A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
======================
Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on
swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?
======================

Fair enough. But I think a "simultaneous" bashing of agriculture is
appropriate.

Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are?

I believe that the needs of agriculture for water have been well defined by
hundreds, even thousands of years of cultivation of crops, and that you have
little credibility when it comes to criticising agriculture.

On the swimmings pools et al, Scott, I suspect you are
absolutely right.

So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.

In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to us on
how much of it comes from California.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
====================
Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass
and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to
agriculture
what it's water needs are?
=======================

I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth
to a child to become an OBGYN. That little bit notwithstanding, as you
guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is
not agricultural but, rather, economic.

As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are". So I don't.

I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries
(and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed
agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other
industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they
consume. If I remember correctly, the issue was less about
agri-business and more about subsidies to industries.

The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are
nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the
desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their
water) to the firm.

Weiser says:
==================
So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.
===============

At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested,
though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in
lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the
gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus
agricultural fields?

Weiser says:
======================
In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits
and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to
us on
how much of it comes from California.
==================

Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it
is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am
the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So,
while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people
of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and
transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the
agri-busnesses).

So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact
that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water
resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges
reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute
products like BC-grown apples.

Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse,
frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
====================
Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass
and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to
agriculture
what it's water needs are?
=======================

I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth
to a child to become an OBGYN.

False analogy.

That little bit notwithstanding, as you
guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is
not agricultural but, rather, economic.

As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are". So I don't.

And yet you did. You said that agriculture should be reduced by 50% to save
water for other uses.


I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries
(and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed
agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other
industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they
consume.

Why should they? If they can get a discount, why, that's pure capitalistic
profit preservation.

If I remember correctly, the issue was less about
agri-business and more about subsidies to industries.

Which you turned to a discussion of water and agriculture.


The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are
nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the
desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their
water) to the firm.

Ah, now it's turned from economics to "environmental costs." Please try to
pick one thesis and stick to it.

Or, was this your subtext all along. I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs." I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the water to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any other) use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.

So, when, pray tell, do YOU plan to pay the "full price" for the commodity
you are consuming: in-channel river water?

Are you suggesting that you should be billed by the acre-foot for the water
left in the river that you use for recreation?

Do you have any idea how much that's going to cost you?

Weiser says:
==================
So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.
===============

At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested,
though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in
lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the
gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus
agricultural fields?

I don't know the lawn/pool acreage ratio, but the point is that water used
for recreation and aesthetics does not produce anything while the water used
for agriculture does. This is not to say that there is not significant
conservation to be had in agricultural irrigation methods. There is. But the
infrastructure is extremely expensive and maintenance is expensive. Still,
one of the subsidies the federal government offers is assistance to farmers
who want to install water-saving irrigation systems like sideroll and
center-pivot sprinkler systems to replace the admittedly inefficient but
very cheap flood irrigation.


Weiser says:
======================
In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits
and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to
us on
how much of it comes from California.
==================

Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it
is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am
the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So,
while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people
of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and
transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the
agri-busnesses).

So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact
that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water
resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges
reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute
products like BC-grown apples.

Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse,

Well, I think "destruction" is a strong term to use. Water is a necessity of
life, and it's never really "destroyed," even when it's broken down into
hydrogen and oxygen, because they recombine to create water again.

The fact that you, or other Californians might not be able to use it is of
only minor interest.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser, in reference to frtzw906 says:
====================
And yet you did. You said that agriculture should be reduced by 50% to
save
water for other uses.
================

Nope. Wasn't me. Perhaps KMAN or michael, but never me.

frtzw906

Weiser, in reference to the genesis of this part of the thread say:
===============
Which you turned to a discussion of water and agriculture.
======================

Nope. It was ALWAYS about the economics of subsidies, with
agri-business standing in as a prime example thereof.

frtzw906

Weiser, again on the genesis of this thread:
===============
Ah, now it's turned from economics to "environmental costs." Please try
to
pick one thesis and stick to it.
=================

If you read carefully, it is still about subsidies. Clearly, if
environmental costs are not accounted for, we have a subsidy to the
firm -- the "people's" water being given, very cheaply, to firms.

I'm on topic, but I'm not sure about you.

frtzw906

Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs." I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says:
==============
I suspect that it has nothing to do
with economics or subsidies, but rather you are using those arguments
as
stalking horses for your real agenda, which is "environmental costs."
I
translate that, in the context of RBP, to mean that you want the
water
to
remain in the river and not be diverted for agricultural (or any
other)
use
so that YOU can use it for recreation.
===============

Did you read where I've said that? I have no real "agenda". As I
said,
I pulled agri-business out of a hat -- any firm that is the recipient
of subsidies would have done just as well.

frtzw906

On the topic of subsidies, I chatted with my sugar-beet farmer
relative, in Mn, and ask about the price of sugar beets being
subsidized by US Gov. He said in agreement with you that there is no
subsidy, the price of sugar depends on world market price. That is part
of the problem for the small farmer, it is hard to compete unless you
have a very large operation, ie. Corporate farm, that can operate on a
very small margin.

He can take out a low interest loan, to buy fuel and seed, but if he
has to rent land, it kills what profit margin is left. Then if you have
a bad year, you can literally lose the farm. He has chosen to keep is
operation small, and out of debt, not rent land. Even at that, last
year he invested $35,000 for an annual return of $3,500 profit, and
says it is hardly worth the effort if you figure your time in to the
equation at all. More of a hobby income than anything. He ends up
working for one of the large farm operations with side jobs for income.


Anyway, I stand corrected, but I knew the farm life is a hard way to
make a living. TnT

TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT, I also think it would be interesting to find his opinion of the
large corporate farms (perhaps not in MN, I don't know) that do get
subsidies in any number of ways (water being just one of them). How
does he feel about his hard-earned money going into the pockets of
the
corporate types? And, further, ensuring that guys like me, in Canada,
get to eat cheap oranges that don't come anywhere close to reflecting
the "real" cost of production (if the real cost of water where
factored
into the equation). If he's upset, he deserves to be.

frtzw906

Frtzw, in Mn, there is usually not a problem with too little water,
more likely to much. I doubt whether the Corp farm gets much subsidy
that way. As I understand, he gets to put his hard earned money in his
own pocket, less taxes, so I am not sure that the Corps. get any of
that either. He actually seems to be rather happy with the arrangement
where by he works on their farms, and lives on his free and clear in
the country. As to you eating Ca. oranges that I suppose are being
subsidized by US taxpayers through our Gov. and its water policy,
hopefully they taste good. I know we enjoy them also. TnT