Comments on: Trading ‘Virtual’ Water

By: amsatpro pro

amsatpro pro — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:58:47 +0000

I agree with you David..Todd DiRobertohttp://biz.clush.com/ToddDiRoberto

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:38:19 +0000

I can’t speak for the remainder of the state, but water in Imperial Valley is NOT subsidized. The original canal and irrigation system was designed and built by the landowners and private businesses. The All American Canal was built as a federal project but the cost of building it was entirely repaid by the farmers and landowners. The current costs they pay for the water is the full cost of delivering that water. Where is the subsidy?

By: john newcomb

john newcomb — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:05:05 +0000

British Columbia consumers import a tonne of food from California, so we should be keeping account of the “embodied” water for imports-exports and be prepared to work with California to explore some options: either we reduce our imports of embodied-water products, or we seek to balance our exports to California to match such imports – or export water to California (a sensitive topic here!).

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:02:37 +0000

Yes, the article is oversimplified, but it is actually imformative compared to most of the press on the water issue. Most press just reprint the propaganda that we will all be eating imported food from China if we don’t increase ag. water supply.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:57:08 +0000

Mr. Putnam says, “We should allow farmers to make intelligent decisions about what crops to grow.” That’s a fine sentiment, but only so long as the farmers are not growing their crops of choice with taxpayer subsidized water. Then, the taxpayers, who today are suffering from these artificially created shortages should say no more subsidies.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:26:11 +0000

One other thing missing from California water policy is a true and in depth analysis of the value of each use of water and a water plan to decide what is a reasonable use during drought periods. All water in California must already be used for beneficial and reasonable uses. Alfalfa uses about 12% of water consumed in California. That is about equal to the amount of all water used for landscaping, including swimming pools. All things considered, is using that much water to grow alfalfa during a drought reasonable?

By: davidzet davidzet

davidzet davidzet — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:10:03 +0000

Hi — I am David from aguanomics. This article is indeed oversimplified. The short answer is this: farmers will use their water to make the largest profits possible. If you want *their water* to stay in California, you have to offer them a better deal. California has MUCH bigger problems (no water markets or ground water monitoring; over-cheap urban water), and most of them can be traced back to Sacramento. Feel free to read my blog (aguanomics.com) or email me (dzetland@gmail.com) for more…

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:44:20 +0000

Yes, all trade is bad. This article is so simplistic and mixed up I don’t even know where to start. There are many complicated issues surrounding the allocation of water in the arid west. No sane or educated person would suggest limiting trade as a means of dealing with them. Check out http://www.aguanomics.com, or http://www.aguafornia.com for real information and debate.