News

Outstanding journalism. Say the numbers and say their names. Do not let the water barons hide.

The generational accumulation of massive wealth and its centralization among only a few families is a hallmark of inequality, and it's no different for a farming empire than for a tech or finance empire.

When there is no more water, drink Alex Abatti's blood instead.

So they get the water for free and get paid for from tax dollars to conserve water?

Maybe if they actually had to pay for it, conserving water would be something they would do on their own just to to save money...

If I understand correctly from the article, it sounds like they're caught in a loop (sans Abattis family) and need something to change in order to further cut water usage (sans Abattis; because it sounds like they just don't give a fuck).

Basically if I got this right:

They grow a combination of food for humans and feedstock for animals; and most of the water is being consumed by feedstock.

They (sans Abattis family) are aware that they use a shitton of water and have been trying to take steps to reduce their water consumption, but doing so is expensive because of the equipment that's required.

They're able to grow feedstock because water is cheap enough for feedstock to be profitable, which is necessary to reduce their water consumption because growing food alone isn't as profitable enough.

Food isn't profitable enough because apparently the wholesale market value of food is so low that it's hard to make ends meet on food alone, which is why they also grow feedstock using cheap water.

However doing so means they consume a lot more water than they need to, which means they need better ways of getting water for their crops, which is something they're aware of and trying to address, but they need money for that, which comes from feedstock grown using cheap water, which means they consume a lot more water than they need to, and so on.

Then you have the Abattis family who appear to use significantly more water than the rest of the major families and just don't care.

Note: I'm not trying to excuse or justify their excessive water usage, but the article makes it sound like it's more complicated than "just cut their water access".

Land of the free water

Yet again irrigating to feed cattle which apparently only 10% of people eat.

Alright I'm dyslexic but I never saw the reznicks mentioned and they have to be a top family. Iirc they still own the California water Bank.

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?

Meanwhile, the government pays farmers where it rains and hay grows well to leave fields barren. It gives farmers welfare payments and increases grain prices.