Bill Davidow and Michael S. Malone write in The Wall Street Journal that recent rains have barely made a dent in California's enduring drought, now in its fourth year so it's time to solve the state’s water problem with radical solutions, and they can begin with “virtual water.” This concept describes water that is used to produce food or other commodities, such as cotton. According to Davidow and Malone, when those commodities are shipped out of state, virtual water is exported. Today California exports about six trillion gallons of virtual water, or about 500 gallons per resident a day. How can this happen amid drought? The problem is mis-pricing. If water were priced properly, it is a safe bet that farmers would waste far less of it, and the effects of California’s drought—its worst in recorded history—would not be so severe. "A free market would raise the price of water, reflecting its scarcity, and lead to a reduction in the export of virtual water," say Davidow and Malone. "A long history of local politics, complicated regulation and seemingly arbitrary controls on distribution have led to gross inefficiency."
For example, producing almonds is highly profitable when water is cheap but almond trees are thirsty, and almond production uses about 10% of California’s total water supply. The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. "Suppose an almond farmer could sell real water to any buyer, regardless of county boundaries, at market prices—many hundreds of dollars per acre-foot—if he agreed to cut his usage in half, say, by drawing only two acre-feet, instead of four, from his wells," say the authors. "He might have to curtail all or part of his almond orchard and grow more water-efficient crops. But he also might make enough money selling his water to make that decision worthwhile." Using a similar strategy across its agricultural industry, California might be able to reverse the economic logic that has driven farmers to plant more water-intensive crops. "This would take creative thinking, something California is known for, and trust in the power of free markets," conclude the authors adding that "almost anything would be better, and fairer, than the current contradictory and self-defeating regulations."
(Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Friday March 27 2015, @08:04PM
One of the problems with agriculture in California is that they receive subsidized water. My housemate and I practice water conservation. As a result, we use about 3000 gallons of water a month and pay maybe about $15/month (I'm guessing; I don't have my bill in front of me) plus fees associated with sewer service and being hooked up to the water system in the first place. I wonder how much would an almond grower pay for his water if he paid what I paid for water per gallon? Maybe we ought to find out.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Friday March 27 2015, @10:24PM
Different situation.
Almonds don't net potable water. Almonds don't need sewage treatment plants.
All they need is raw water, and they might even be in the market for your gray water.
What the trees don't consume soaks into the ground or is evaporated. (I can't speak to almonds in particular, but most hot climate farming has made significant progress in preventing loss to evaporation, watering under ground or directly to the plants).
(Score: 1) by wisnoskij on Friday March 27 2015, @11:04PM
This. The almonds they are shipping are dry and only a few percent water by weight. Growing plants is only improving the water situation.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Saturday March 28 2015, @01:57AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html [slate.com]
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday March 28 2015, @05:23AM
Would you rather buy your almonds from the Mid-East? Don't we have enough problems from buying stuff from that part of the world already?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:14AM
I would rather not buy them at all. I rarely eat them and never buy them. So there! :-P
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Friday March 27 2015, @11:07PM
Yeah...because california needs to be less competitive in the American market. Ok, let them go and tax farmers and completely obliterate farming in california. Since their budgets are all in surplus this shouldn't be a problem for the economy, right?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 28 2015, @02:10AM
The fact that farming is possible at all in an arid region with some of the highest costs of living in the country shows that there is something wrong with the monetary imbalance. Any farmer anywhere should be able to outcompete one from Cali on price alone, yet it does not happen. There are dramatic hidden factors in there somewhere (like paying illegals a tiny fraction of what is ethical and legal).