this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
430 points (98.4% liked)

News

36160 readers
3559 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I don't know how to resolve this kind of issue without it looking like a transfer of wealth from us fellow tax-payers to these big farm families:

  • Pay to purchase their water rights, and provide a place in a wetter area of California to resume growing,
  • or let them stay in place, pay to reduce their water usage

Or we spend real money and quality of life to illegally deny them water, but all our food prices go up, nevermind the legal costs.

At some point it won't matter what's legal or not, we need water to drink.

This is seemingly an expensive problem to resolve, but two key items need to be cared for, no matter the decision: skilled farmers who knows how to produce need to be kept working if they choose, and we need to start thinking in a more than quarterly manner to plan for long term success. Who thought growing food in the desert was a good idea?

[–] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

C) charge them the for the water they are pulling out of a river they don't actually own.

They decided to farm in a desert because they could pass the enormous cost of doing so to other people. They aren't owed shit.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Sure, that's a given. But longer term.... I think we gotta get people out of the desert in terms of farming. Trade forests for farms? I dislike the hell out of that. There's gotta be something else.

[–] UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

These farms produce alfalfa for animal feed, almost exclusively. We just don't need the amount of meat that we currently consume, it's just about the least efficient way to turn water into food. We could just lose these farms entirely and it would just make steak and dairy products a bit more expensive, which they probably should be given the massive environmental impact from producing them.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado-drought-water-alfalfa-farmers-conservation

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

All valid points in my opinion, I'm just trying to think of what we need to set as goals for California's farming operations long term. I'm a resident here and I want this place to succeed.

Success could certainly look like cheaper fruits and veggies vs meat and byproducts if the land were guided to being food producing vs feedcrops.