• RubberElectrons@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I don’t know how to resolve this kind of issue without it looking like a transfer of wealth from us fellow tax-payers to these big farm families:

    • Pay to purchase their water rights, and provide a place in a wetter area of California to resume growing,
    • or let them stay in place, pay to reduce their water usage

    Or we spend real money and quality of life to illegally deny them water, but all our food prices go up, nevermind the legal costs.

    At some point it won’t matter what’s legal or not, we need water to drink.

    This is seemingly an expensive problem to resolve, but two key items need to be cared for, no matter the decision: skilled farmers who knows how to produce need to be kept working if they choose, and we need to start thinking in a more than quarterly manner to plan for long term success. Who thought growing food in the desert was a good idea?

    • UnspecificGravity@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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.