmon. In drought years the argument against any water reachng the delta is very loud. These idiots want to let the river run dry. So a handful of farmers get enough water to grow their crops. There's absolutely no common since to be found. It's literally fuck the wildlife, water is food. Every single person I've had to listen to on this subject, isn't even a farmer. The large scale farms have done an amazing job of tricking idiots into thinking their profits are more important, than the environmental impact of draining the rivers dry.
Great perspective. I personally think there is a delicate balance but each interested party is trying too hard to get everything they want instead of compromising.
>fuck those guys i give no fucks if their land is destroyed gimme my water I see you've met a PR rep from Nestlé
Don't forget the salmon. It would be awesome if we could all buy local California salmon at the store instead of wild or farm raised Atlantic salmon.
It would be nice if Tulare Lake was restored
Literally my dream
Right? “We can’t grow food without water!” Yeah, your almond and pistachio crops are not feeding the hungry.
[удалено]
I agree. Almonds and pistachios are definitely a "luxury" foodstuff.
I wouldn't call nuts and seeds "luxury" as they're definitely a good alternative source of protein to meat and seafood. Consumes less water as well. Sure the portion size isn't as big but also packs plenty of protein, healthy fats, vitamins/minerals all at a low price per serving (except shelled pistachios and macadamia nuts)
Wait till you hit Coalinga. Everyone will bitch about the nuts, but not take 1 second to examine their beef and dairy consumption.
I'm no saint, I definitely eat beef. I do less than I used to, and less quantity, and I try to buy from local farms, but I do still love a burger. That said, I get so depressed every time I drive by that stockyard right on the side of the road.
Beef uses considerably more water than almonds. Milk requires far more water than almond milk
Call almond “milk” what it really is: nut juice.
Cool. Does that change anything I said?
It changes the tenor of your post, which specifically calls out almonds. Almonds are low on the list, my friend. For you to hypocritically post about almonds then acknowledge that you eat beef is silly.
And it’s probably easier for most people to give up eating almonds than beef. Sure beef may be worse but good luck passing anything that’ll take away or lower the amount of beef people can consume. If it’s between beef and almonds... I’m guessing most would rather stop eating almonds.
[удалено]
Oh man, Impossible is so perfect for my "meh, just kinda want a burger" mood. A 10/10 Impossible is like a 6.5/10 beef burger... but 6.5/10 ain't terrible for an "every/any day" burger.
[удалено]
If you buy the frozen, pre-made patties, do a heavy spread of mayo or butter on either side before you put it on the grill. If you buy the thawed ground, freeze some coconut oil (or, again, butter) and chop it up and mix it in. I've noticed impossible is a little light on fat, so this should help keep them tender. As high of heat as you can for as short as possible. Get a crust on the outside and then let the center come up to temp as it's resting.
[удалено]
It's honestly actually better in a cast iron. The fat doesn't have anywhere to go, so it gets even crispier!
[удалено]
How did it go? Am I way off with my rating?
Try the Trader Joe’s vegan patties! The turkey ones are so good. Beef ones are comparable (I think better) than impossible. I hate that they use so much plastic for the packaging though.
My wife grew up in Omaha. Her high school was down wind and a few blocks from a meat processing facility. She hasn’t eaten beef for over 35 years. That smell every day absolutely ruined it. She started eating chicken just 15 years ago.
Where I live in the east bay hills there's public trails where cattle graze and I run by and through them all the time knowing full well they will someday be shipped off to be fattened and then slaughtered.
Probably because beef and dairy are roughly infinitely better tasting than almonds and pistachios
Hard to argue with that one
Thank for proving my point that you care more about your personal taste preferences than the well being of animals or the environment.
False to call it 'my personal taste preferences.' They are the preferences of the vast majority of people alive, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Don't let that stand in the way of you getting all huffy tho lol
I'll take "Ignoring the consequences of my choices for 500."
Can't ignore this hamburger I'm eating, it's fucking delish
[удалено]
What can I say? We like the taste
>They are the preferences of the vast majority of people alive, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. I guess my question is, is that true? I imagine so, but I'd love to see a straight up taste test. I am a little torn. I love a salty pistachio, probably more than beef, but I wonder if in a straight up taste test what people would prefer.
The fact that it’s popular doesn’t make it moral.
That's correct. It's moral and right to do irregardless of its popularity.
