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.
Agreed. Amazing research. Fuuuuck these people.
Asked this spring if it was fair for Imperial farmers to receive so much river water, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told The Desert Sun,“It is what it is. It’s called senior water rights, and they are well established in law. And they matter.”
The eastern US uses riparian water rights; everyone has the right to use a reasonable amount of water. If there’s not enough water, water usage is limited essentially equally across all the rights-holders.
The western US mostly uses the prior appropriation doctrine - “first in time, first in right”. Basically, as the west was being settled, you could use as much river water for a mine or settlement as you wanted, so long as you didn’t impact the people who were already there. In the case of a shortage, people with the most recent water rights have to reduce their usage so they don’t impact the senior water rights.
Western water rights maybe made sense originally as the first mines were being built, but they have inequality baked into them from the start. They don’t seem like a great system for the conservation challenges of today.
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…
They probably also get paid by the federal government to grow certain crops instead of others. The whole rural US is heavily supported by federal welfare.
What is inherently wrong with the government subsidizing industry?
Nothing in my opinion.
But it sure is frustrating when farming areas claim to hate welfare because it’s socialism while refusing to acknowledge the type of government welfare they rely on to live.
“I got mine, fuck you” is a pretty typical Republican attitude.
You are making big generalizations about the farmers and I don’t think them being hypocritical in their beliefs is a reason to punish them. Subsidizing agriculture goes way back in American history and I would say overall it is a good thing. It gives people access to staple foods that would otherwise be inaccessible to most of the population.
I said “nothing in my opinion” to the question of what’s wrong with subsidies. I’m not sure why you’re suggesting I was attacking them.
I didn’t generalize farmers, I generalized farming areas because there are political voting maps that demonstrate that.
Your response feels more like an agenda you’ve set out to explain, rather than a response to my comment.
You are making big generalizations about the farmers
“This landfill smells like shit.”
“That’s not true! That garbage pile over there came from a dumpster behind a candle company and they needed to dispose of last seasons stock!”
Why doesn’t this apply to when a particular group of people commit most of the violent crime?
You mean human males?
Poor people?
Nothing, but the subsidies go to stuff that should be replaced with sustainable alternatives. For example, reduce dairy subsidies and apply them to eco-friendly dairy alternatives.
People don’t want dairy alternatives, they want dairy.
People don’t really care that much. Make oat milk cheaper and people will start buying it more than cow milk. Make the “real” stuff a luxury, like how everyone loves crab rangoons when there’s no crab in them.
Mostly when the considerations are political instead of economic. Eg. Corn is subsidised to a ridiculous level because Iowa is an early caucus state.
It creates waste (ie. Water)
I feel like it has more to do with taking advantage of the government systems. Which is something companies and rich families are no stranger to doing.
Nothing per se, but many of these farmers get paid not to grow things and have been doing it for so long that they’ve found ways to game the system to collect money for nothing all the while electing Republicans to office and complaining about ‘welfare queens’ eating up all our tax dollars.
When government money dries up, say during an economic depression, so does the industries it supported. I imagine a lot of families get reliant on the welfare checks and if those checks ever dry up they are fucked because their business model is unsustainable on its own. If this were a luxury thing it wouldn’t be too bad of an issue but food production is pretty damn essential to a society.
If this were a luxury thing it wouldn’t be too bad of an issue but food production is pretty damn essential to a society
The reason it is subsidized is BECAUSE food production is essential to society. Isn’t that… a good thing?
Honestly I don’t have the expertise to know what im talking about here so take what I say as an uneducated opinion. In my mind, It is a good thing until it isnt. The subsidizing is a band-aid to the real issue of the farming business as it is being unsustainable. Its good that money goes to farmers so they can do it and make a profit or just break even, but if those checks ever stop showing up (again, most likely during a serious depression) then the situation goes from bad to worse as the farming industry collapses and potential starvation sets in. Ideally subsidizing should be treated as startup capital with the end goal being a farming industry that can support itself without government money. As to how that could be achieved I don’t know.
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”.
Maybe, they just need to not try to farm in the FUCKING DESERT.
Farming in the desert is as old as humans writing shit down.
That doesn’t mean keep doing it.
Yes but taking so much water from the river that it no longer reaches the fucking ocean is not.
You’re right about that; that is an industrial era issue.
That’s an appeal to tradition; a logical fallacy.
It is a statement that growing crops in a desert is something humans have done since humans developed agriculture.
The alternative is removing a ton of food from the market, spiking inflation.
I’m not invested in this topic argument. I was just interested in highlighting your logical fallacy.
Critical thinking and logic has been on a decline in modern societies, and I believe it’s important to point it out so that hopefully people learn to refine their beliefs/illogical thinking tendencies.
I’m sure you can make logical points in an argument advocating for farming in the desert. But that doesn’t change the fact that your previous argument explicitly used a logical fallacy and therefore is invalid.
Again, I’m not interested in debating this subject, so you’d be wasting your time trying to convince me of your perspective. I was just trying to help you improve your arguments/promote logical thinking.
For those not OP, it is still good to analyze new ideas against standard practice as a way to refine the argument further.
The argument that “people shouldn’t live in deserts” may sound good on the surface, people need water and therefore people should live next to a water source. However, this neglects the fact that rivers still flow through deserts and a lot of cradles of civilization came from deserts, in part due to the coordination required to water crops. It also doesn’t address that people no longer need to grow crops to make an area economicly productive. Some industries that don’t require water can be more water efficient, and therefore settlement may not strain as much of the limited water resources as possible.
A refinement of the argument to “the water resources of a desert shouldn’t be stretched to the point where rivers commonly run dry” is a better argument. It gets further to the issue at hand, using a limited resource isn’t a problem until you are using so much of the resource that you can’t handle shortages.
This isn’t an argument to OP, but for others reading.
So, not that old.
Also, factor in why the water became cheap and/or free. The Department of Reclamation ran around the west over the last century building dams and selling cheap water. These are now generations of family later doing what they have always done. Not apologizing for the behavior of the families, but the US government built this house of cards, they even knew as early as the 1950s that the water wasn’t going to support the growth rate, and basically decided, “Eh, that’s 50 years from now’s problem.” Even earlier on they realized the estimation for average Colorado River flow was incorrect. Capitalist “let’s just worry about this quarter” mentality led to where we are now, thanks government!
Some arbitrary “fun” facts throughout these learnings:
- There was actually a plan to build a series of 6 nuclear reactors and a pipeline from the Mississippi River to New Mexico to supplant their water usage.
- The Ogallala Aquifer that spans from the Dakotas to CO/NM/TX was predicted to run out in a similar 50 year timeframe. Many wells in NM now pump brine instead of water, because spoiler alert: it’s tapped.
- The Great Salt Lake’s water level has dropped so low now, that they have heavy metal dust storms. Unfortunately, this does not sound as good as it sounds.
Wish we could just grow food and sell at-cost while we all pitched in to subsidize the wages of those involved, but I guess wasting more water than some states use just to make a profit is a good alternative system.
I bet we will see more and more farmers turn to pot and hemp as the industry grows. I bet that the wholesale margins on good pot are a lot better than that of food
Land of the free water
Yet again irrigating to feed cattle which apparently only 10% of people eat.
It’s 12% of Americans eat half the beef consumed every day. Of course, that 12% is mostly people 50-65.
Strange to imagine. I think I have beef once every two weeks or so? I wonder where that puts me on the scale of beef eaters.
Far from that group, for sure.
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.
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.
