Results 51 to 75 of 168
Thread: California's dry ..... again
-
06-01-2021, 03:03 PM #51"When the child was a child it waited patiently for the first snow and it still does"- Van "The Man" Morrison
"I find I have already had my reward, in the doing of the thing" - Buzz Holmstrom
"THIS IS WHAT WE DO"-AML -ski on in eternal peace
"I have posted in here but haven't read it carefully with my trusty PoliAsshat antenna on."-DipshitDanno
-
06-01-2021, 03:04 PM #52
In the late 1800s, the US and Argentina had similar GDP but since then, each respective country has grown at remarkably different rates. Some argue that the reason the US was able to grow so fast compared to Argentina is the US was able to populate its arid west with subsidized water diversion and the interstate system where as Argentina's pampus remain largely unpopulated even today. Does suck if you are Benny though, and you are paying for all that water subsidy even though you live in a flat, wet, state.
-
06-01-2021, 03:15 PM #53
-
06-01-2021, 03:16 PM #54
Anybody have the stats on water use by hemp or cannabis relative to other crops? I’ve heard water agencies express concerns when/if farmers transition from rice to hemp or cannabis.
Related
https://m.northcoastjournal.com/humb...t?oid=20524029
-
06-01-2021, 03:49 PM #55
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the answer is a lot more complicated than government-funded water projects. I'm also not even against said water projects in principle. I'm against ones that don't make economic sense (these are mostly in the past and not relevant now) or that use fictional water (Lake Powell Pipeline), and I'm against guilt-tripping/gaslighting city dwellers that use a tiny fraction of the overall water supply.
-
06-01-2021, 04:35 PM #56
That and "Beyond the 100th Meridian" should be required reading for anyone in the West.
Unfortunately, what's done is done. Certainly city dwellers, farmers, and ranchers can use less water but the problem is way too big for flow restricted shower heads and drip irrigation. In the long run drought in the West is going to require very disruptive and very painful changes. Kinda like global warming.
-
06-01-2021, 04:38 PM #57Rope->Dope
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- I-70 West
- Posts
- 4,684
-
06-01-2021, 05:06 PM #58
-
06-01-2021, 05:27 PM #59
Cannabis yields about 5 grams per gallon indoors, and about 3 grams per gallon outdoors
https://mjbizdaily.com/rethinking-wa...20per%20gallon.
Note that the indoor numbers are probably low - plants under HPS lights take about 2x the water as LED lights.
For comparison,
a single almond requires 1 gallon
one oz of beef requires 106 gallons
https://www.businessinsider.com/real...ed-meat-2015-4
-
06-01-2021, 05:42 PM #60
i picked up cadillac desert a few years ago while driving around the west. fascinating and did not realize what a heady read i was in for.
i'm in bozeman till xmas, 95 forecasted here thurs. shade for the van is becoming a priority quickly. lots of blacktop and wide open.
-
06-01-2021, 06:28 PM #61
Thanks. I’ve heard it specifically referenced to replacing rice farms with industrial hemp farms and the supposed large increase in water demand of hemp to rice. When I had tried to look it up a while ago, when I heard the concern/fear being expressed, I could not find good data on water demand for industrial hemp. It can/will be used to push for more dams and additional water storage.
I know that indoor cannabis grows are a concern for many cities and counties, especially in times of drought, because their infrastructure is not set-up for it. Treated water providers will be penalized for high water use, and indoor gardens do not often counted separately from other indoor uses when they could be counted separately as something like indoor agriculture (with special water meters) and not result in penalizing the water agencies and other users. (Getting into the weeds here-HA!)
-
06-01-2021, 06:29 PM #62
-
06-01-2021, 06:33 PM #63
-
06-01-2021, 07:09 PM #64
In Oregon, water use is a consideration when granting a growers license. Jurisdictions can veto a license if new water use would overrun supply. And IIRC, outdoor cannabis grows here require proof that you control rights to sufficient water.
Here in Central OR, our water (at least Bend and Sisters) comes from snowmelt that percolates thru volcanic rock. What we drink today fell as snow 20 years ago. So we have a good buffer - at least for now. Who knows how temp increases will affect future precipitation here
-
06-01-2021, 07:32 PM #65Registered User
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Posts
- 9,850
Take that water per gram of beef with a grain of salt; the amount of water is higher for high density/intensity feed lot operations, lower for grass fed/pastured beef. Same is true for all meat production: depends on nature of production.
-
06-01-2021, 08:06 PM #66
-
06-01-2021, 10:46 PM #67
I'm curious, I followed some of the links and they didn't say. Are those numbers (the gallons per almond, for ex) based on the consumptive use of the plant or the amount of water applied to get that almond. Because those are two very different things. Lots of water applied in irrigation gets returned to the system.
