Stop growing alfalfa in Imperial County

David777

David777

Well-known Member
Location
Silicon Valley
This last week were national news stories about a lack of Colorado River water policy consensus among 7 western states. For example:

https://news.yahoo.com/6-colorado-river-states-submit-194922943.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

What politicians and their media don't want to expose publicly since it is about money and burgers. Especially agribusiness corps funding political campaigns.

How do we save water: Stop growing alfalfa in Imperial County

https://www.yahoo.com/news/save-water-stop-growing-alfalfa-130044687.html

If California is really short of water, why are we shipping it to Asia? We can do one simple thing and our water supply crisis will be over. We can stop growing alfalfa. The top water-using activity in California is growing alfalfa — a protein-rich type of hay. An alfalfa farmer can crop alfalfa 10 or even 12 times a year and sell it for $260 per ton. These are not the hardworking family farmers of yesteryear. They are giant agribusiness corporations pulling in $1.8 billion from selling 7 million tons of alfalfa every year in California.
 

I know from working on a farm while in high school and some college that farmers prefer feeding their milking cows alfalfa hay. It’s a very high source of protein that digests easier than just grass and in turn helps to produce more milk. We also fed it to our beef cattle when they were ill, instead of just letting them graze in the field.

If California needs water, why don’t they build more desalination plants? There is a whole ocean off the coast. I don’t know nor have I really studied or looked into California’s water situation, so maybe I am just talking foolish, but farmers do have a real need for the alfalfa. Isn’t there another way to fix the problem?
 
Alfalfa or lucerne as it is called here, is.
Fresh alfalfa sprouts are a delicious addition to sandwiches and salads. They can also be used in summer rolls or as a garnish for soups or tacos.
 

Wasn't it the 1950's when the government paid farmers NOT to grow specific
crops? You can't just tell them to give up planting their crops and their whole
life without compensation.
 
If irrigation water cost was market based and not subsidized I doubt we'd be doing that.

I have a small irrigation allotment, 10 acre-ft/yr (~3.3 million gallons/yr), I pay about $200/yr. A whole lot less than I pay for my household water, where I uses a whole lot less. Makes little sense.

Irrigation subsidies and their externalities
https://edepot.wur.nl/557483

In part:

Irrigated agriculture, by far the largest consumptive user of water
globally, is a heavily subsidized sector. The establishment, operation
and maintenance of many irrigation schemes have by-and-large been
subsidized by governments, development banks and donor agencies. In
addition, governments subsidise the agricultural sector in general,
increasing the price of the goods produced from irrigation water, and/or
reducing the costs of the inputs. All these actions by governments are
either direct subsidies to irrigation or general interventions that happen
to affect irrigation.
 
Gaer said:
Wasn't it the 1950's when the government paid farmers NOT to grow specific
crops?
Click to expand...
Yep, still do, in some cases.

For a long time my family was paid not to grow rice in south Louisiana, where it rains 60+ inches a year and there is no water shortage. At the same time the government was heavily subsidizing irrigation of rice farms in arid California... go figure!

The payments not to grow rice in Louisiana appear to have gone away, but not the subsidies to California rice growers.
 
Household water usage is generally potable and the sewage fees are usually attached, as well as storm sewer costs. My understand was the irrigation water was not potable. Is that correct?
 
Harry Le Hermit said:
Household water usage is generally potable and the sewage fees are usually attached, as well as storm sewer costs. My understand was the irrigation water was not potable. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
I suppose it varies from place to place, but my household water bill is separate from sewer, and the only difference between the irrigation water I get and the drinking water is chlorine. Both come from the same place and are pretty clean.
 
David777 said:
This last week were national news stories about a lack of Colorado River water policy consensus among 7 western states. For example:

https://news.yahoo.com/6-colorado-river-states-submit-194922943.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

What politicians and their media don't want to expose publicly since it is about money and burgers. Especially agribusiness corps funding political campaigns.
Click to expand...
Interesting that California is the biggest user of Colorado River water, and apparently the state most resistant to conservation. California contributes almost no water to the river, that comes mostly from Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah... smaller users.
 