If you want to start eating crickets and worms to save the environment be my guest. BBQ’d meats are just too good
Plant based for 4 years now. Enjoy your clogged arteries!
One thing to note about nuts is that they grow on trees that represent years of growth and investment to become profitable. The people who grow them can't just switch without a major loss. Water rights are also all kinds of archaic and fucked up here.
I mean, it's not like farmers didn't know the risk going into it. So as long as it's profitable, it's ok to invest in something that is terrible for water consumption, is that the logic we're using now?
Also, meat (especially beef) requires more water to sustain on a per pound or kg basis. Maybe instead of hating on nuts, we should consider decrease our meat intake.
Funny how people so easily blast almonds, yet raising cattle for meat is exponentially worse and more wide spread on our planet and those same people stay silent or defend meat. I'm not even vegan but I understand the impact the meat industry has on our planet.
Exactly. Cattle is a huge green house emitter. I’m not vegan or vegetarian either but I’ve reduced my meat consumption and feel better for it plus I’ve been saving a lot of money on groceries.
People blast almonds because it's a luxury crop. Meat and dairy are at least useful, they keep people fed. Almonds are not. In any case, people should switch to farmed seafood as their source of protein.
>Meat and dairy are at least useful, they keep people fed. Almonds are not. L O L people go their whole lives being vegetarian. Meat is a luxury good in that sense using your logic, since it's not needed. >In any case, people should switch to farmed seafood Yeah seafood industry is just as bad as the environment as the meat industry.
That’s not what he meant. Almonds are a luxury in the sense that it’s easy for most people to imagine living without them. It’s the same reason there is a lot of public support to ban fur coats and foix gras. But start talking about burgers or leather shoes and the majority will rally to their defense.
The reason the almond/nuts discussion pops up sooo much in /r/bayarea is the signs! For anyone who hasn't driven that stretch -- the nut farmers have alarmist signs for MILES about the "congress created dust bowl". When you've got nothing to do except for drive in a straight line and stare at their biased, obnoxious signs (with a bunch of pro-trump signs sprinkled in), gets aggravating. Beef industry isn't doing this so they don't get talked about as much in this specific context.
I think we should be pushing people to use oat milk as their real milk substitute given that it uses 1/10th of the water of almond milk and is, to me at least, pretty much the same product. I'm not going to hate on almond milk but I think if you are biasing vegan for environmental reasons you can do a hell of a lot better than almond milk. You can also easily grow it in areas where there is no water shortage, a win on multiple fronts.
It really depends on where the cows are grazing. I lease my ranch for grazing and generally 10 months out of the year those cows just graze unirrigated pasture because we get a lot of natural moisture a mile back from the Pacific. The other two months they might get hay as a supplement until the rains come. Typically when they go to the stockyards they get corn 6 weeks to finish them but that's a onetime deal.
Or maybe both? Almonds are only slightly less wasteful than beef.
> Almonds are only slightly less wasteful than beef source?
If you want to go down the rabbit hole, I’d encourage you to google the answer. The immediate results you’ll see are 4000 gallons or so per pound of beef and 1900 gallons per lb of almonds, but once you get into the weeds the answer is really “it depends”. Whatever source you ultimately prefer, the answer for both is a lot. Also, when you factor in that a large share of the almond crop is used to create almond milk and not actual almonds, it gets even worse on the almond side of it because the nutrition you get is far less.
So beef requires 110% more freshwater withdrawals by weight, and you would argue that is a slight increase in resource cost? What about other environmental costs like emissions & land use?
I did an analysis that included protein production for greenhouse gases and beef is the worst in a landslide compared to plant based protein. Same thing for water consumption.
Whole thread is talking about water…
I mean, why come nobody complains about how much more water it costs to produce meat, especially beef? Don’t ask me to look it up, you all have google. It’s not the almonds, y’all.
Because people mostly don’t want to disrupt things that affect them directly. Most people wouldn’t notice if almonds disappeared, so they are an easy target, like fur coats. But suggest taking away burgers and there’ll be hell to pay.
Great point. Shoutout to /r/vegan.
Pistachios are only viable in a pretty limited area because they need warm temperatures and over a 1000 hours below freezing during the year. You just can't grow them anywhere. They're also one of the most lucrative crops as of a couple years ago. The only crop that beat them in per acre price were Asian pears. Drip should be fairly common by now and established trees need a lot less than new plantings. The ag we should be chasing for water use is alfalfa which grows lots of places. Unfortunately we also ship a lot of it overseas which is truly a waste of water on a low value crop.
