Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are including agriculture in your reference to 'business' then yes. Yet that doesn't much change the observation I offered since the ag business represents such a very small part of state GDP. It represents a very small number of people who own ag land, the also small number who are contracting growers, and the small number of field workers, all combined, relative to the total population, and other businesses, in consideration for water requirements.
..
Actually it is a huge part of the economy. Virtually every dollar made, maybe a small part of the GDP, is usually spent in some way IN CA. If AG went away, so would the workers, the stores and business they go to, the trucking companies that haul their AG products, the businesses distributing it and the cities and counties would face disastrous monetary problems. Multiply the AG GDP contribution by 5 to 10 times and then take that away and all the taxes and fees associated with the spending again and again of that money as it flows through the system and ... well the non AG population will see their taxes go way up and food costs as well.
Actually it is a huge part of the economy. Virtually every dollar made, maybe a small part of the GDP, is usually spent in some way IN CA. If AG went away, so would the workers, the stores and business they go to, the trucking companies that haul their AG products, the businesses distributing it and the cities and counties would face disastrous monetary problems. Multiply the AG GDP contribution by 5 to 10 times and then take that away and all the taxes and fees associated with the spending again and again of that money as it flows through the system and ... well the non AG population will see their taxes go way up and food costs as well.
The same relationship to other ancillary and service businesses exists for all other business. Thus the impact to the state is proportional. It is a very small piece of the total pie. Its resource drain however is disproportional.
You asked what could be done to provide water for the state. I pointed to the biggest user with the smallest GDP and population footprints.
Also fun to point out that the greatest number of people who would become directly unemployed are the field workers, most of whom are illegals, which is the very group most posters here vilify most often. Now you cite that putting them out of work would be both cruel and would hurt all the businesses they support. So we see an admission here that illegals contribute to the economy after all.
And does it make sense for the state to provide water to such agribusinesses, such as rice growers, who sell most of their crops to Japan?
And yes, rice growing is still allowed in this drought. What do rice paddies require? Lots and lots of water.
But, hey, if you watch the Ducks Unlimited commercials, you'll learn that the rice growers are doing their part during the drought, by making sure the rice paddies survive so the ducks can live on.
Anyone know the latest update on the idea to remove salt from some Pacific Ocean water to give California more water? I know very little about the topic but first impression is it sounds really logical.
Right now, in Carlsbad, 50 miles north of San Diego at the site of the old Encina Power Plant (aka "Warm Waters"). It should have/could have been done long ago, save for politics.
In a global economy, the food produced in California can and would be quickly replaced somewhere else. The demand for those products doesn't go away and the fact that the AG economy is a mere $50 Billion in a $2.2 Trillion dollar economy states that shutting off water to the the other $2.2 trillion so AG can gobble up 80% of the water is ridiculous.
AG represents a serious drain of resources and CA would be wise to get rid of it. The food production, again would be very rapidly replaced in other areas where it is far more cost effective to grow the replacement crops.
Already many many crops are sourced from Mexico, Costa Rica, other parts of South America.
CA would likely be wealthier and GDP even higher because getting rid of these water restrictions which negatively affect more of the GDP already, would be instantly relieved.
Reducing AG would be like creating FIVE times the amount of water in the state. AG only exists because of a huge subsidy by gobbling up all the water, importing and exploiting undocumented labor that consumes more resources than pays in in taxes.
Big AG is the most profligate exploiter and consumer of precious resources in the state. They can and should be replaced globally, 99% of the residents of this state would be far better off.
In a global economy, the food produced in California can and would be quickly replaced somewhere else. The demand for those products doesn't go away and the fact that the AG economy is a mere $50 Billion in a $2.2 Trillion dollar economy states that shutting off water to the the other $2.2 trillion so AG can gobble up 80% of the water is ridiculous.
AG represents a serious drain of resources and CA would be wise to get rid of it. The food production, again would be very rapidly replaced in other areas where it is far more cost effective to grow the replacement crops.
Already many many crops are sourced from Mexico, Costa Rica, other parts of South America.
CA would likely be wealthier and GDP even higher because getting rid of these water restrictions which negatively affect more of the GDP already, would be instantly relieved.
Reducing AG would be like creating FIVE times the amount of water in the state. AG only exists because of a huge subsidy by gobbling up all the water, importing and exploiting undocumented labor that consumes more resources than pays in in taxes.
Big AG is the most profligate exploiter and consumer of precious resources in the state. They can and should be replaced globally, 99% of the residents of this state would be far better off.
You and I have made the same observation about agriculture usurping the state's water supply for a small relative economic return and thus being the most cost effective target for relief from the drought.
