Agreed. Considering the reason the existing crops are grown is because they make the most sense for the grower there is no real reason to think there currently are crops that would be better. Not everything makes money, not everything grows under all conditions.
If there was a crop that would make nut money and use minimum water farmers would go to it.
Yeah despite how some farmers are portrayed, especially the smaller ones, they do shift their crops when they can or need to. Cannabis, soy beans, almonds… there’s been shifting to where the money is, where the livelihood is for some time now.
Now lets just shift over to what almond and soy and pea and oat milks have been doing to dairy milk.
How much are the farmers paying for the water? If its not a market system, I don’t see how we can be so assured that the water is being used in the most useful way, even in narrow economic terms.
Good grief. I mean, I wrote this:
Yes, exactly. If they’re growing something else, their employees are still going to shop in local businesses, etc. It’s a ridiculous number they’re claiming.
This is key. The water is treated as a free resource for those who have ancient water rights. In times of drought, there is so much water pumped from the aquifer that the ground sinks enough to cause damage to roads and bridges in the valley.
The water isn’t free. Even those with old rights (and those laws are insane) pay for their water. And pumping is expensive all though solar is now powering many of those pumps. But there is a Catch-22 with thinking they should just not grow anything, or grow cactus. During droughts the economy is already damaged, add just not growing and areas of the valley will look like the depression.
And yes, they are pumping too much from the ground. Agreed. But even though legislation has been passed to increase above ground water storage (and locations have been named) there is in state government a refusal to actually do anything above ground.
The states population has doubled and no additional water storage has been added. I know of one community that spent millions on desalination and then abandoned it when it became more of a problem than a help. I don’t know what the answer is long term, but crippling ag is various areas of the state isn’t really an answer. It is merely treating a symptom.
Ok, maybe not free, but also not subject to anything resembling market forces.
As to above ground water projects, AFAIK they all involve further damaging the delta ecosystem in the long term to preserve those ancient water rights.
IMHO, any and all above ground water projects related to importing water from elsewhere (such as the delta) need to be balanced with a more sustainable approach to managing the existing water resources in the valley.
Current AG processes are like overfishing, and will hurt everyone down the road. AG needs to do much better at allocating resources, and if the current model of avoiding market forces is perpetuated, the valley will either suffer long term damage, or inflict it across the state (and exacerbate other crises the state faces).
Did you know they have taken away farm water in an attempt to get salmon back in the San Joaquin river, a river which hasn’t reached the ocean in 50+ years? That has nothing to do with the Delta. How about the crap Stockton and other cities dump into the Delta? And the rice farmers?
Above ground water storage has more to do with some mythical ecological repair than anything else in some areas. However, I will agree that cities and farmers both need to learn how to use water better. But I would bet that farmers have actually learned to conserve better than cities.
I know there is a water problem, but I guess my point is that too many people there is only one bad guy in the equation when in reality there is no easy answer without the entire state, city dwellers and farmers, doing their best. It really pisses me off to drive a freeway and see overhead sprinklers being used at 3pm on a 100 degree day, or a shopping center doing that, and yet you see that all the time.
See in Cook County Illinois, during the summer, they have restrictions on watering lawns. Max every other day. Even numbered houses on even number days, odd on odd. Is there similar watering restrictions in CA?
Also, given the water usage chart, it is clear that urban water use is dwarfed by agricultural. A 50% reduction in urban would be equivalent to <10% in Ag. Additionally it seems urban water use has decreased slightly in the last decade, while farm has increased.
So while, yes, everyone should do their part, clearly any meaningful impact is predominantly dependent on farming.
The sustainability of almond water use has yet to be determined, but this article does a good job looking at the overall environment. Essentially, during droughts, almonds lead to a lot more pumping out of the aquifer, and we’re going to see more frequent droughts.
Isn’t the real question about whether almonds are the most efficient food crop to grow with the available water? Efficient in terms of food value, I mean. We’re converting fresh water into food in a desert. What food should we be converting the water to? I doubt the invisible magic hand of the market has chosen the right one.
I keep saying it but hey found a chart so maybe that will help make the point better.
Very high water, but also high nutrients, calories. It’s not an empty food.
Helpful, but it doesn’t really answer the question. How much e.g. spinach and broccoli could you grow instead? Would that be a more efficient use of the water? I don’t know.
That’s an entire article based on what you’re asking. You can read it. It’s not just a chart. The important thing to note is it’s not just about Almonds but Pistachios and Walnuts is their nutritional offerings are considerably higher than several other items on the list.
But I am not sure you’re really asking about efficiency anyway which might be why you keep, not engaging in that area. It sounds like you are more interested in sustainability, and those two things are not the same.
heh
Yes, I read it. It notes (as I did) that other products produce high food value for much less water, and it notes (as I did) that almonds pay the best to grow. It doesn’t really answer the question otherwise.
I don’t think I am. I’m saying that if it were not for the higher financial value of almonds vs. broccoli, would anyone think it was a good idea to use so much fresh water to grow almonds in a desert?
They’re high nutritional items with more than just calories backing them. Of course using fresh water to grow them makes sense and is efficient to do. That’s what that chart literally shows you. It is telling you already exactly how efficient it is in the chart that tells you the water to nutrition ratio.
The problem is, that fresh water may not be sustainable, otherwise why even talk about it? There should be no doubt about the efficiencies of growing a protein like a nut, especially when we know the resources needed for something like dairy and meat is so much higher. The problem isn’t efficiency, it’s sustainability and the ability to continue to keep water flowing for agriculture and the population in the same region. That’s where the conversation needs to shift to. If we can’t sustain growing almonds in California, then what difference does it make how efficient it is? The water is simply not there.
You can’t grow those in the valley. They are being grown in abundance about 100 miles away in the Salinas Valley. That’s where the leafy veggies come from, and the artichokes etc. Brussel spouts as well.
Years ago cotton was king here. That is mostly, though not entirely gone. Being grown in another desert in Arizona.
Ag is a business. Big ag grows what sells at the highest profit. There are areas in the mid-west where they are paid not to grow corn, I imagine there are areas like that here where farmers are being paid not to grow something.
Water problems will eventually end the dairy and cattle business here. That is already happening. Cattle involve a lot of water.
Yes, I understand that:
:) 345