Alfalfa and Almonds!

[krazeenyc]

http://news.yahoo.com/california-water-cuts-move-those-century-old-rights-070906782--finance.html

 

Eric should be doing a happy dance somewhere!

 

The water rights system is interesting.

[Gamecock-YT]

Didn't Michael Burry buy a bunch of almond farms?

[Jurgis]

The above might be a good reason not to invest in companies that are promoted as water plays: as soon as the water becomes scarce/expensive, they can be forced to give up some of their rights.

 

PICO, BWEL should be running high on water shortages, but they are not.

 

I still wonder if someone will try to pump-and-dump these using the water theme...

 

Disclaimer: I've looked at PICO, BWEL in the past but have not done in depth DD recently.

[Pelagic]

Complaining about water usage by alfalfa farmers in California is somewhat misleading since most alfalfa is grown in the Imperial valley which has a different water source that are can't really be used elsewhere in the state due to the cost of transporting water. While alfalfa uses a high percentage of California's water, its not part of the same pie so to speak. Almonds are tricky since trees can last decades and take many years to bear fruit, you can't really stop farming them although farmers could make switches to more efficient methods.

[ERICOPOLY]

Complaining about water usage by alfalfa farmers in California is somewhat misleading since most alfalfa is grown in the Imperial valley which has a different water source that are can't really be used elsewhere in the state due to the cost of transporting water. While alfalfa uses a high percentage of California's water, its not part of the same pie so to speak.

 

It costs a lot of money to bring water from the northern reaches of the state down to Southern California.

 

Southern California cities could rely less on the State Water Project if they could take more water from the Colorado River. 

 

They already take some of the Colorado river's water:

http://www.sdcwa.org/colorado-river

 

And yes, the alfalfa farmers of the Imperial Valley Water District are relying on the Colorado river's water.  So if they gave up some of it, then more would be available to Southern California cities which aren't that far away.

 

And that would reduce the dependence on Northern California's expensive-to-transport water.

 

It's a bit like a shell game.

 

But it doesn't make sense to have that enormous canal from the north going all the way down to Southern California if they have the Colorado River right there in their backyards.

 

[sys]

a big difference between alfalfa/corn, etc and almonds is that in drought years you don't have to plant the annual crops.  almonds need water every year.

 

it might be a workable model for some valley farmers with senior water rights to plant annual crops in years with good snows and to fallow everything and sell their water in drought years.

[Pelagic]

Complaining about water usage by alfalfa farmers in California is somewhat misleading since most alfalfa is grown in the Imperial valley which has a different water source that are can't really be used elsewhere in the state due to the cost of transporting water. While alfalfa uses a high percentage of California's water, its not part of the same pie so to speak.

It costs a lot of money to bring water from the northern reaches of the state down to Southern California.

 

Southern California cities could rely less on the State Water Project if they could take more water from the Colorado River. 

 

It was probably easier as demand increased to incrementally bring water South by tying into the existing system than taking more from the Colorado River. I'd like to see a study done on how much more the Colorado River could provide and what it would cost to get it there. The Southerly flow of water was certainly never designed to handle the load that's placed on it now, cutting back usage is only a temporary fix, demand is increasing and I don't see that stopping any time soon so more water has to come from somewhere whether it's the Colorado River, desalinization plants, more reservoirs or something else.

[ERICOPOLY]

I found an article that measures how much the rest of America depends on California water.

 

My penalty is $45 per 748 gallons that I use in excess of my ration.  So a family of four living in Virginia, for example, uses 1,200 gallons of California's water each week.  My marginal cost for 1,200 gallons is $72.  I just found that sort of interesting. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/21/us/your-contribution-to-the-california-drought.html

 

The average American consumes more than 300 gallons of California water each week by eating food that was produced there.

[Guest Schwab711]

Complaining about water usage by alfalfa farmers in California is somewhat misleading since most alfalfa is grown in the Imperial valley which has a different water source that are can't really be used elsewhere in the state due to the cost of transporting water. While alfalfa uses a high percentage of California's water, its not part of the same pie so to speak.

It costs a lot of money to bring water from the northern reaches of the state down to Southern California.

 

Southern California cities could rely less on the State Water Project if they could take more water from the Colorado River. 

 

It was probably easier as demand increased to incrementally bring water South by tying into the existing system than taking more from the Colorado River. I'd like to see a study done on how much more the Colorado River could provide and what it would cost to get it there. The Southerly flow of water was certainly never designed to handle the load that's placed on it now, cutting back usage is only a temporary fix, demand is increasing and I don't see that stopping any time soon so more water has to come from somewhere whether it's the Colorado River, desalinization plants, more reservoirs or something else.

 

Stay away from Colorado water! :)