• UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year 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.