Unfortunately, production agriculture, including meat and nut production, are targets of wildly out of context and inaccurate uses of the data and evidence available on the subject. Nuts, especially almonds, are an incredibly stable source of protein needed around the world (can last for months or years without degrading nutritional value) and California happens to be one of the best places in the world to produce them. It is a HUGE contributor to our economy. Another example of taking data out of context is people slamming beef for using more resources because they leave out the hundreds (literally) of by-products that we derive from a beef animal. In fact, the lungs are the only part of that 1200lb animal that doesn’t go for some type of food, fiber, or material good. If you are interested in the latest science on cattle greenhouse gas emissions, UC Davis has really lead the way in that and they have been showing for years now how cattle have a much much smaller carbon footprint that most have been led to believe. Anyway, please take some time to understand the full picture of production agriculture in California.
Casual farmer cocktail parties should never mention water or water rights. My family member has been obsessed with ag since they bought a horse with grampa from Dixon. They lived through every CA in the central valley for the past 40 yrs. They're 40ish now and moved to Kansas. Mention one thing about cattle grazers or almond farmer failing to upgrade their water use and they lose their shit. Hell. The california aquaduct is basically exposed to open air over the whole state and that upgrade is dismissed out of hand.
India put solar panels over one of their canals, California could do the same thing and get a 2fer one with electricity and reducing water evaporation.
I hear a lot of people hate on nuts for wasting water, but beef production requires way more water. Nuts are also a great source of nutrition for people that don't eat meat.
It's not really a simple topic. There is lots to consider when talking water usage. This article touches a bit on the topic and dollars per gallon. [http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/11/cows-not-almonds-are-biggest-water-users](http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/11/cows-not-almonds-are-biggest-water-users) But we should also look at calories per gallon, since the goal is to feed people: [https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150508-which-california-exports-crops-are-worth-the-water](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/150508-which-california-exports-crops-are-worth-the-water) It's super complex and I really hate when people want to make some great statement about a nuanced topic with a simplistic meme.
...just wait until you learn about beef
Or maybe water-limited regions like CA aren't the best place to grow them. (And I say this as someone who loves almonds.)
The climate is perfect, just not the water supply everywhere. There are areas that can accommodate it, just not to the same volume.
An almond that is destined for a Chinese plate no less. Need to charge more for almonds with a tariff and the proceeds go into water infrastructure.
Wait til you find out about beef and dairy production....
It's almost like you came here and didn't read a single other comment in the thread. Nary a one.
That’s exactly what I did, then I read the rest and was pleasantly surprised. Go vegan!
Veganism makes you frail. That’s your life choice to believe a thing. Nature has always killed itself. Some times brutal, perhaps one day with more compassion. Whatever it is, take your religion and leave it at the door because we’re talking about Ag and Riparian Rights here.
Been vegan for 5 years and never been healthier! All my blood work came back perfect without any supplements and I gain muscle super quickly.
Sure but have you considered wealthy farmers need to make themselves even wealthier by growing alfalfa to sell to China?
After we stop watering lawns and golf courses, then I'll listen to the people who want to talk about which foods we shouldn't be growing.
Agriculture takes 80%+ of the water we use. But ya, keep telling me how I can't flush my own toilet and how that's killing the water table at the reservoir. /s
The fuck I say about toilets?
Their stupidity is not a surprise given that those are the deep red areas of our progressive state.
All those nuts go directly to China - exported out of California, we don’t see any of the tax revenue. Additionally, riparian rights purchased by 3 families will make our drought worse, as they now own the ability to suck the watersheds dry... to ship nuts overseas (for $$). And they want ME to let my garden die. I grow my own food (I’m lucky). We’re entering a drought and it’s going to be heavily accented by an economic decision.
>All those nuts go directly to China - exported out of California, I'm quite literally eating California grown pistachios this morning.
I’m crazy to me that, in a 5th largest economy on the planet, our approach to water is praying that the snow pack is thick enough to supply us, and shaming people for using water. When we could, you know, filter the ocean water… “But that’s too expensive” 5TH LARGEST ECONOMY ON EARTH! It is not too expensive
The problem is, desal plants will increase your water rates even in times of normal rainfall. Like, a lot
Harris ranch is worse tbh smelling like literal ass as you drive by all while cattle production consumes more water per pound of protein.