<story><title>California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wskinner</author><text>Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.</text></item><item><author>hauget</author><text>Water is a scarce resource in this case. You don&amp;#x27;t exactly let the &amp;quot;wealthy&amp;quot; buy off everything they can just because. Scarce resources need to be regulated my friend.</text></item><item><author>monochromatic</author><text>Why is that a comparison that makes sense? If we doubled the water available to tech companies, that wouldn&amp;#x27;t make them any more productive.</text></item><item><author>jkyle</author><text>About time.&lt;p&gt;Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1].&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer&amp;#x27;s a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;govbeat&amp;#x2F;wp&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;govbeat&amp;#x2F;wp&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;ag...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;edit&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;For clarification, mentioning the GDP is meant to show that cutting back on agricultural usage will not affect our economy catastrophically even if the industry sinks a bit. Will food prices go up? Perhaps.&lt;p&gt;Further, if the point is food &lt;i&gt;production&lt;/i&gt; and not food &lt;i&gt;profit&lt;/i&gt; for the nation then the focus should be on producing the most water efficient foods (per calorie) not the most profitable foods produced under an assumption of free or near free water. So yeah, that might mean less prime rib and more black eyed peas for Americans (figuratively speaking).&lt;p&gt;The cost of the product should reflect the cost of the resources required to produce. This is not the current case.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>hauget</author><text>Even when those resources could be bought by someone who will waste them? We&amp;#x27;re not talking about something like gold here, we&amp;#x27;re talking about a resource that is essential for human life. Would you really want someone who&amp;#x27;s wealthier than you to buy all the water around you just because they can?</text></comment>
<story><title>California Announces Restrictions on Water Use by Farmers</title><url>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/california-announces-restrictions-on-water-use-by-farmers.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wskinner</author><text>Scarce resources need to be exposed to market forces. The purpose of markets is to allocate scarce resources and price them appropriately.</text></item><item><author>hauget</author><text>Water is a scarce resource in this case. You don&amp;#x27;t exactly let the &amp;quot;wealthy&amp;quot; buy off everything they can just because. Scarce resources need to be regulated my friend.</text></item><item><author>monochromatic</author><text>Why is that a comparison that makes sense? If we doubled the water available to tech companies, that wouldn&amp;#x27;t make them any more productive.</text></item><item><author>jkyle</author><text>About time.&lt;p&gt;Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1].&lt;p&gt;There&amp;#x27;s no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer&amp;#x27;s a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;govbeat&amp;#x2F;wp&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;agriculture-is-80-percent-of-water-use-in-california-why-arent-farmers-being-forced-to-cut-back&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&amp;#x2F;blogs&amp;#x2F;govbeat&amp;#x2F;wp&amp;#x2F;2015&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;03&amp;#x2F;ag...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;edit&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;For clarification, mentioning the GDP is meant to show that cutting back on agricultural usage will not affect our economy catastrophically even if the industry sinks a bit. Will food prices go up? Perhaps.&lt;p&gt;Further, if the point is food &lt;i&gt;production&lt;/i&gt; and not food &lt;i&gt;profit&lt;/i&gt; for the nation then the focus should be on producing the most water efficient foods (per calorie) not the most profitable foods produced under an assumption of free or near free water. So yeah, that might mean less prime rib and more black eyed peas for Americans (figuratively speaking).&lt;p&gt;The cost of the product should reflect the cost of the resources required to produce. This is not the current case.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>task_queue</author><text>That&amp;#x27;s great for pricing most commodities, but for necessities it is disastrous.</text></comment>