"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
06-02-2021, 12:37 AM #68
That article is a bit misleading. First, the majority of beef cattle ranching in the state is not on feed lots, that's where they spend the last month or so before slaughter. The 3 years prior are spent in the mostly un-irrigated fields and hills that can't otherwise be farmed. The 'forages' water is usually part of a crop rotation that is necessary to keep the fields productive for other crops, so at least the crop isn't going to waste. That article also doesn't speak to these things and just mostly seems to be anti-meat. Or maybe just pro-almond. Might make sense that a business news site would be pro-almond since almonds make up 25% of CA ag export revenue. That article also conveniently is silent about where these products are going. I don't have as much of an issue if we're consuming these things domestically, but the fact is we're shipping our water across the planet in the form of almonds, rice, cotton and cheese. That's a big fucking problem.
We export the ever-living shit out of almonds. 62% of our 2020 almond crop is exported to other nations (demand has been falling or maybe we have a supply glut since we've increased the harvest by 30% in 5 years, exports were over 70% a few years back), 95%(!!!) of our cotton, and 48% of our rice (mostly to Japan and China), ~30% of our hay (alfalfa livestock feed because that can be grown literally ANYWHERE). Compare that to 34% of our dairy shipping out and only 8% of beef. So yeah, I'm gonna fucking hate on almonds because that's where the problem is, followed by cotton and rice. The problem isn't our kids suffering through 106* days at public splash pad, it's not the cheese on my pizza, but the almonds we're sending to the EU by the containership load. We're exporting our scarce water to the EU, China and Japan in the form of these cash crops so a handful of corporate farmers can get rich while the public is told we can't water our lawn and need to let the yellow mellow. These countries are perfectly capable of growing this shit too.
Here's the summarized data. Not an article with an agenda. Draw your own conclusions about where the problem is.
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/P...s2015-2016.pdf
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/P...ublication.pdfWait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp
-
06-02-2021, 08:27 AM #69
Water rights are tied to the land in CA? So why don't the tech bros who are pissed about mellow yellow buy up all the almond farms, let them sit fallow, and then they can water their lawns to their heart's content. At least almonds aren't subsidized like corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice. The free market has decided the best use of that land, and the accompanying water rights, is growing almonds. They are healthy and support a plant based diet. And why is exporting agriculture bad? That is like saying it is bad for the US to have factories that export. One of the primary purposes of free trade agreements and the WTO is to grow shit where it makes sense to grow and then export those products internationally. Almonds grow in mediterranean climates, and CA is one of the best places on earth to grow them.
-
06-02-2021, 08:37 AM #70
-
06-02-2021, 08:50 AM #71
your idea of a "free" market and reality that others perceive differ greatly
https://mojaveproject.org/dispatches...le-with-cadiz/
if you cant produce product with a subsidized ingredient
your shit is subsidized
you can put yappin legal beagle twist on it but the rest of us dont buy that bullshit"When the child was a child it waited patiently for the first snow and it still does"- Van "The Man" Morrison
"I find I have already had my reward, in the doing of the thing" - Buzz Holmstrom
"THIS IS WHAT WE DO"-AML -ski on in eternal peace
"I have posted in here but haven't read it carefully with my trusty PoliAsshat antenna on."-DipshitDanno
-
06-02-2021, 09:05 AM #72Hucked to flat once
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Idaho
- Posts
- 10,953
-
06-02-2021, 09:13 AM #73
There are agriculture subsidies which involve direct payments to farmers so that the the price the US can export the crop is less than what the price would be absent the subsidy (frowned on by the WTO but the US still does this, like most other countries). Almonds aren't on this list. You could argue that every drop of water in places like CA, and SLC, is "subsidized" because back in the 50s and 60s the federal government built massive water diversion projects and the people living in these places did not have to foot the entire bill. But under that definition of "subsidized" every drop of water in the US is subsidized since we are all drinking water that the feds help bring to our faucet. The drier places receiving more federal teat than the wetter places. Bottom line, the water almond farmers use in CA is no more "subsidized" than LA and San Diego, who rely on the Colorado River Aqueduct to supply water.
-
06-02-2021, 09:17 AM #74"fuck off you asshat gaper shit for brains fucktard wanker." - Jesus Christ
"She was tossing her bean salad with the vigor of a Drunken Pop princess so I walked out of the corner and said.... "need a hand?"" - Odin
"everybody's got their hooks into you, fuck em....forge on motherfuckers, drag all those bitches across the goal line with you." - (not so) ill-advised strategy
-
06-02-2021, 09:17 AM #75
Exporting water intensive crops from a desert is bad because the 40 million residents of the state (and more if you count the surrounding states they're drawing water from) are suffering because these corporate farmers want to make a buck. Their water is subsidized on a monumental level; every dam, canal, and lift station in the state exists to quench their thirst. Hell, we have an entire division of our state government dedicated to maintaining and operating our water conveyance facilities with a $2.9 billion dollar annual budget. I'm all for producing food, and producing food for our nation, but exporting almonds is squandering our resources and there's a difference.
And if almonds grow best in Mediterranean climates, why don't they grow enough of them in the Mediterranean? Why do we ship the bulk of them to the EU? Can China grow alfalfa? We're best suited to grow all of this because we're putting our citizens second to corporate profits.Wait, how can we trust this guy^^^ He's clearly not DJSapp
Bookmarks