I do not however share your certainty of the long term benefits of eliminating the industry in large part. There are several consequences to consider. Among them are encouraging any new wave of population development in a state where the popular lands are so heavily impacted in many ways already. Another is that importing food from foreign sources increases trade dependencies that complicate international relationships and even national security. Then there are environmental and health concerns from transporting costs, both financial and pollution related, and obvious challenges in supervising all conditions of raising and packaging the foods. Layers of danger and complexities.
And does it make sense for the state to provide water to such agribusinesses, such as rice growers, who sell most of their crops to Japan?
And yes, rice growing is still allowed in this drought. What do rice paddies require? Lots and lots of water.
But, hey, if you watch the Ducks Unlimited commercials, you'll learn that the rice growers are doing their part during the drought, by making sure the rice paddies survive so the ducks can live on.
Yep, wag the dog.
Rice is grown mostly in areas that are floodprone even in drought years, areas that other crops wouldn't survive standing water.
I don't know, beyond conservation and waiting for rain now. But droughts being cyclical, as they are, and complex infrastructure being as expensive to build and run as they are, and complex infrastructure taking as long to plan and build and get operational as it does, by the time California would have its desal plants the drought would almost certainly be long past and you'd be stuck with non-operational facilities that cost the taxpayers all their arms and legs only to cost fortunes more to maintain non-functioning in anticipation of future droughts. Did you read the daily / annual cost of maintaining the plants in Australia that are not being used now their drought has ended? And you complain endlessly about taxes in California as it is without this?
You can't assume anything, anymore. You can't assume the drought is part of a natural cycle, vs. the "new normal" in an age of global warming. Also, it doesn't take that long to get desal up and running. It would take time to build infrastructure to pipe that water inland, but coastal communities could benefit from it immediately, as a few now are.
And bear in mind that the drought isn't only about rain. It's about snowpack. Even if there's rain, there could well be virtually no snowpack in years going forward. Washington State has only 3% of its usual snowpack at this time. That's going to affect not only water supplies, but electricity generating capacity. This doesn't look good at all. People all over the West are going on as if nothing has changed, making growth plans, economic development plans (the Tesla factory in Reno, already a desert dependent in part on no-longer-existent snowpack contributing to surface water, comes to mind. Dozens, soon hundreds of workers are flocking there, buying houses, awaiting the new factory, and city leaders are hoping Tesla's presence will attract other industries. Where will the water for all that come from?) based on an old paradigm of abundant resources. A collapse could come a lot sooner than people envision--literally, before they know it.
You can't assume anything, anymore. You can't assume the drought is part of a natural cycle, vs. the "new normal" in an age of global warming. Also, it doesn't take that long to get desal up and running. It would take time to build infrastructure to pipe that water inland, but coastal communities could benefit from it immediately, as a few now are.
And bear in mind that the drought isn't only about rain. It's about snowpack. Even if there's rain, there could well be virtually no snowpack in years going forward. Washington State has only 3% of its usual snowpack at this time. That's going to affect not only water supplies, but electricity generating capacity. This doesn't look good at all. People all over the West are going on as if nothing has changed, making growth plans, economic development plans (the Tesla factory in Reno, already a desert dependent in part on no-longer-existent snowpack contributing to surface water, comes to mind. Dozens, soon hundreds of workers are flocking there, buying houses, awaiting the new factory, and city leaders are hoping Tesla's presence will attract other industries. Where will the water for all that come from?) based on an old paradigm of abundant resources. A collapse could come a lot sooner than people envision--literally, before they know it.
With all due respect, the modern world quite literally turns on a stream of continual assumptions. All manner of planning and projections in every aspect of human endeavor is based on modelings based on using assumptions. This includes everything to do with atmospheric sciences including quite obviously the work of meteorologists who know a lot more about drought and cycles likely to evolve out of our changing climate than everyone posting here combined and about probably 1000x over. The consensus is extensively covered in media reports and in depth studies. The drought might be long, it might be short, but it is not predicted to be permanent. The desire for certainty is understandable. But there's no such thing. On the other hand, there is excellent modeling based on assumptions that have scientific foundations with successful track records.
People can make endless 'what if' lists out of their fears. But it's pretty pointless. And its also pointlessly expensive to invest in desal when there are better solutions.
Ultrarunner just mentioned buying water rights. And I would one up that by suggesting government could consider subsidizing not growing crops that use the greatest amounts of water that are also primarily for foreign export. If this could be worked out we'd enjoy the bounty of our valuable domestic produce, safeguard the aquifers better, and insure backup water supplies exist for population in time of long term drought. Creating better rainwater catchment storage is also worth considering, although that comes with compromise to the environment that utilizes the flushing effects of runoff.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
