The Glade 4.0

My intake of Avocado increased to try and balance out my cholesterol.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

California is the largest state by population (150% of the next biggest state) and therefore should have an enormous agricultural system. Food needs to be grown where people live. Otherwise, transportation costs skyrocket, disconnection between food and source increases, and food security is awful (i.e. local population has no control over food supply).

Doesn't work that way. Shouldn't work that way.

You just said you didn't want to grow food in the desert. Semi-arid agriculture is going to have water problems no matter where you go, unless it's small-scale.

All semi-arid climates are not created equal and not all water problems are equally severe.



In case you hadn't noticed, California is also geographically one of the largest states, and therefore the enormous agriculture does not also need to be done in close proximity to Los Angeles which is the second most populous city in the country.



This doesn't mean food needs, to be grown there, it's merely a list of "pros" to why we would consider growing food near where people live. The other side of the coin is that the local environment cannot always sustain the food demands of the populace, and not all crops nor all animals can grow in all places.

I'm also not sure what qualifies as "skyrocketing" transportation costs; all I can say is that apples are not ruinously expensive in Texas despite not growing here, nor were avocados unaffordable back in Ohio. I don't know what "disconnects between food and source" is supposed to be or why "food security" is a problem when food isn't grown locally in a modern country; it's still being grown in the same state or within the country. Our ability to transport bulk products within our nation is considerable, and the transportation costs provide valuable jobs to people and help maintain transportation infrastructure that we need for other purposes anyhow.



It pretty obviously does work that way to a great degree. Some food is eaten locally, other food is imported. Furthermore, no matter how desirable local food production may be, that does not change the consequences of trying to conduct major agricultural efforts in proximity to a very large city in an area where water resources are limited. Local food production is not an imperative to be pursued at all costs.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Southern Texas does not have enough water to support Californian-level agriculture. Furthermore, droughts can exist anywhere. California has had plentiful water throughout much of our history there.

And yes, food security is extremely important. There are already water fights amongst states - there could easily be similar problems if food runs short. Do you think Texas would send its food to Cali if it needed it?

If you like to eat, California needs to be able to continue its agricultural industry. We are not only the largest food producing state in the union, we are the largest food exporting state in the union. We continue to do this despite long periods of drought. We do not only grow food in the desert, we grow a whole bunch of iit on the coast and pretty much anywhere we're allowed to that isn't overrun by people or too barren or federally protected from it. Unlss you track where your food comes from in detail, you probably have no idea how much of it comes from California. Odds are high you've eaten something from California in the last 24 hours.

Here, read this and see what would happen if the US lost California agriculture.

http://westernfarmpress.com/tree-nuts/w ... production


Here, read this

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

The crux of this matter is not how much food is presently grown in California, or whether it should be grown in California, or what other venues might or might not grow it instead. The crux of the matter is that there is a limited amount of water in southern California in particular is limited, and has extremely high demand.

Carrying on about what's grown there, where it goes, or how important food stability or security supposedly is will not make one drop more of water available to grow it with. Water issues in California are well known, and there may in fact come a point where it is simply not possible to provide adequate water for the population's needs and maintain the present level of agriculture.

When and if that point is reached, one or the other will have to change. Period.

As for "will Texas send its food to California", we don't have stated based food distribution food systems in this country. Corporations of various types send food to where they can sell it; if there is demand for Texas foods in California, yes, someone will sell it there. This should not require explanation. What a phenomenally stupid thing to say.

Here, let me save you a post:



You were going to do it eventually anyhow

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

So, you wish to redistribute the food growing from southern California to other areas? I'm not particularly against that. I think food should be grown wherever it can be supplied to customers and make a profit. Go ahead, do it.

The reason food is grown in parts of Southern California is because the land was cheap and they can get in four crops a year and make more profit. To do this they need to import water because those areas are mostly desert. A lot of those areas are about played out from the residue from fertilizer, crop remnants, and other issues. The corporations that run those farm complexes are not averse to finding other areas to farm, but the reality of cheap land and several growing seasons a year is what they are looking for. Can you provide that?