Water. Funny how we have been in a drought for 20 years…have known for more than that the colorado river was over allocated…and NOW it is an emergency. All those years I have lived in arizona and we have only just now gotten a governor who is concerned. California get more water because their allocation is larger. Population had something to do with the original allocations. Things change.
 
330px-Alfalfa_gip.jpg

I remember Alfalfa!
 
In wyoming we got three cuttings of alfalfa in the southern part pf the state. Arizona gets 11-12 cuttings. Cows and horses eat too. Feedlots and dairy cattle eat it. In spite of the press about it going overseas most is used here. Like almonds? Huge water users. People???? Swimming pools and golf courses?
 
This person that loves dairy products, is fine with California growing alfalfa to support USA dairy industries but not beef nor for foreign beef farms due to the insane burger consumption levels humans are now addicted to.

In recent years statistics show with California, 1.7 million dairy cattle and 5.2 million beef cattle or 75%. 70% of the state's alfalfa crop goes to cattle. So it is the beef cattle industry where California could greatly reduce its water use while world wide it is a huge negative environmental issue due to deforestation and gassy burger cattle.
 
SeniorBen said:
Farmers are going to have to start desalinating water from the Pacific to irrigate their crops. If the water shortage gets any worse, they won't have any choice.
Click to expand...
That may be, but if it happens agriculture will change and it should. Desalinated water costs about $600 to $2,000 per acre-ft. And I am not sure that includes delivery.

At California's subsidized rates some farmer pay $1 per acre-ft or less for delivered water. Though on the high end prices are beginning to approach the cost of desalinization. In Utah I pay $20 per acre-ft. Quote from California Agricultural Water Prices by Water District :

California agricultural water prices can be as low as $1.00 per acre-foot in some areas but can reach $500-1000 and more in times of water stress.
 
Stop growing alfalfa in Imperial County
Click to expand...
Why? Arizona has been taking a disproportionately large share of Colorado River resources for the last 40 years, and now they want to point the finger at California, who is the largest user, but also the major contributor to the the Region's water distribution network infrastructure.
See you in court!
 
Lethe200 said:
HUGE WATER WASTER to grow almonds compared to other fruit/produce crops.
Click to expand...
No pun intended, but be careful with comparing apples with oranges. California Almond growers produce 80% of the World market of almonds, and 100% of the U.S. market. Very profitable which is kind of the point, in the Agriculture business. Almonds are extremely well proportioned nutritionally, making them an important food resource.
 
Arizona’s allotment is below california’s in priority. This is why arizona is in tier two cuts and california has not had to cut yet. The feds are saying california must come to the table and negotiate too. Part of this probably is related to electricity production. That is the elephant in the room. If the dam at lake powell reaches dead pool…no electricity. Same with lake mead.
 
Muskrat said:
Part of this probably is related to electricity production. That is the elephant in the room.
Click to expand...
Yep, they have been draining Flaming Gorge to keep Powell high enough to still be able to produce some electricity.

The upstream water used to keep Lake Powell afloat is running out
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/16/us/colorado-river-water-lake-powell-flaming-gorge-climate/index.html
Muskrat said:
In Wyoming we got three cuttings of alfalfa in the southern part pf the state. Arizona gets 11-12 cuttings.
Click to expand...
In Utah we usually get 4, I lived for a while near Jackson, Wyoming, they only got about one and a half there. Its the growing season length, not water.
 
Almonds are only profitable because of their abuse of free water. If they paid as much for water as I do, i.e. $120 a month for only 50 cubic feet of water (what is that per acre foot?) then they'd soon be out of business and good riddance to them. The same for alfalfa, grapes, and all nuts. They're getting their profits out of their abuse of the water supply.

Besides that, nuts at 100% fat are one of the most unhealthy foods. There's nothing healthy about them but that's a side issue, the main one being that they don't pay for their water. If they actually paid for their water like the rest of us then that would be different but they don't.
 
We were in Las Vegas about 3 years ago, and the level in Lake Mead was quite a bit lower than normal, Then, we were in Denver this past April and there was almost no snow in the mountains, Lake Powell is little more than a wide river, anymore. Unless there are several years of major snowfalls, in coming years, the entire SW is at risk for major water shortages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top