Comment by sparrc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sparrc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

In a strictly capitalist sense yes, but then by that argument we should just completely cut off all California farmers since they seem to make less money per water used when compared to California cities (I'm just stating your argument, which I would argue is "dumb" and overly simplistic way of looking at the world).

You're missing the point that we are talking about regulating water usage external to the industry (in which people should and do care about water usage as it relates to sustainability of California as a whole), and water usage internal to the industry (in which an individual farmer cares about yields, efficiency, and economic value of crops).

Internal to farming the entire reason we have so many almonds in CA is exactly because it's a high-efficiency and high-value crop.

https://slate.com/business/2015/04/almonds-in-california-the...

"In a real sense, the almond industry is the future of California agriculture—high value, high efficiency, but still high consuming. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as it makes most sense to use a scarce resource for the highest value application possible."

> by that argument we should just completely cut off all California farmers since they seem to make less money per water used when compared to California cities

Well, no, because I was positing a better metric for competing agricultural uses, not the one-true-metric for all uses and, also, because even if it was the one true metric for all uses, unless water was the limiting factor for urban economic production, while it kight imply all cuts needed fron current consumption should cone from ag, it wouldn't imply additional cuts to ag to increase urban alotment. And, while the reverse allocation of cuts would cut all urban use in a foreseeable shortfall (because its such a small share to start with) any shortfall that would require ebough cuts to equal all agricultural use would be a a cataclysmic disaster no matte how the cuts were apportioned (and most would cone from agriculture because, even after you stopped giving any to people—whom you need for agriculture, anyway—you’d barely have dented the necessary total cuts.

okay, so you're arguing internal to farming. But then it's obviously being planted in huge numbers in modern times because it's a high-yield crop economically. Why else would farmers be planting it? Are you arguing that farmers are currently doing something that's against their economic best interests?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com