Why do you think so much of the non California produce comes from South America? Cheap land, lots of water, and several growing seasons a year. Next year the issue is likely to be a non-starter, if rainfall this winter is as predicted. It is always an argument during drought years.

Emptying California of export farming wouldn't necessarily let others farm elsewhere for supply and profit. I imagine it would end this program though. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00962.html

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I don't 'wish to' do anything. There's a certain amount of water available, and there appears to be a real possibility that the SoCal situation will eventually become untenable. At that point, a solution is likely to impose itself because nontrivial amounts of people and agriculture will have no choice but to move. The fact that SoCal presently produces large amounts of food is irrelevant. It strikes me that the agriculture is more likely to relocate than Los Angeles or San Diego.

This isn't an all or nothing thing; the amount that leaves will inevitably be however much is needed to restore profitability to the rest. No one is talking about hyperbolic 'empty CA of agriculture' or anything like that.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You've lost me DE, I can't see your point. Yes, there is a limited supply of water, and California is subject to several year drought runs. Hopefully, the massive El Nino storms will relieve the current drought. But in non drought years, the water supply is abundant. Even in the midst of the current drought we still outproduce Texas, the second highest cash ag state, by quite a bit.

Here, federal report on California Ag, with a lot of interesting bits.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_ ... as-all.pdf

If you take a little time to thumb through that you will find that while southern California does produce a lot of food, so does the rest of California. The Central Valley is amazing in its productivity level. The coastal regions provide some of the more controversial crops, like broccoli and artichokes.

The fight against agriculture in California goes on and on, mostly by people who want to redirect the water to people living in the deserts of Southern California.

So, mostly, I see your arguments as nonstarters. Trying to stir a pot that is only stumbling a little.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I'm really not concerned with the rest of California; the issue I've always heard about is significant water shortages in southern California. There is no reason that agriculture in that area has to be maintained at its present levels regardless of costs - it is not am imperative. It may become simply impossible at some point. I've said that at least twice already so why you are still talking about thre rest of California is a mystery.

As for pot stirring, all I said originally was that theres a lot of room in this country for agriculture and we can, indeed, move some out of the desert if necessary. You guys wanted to argue for some reason, involving a lot of hyperbole and absolutes. I don't know why; I'm pretty sure that those who make their money growing food will move if the situation is untenable rather than just wring their hands about it.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If there were somewhere farming was more profitable, most likely people would be doing it already. Imperial County, where most of the farming you are talking about takes place, is actually pretty empty of people. Less than 200,000 in the whole county, and most of them involved in Agriculture.

Most of the water for the Ag there comes from the Colorado river. Water isn't the only problem, with residue from the industrial farming and pest management making the land less productive and thus less profitable. The industry will eventually move on, when the land plays out and they find a better place to grow crops. Until then it will keep on going. Since other than the agriculture, there isn't much reason to be in Imperial County, when it does the county will probably fade to a series of ghost towns.

As for why I talk about the rest of California, once you start to pull the plug on something its hard to stop the leak.

We used to have a whole lot more military bases here before Congress went to the ABC method of site location. Once they started closing bases here it became a fad. Few are left.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Again, we're talking about the future. Maybe you haven't noticed but plenty of farming is already gone on in other places. If the situation changes, then more of it may move to those places. What is so hard to understand about this? The PRESENT situation is not the issue.



In the previous paragraph you said "people would be doing it somewhere else already if they were going to" and in this one it's "well, eventually they'll move on." Are you even reading this before clicking submit?



This is a platitude of nothing. No, in fact relocating agriculture from southern California does not meant he inevitable total death of agriculture in the state.



And military base closures are decided and submitted to Congress by BRAC. Congress obviously uses some pork-barrel politics in the process but even they don't just pick bases at random. Fort Ord was closed because it was exceedingly costly. The same goes for many other facilities in California where the combination of high costs and idiotic regulations just make business of any kind very expensive. COLAs for troops alone so they could afford to live there were princely.

San Diego, however, retains its huge navy base because that's where the ocean is, and it would be hugely costly and disruptive to operations to move it else where. So no, "ABC" is not how bases are closed, and the loss of some of something does not mean the loss of all. That's calssic Slippery Slope fallacy reasoning. Where in the **** do you even get this from?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."