Eliminate Agricultural Subsidies, Charge More to Use Water
Recent heavy rains have not stopped California’s multi-year drought. As growth continues in other western states such as Arizona and Colorado, water will become even more precious. Instead of pleading for California residents to conserve water, Governor Jerry Brown and state officials should consider several agricultural policy changes that allow the market to encourage conservation.
Despite its favorable soil and warm weather, California is a less than ideal agricultural climate. Growing crops in sunny, high-temperature, low-humidity conditions requires up to six times as much water as growing the same crops in slightly cooler more humid conditions.
California needs to price its water correctly to decrease waste. While agriculture uses 80% of all California water, it accounts for only 2% of economic activity. Worse, by one calculation farmers have only paid 15% of the cost of the federal irrigation system that delivers water. While food production is important, the state should take several steps to preserve water. It should create a binding study group of agricultural and environmental experts, not politicians, to determine how much water farmers actually need. It is crucial that this group be non-governmental to reduce the political impulse to favor the agricultural crop with the strongest lobbyists over another crop.
Once it determines how much water farmers need, the state should stop providing discounts to agricultural users. It should charge commercial water users in the same manner that it charges residential users. Farmers should pay a flat rate per gallon for the amount of water needed to grow a basic crop such as carrots. But just as homeowners pay more for non-basic uses such as swimming pools, farmers should pay more for using extra water for luxury crops such as pistachios.
California should also consider short-term subsidies for crops that California has the comparative advantage in growing and increased rates for other crops. For example, carrots and olives use average to below average amounts of water to grow. And few places in the country other than California can grow carrots and olives. However, growing wheat and oats uses above average amounts of water. And many locations throughout the country can grow wheat and oats. Once California begins pricing water correctly the market should eliminate most of the problems. But to speed the transition, the state should offer short-term subsidies (five years at the most) to continue producing carrots and short-term penalties to discourage wheat production.
Very good and informative post!
“…requires up to six times as much water as growing the same crops in slightly cooler more humid conditions.”
The usage of water is done very inefficiently. Given California’s climate, better policies should be in place.
There are many more solutions that just subsidies for everything.
“Once California begins pricing water correctly the market should eliminate most of the problems”
It is just that easy.
“It should charge commercial water users in the same manner that it charges residential users”
As it should already!
1. The price of agricultural products will be increasing if the government provides less subsides. People may complain about that.
2. Are those drought-resistant crops as profitable as others?
Very informative post. I like it.
“Once it determines how much water farmers need, the state should stop providing discounts to agricultural users. It should charge commercial water users in the same manner that it charges residential users.”
What is the price disparity now?
The problem is that farming doesn’t have a high profit margin. It is substantially lower to other industries. While increasing the cost of the water may reduce waste, it can leave farmers out of business. Considering that farmers are strong lobbyists, I don’t believe it happening any time soon.
I don’t agree with your suggestion of charging a penalty to those who grow luxury crops. It is expensive to grow these goods but they are not much more profitable than any other. If we put in place this restriction, we will be incentivizing farmers to grow basic necessities. The lower supply of these luxury goods will drive up the price, while the additional demand will lower the prices of the replacement crops. Our economy will end up worse off, even if the water levels improve.
Also there is no certainty that growing basic crops will reduce water waste. They can end up using more water for a lower cost. This rule will end up being more costly than beneficial.
Instead of charging a different rate, the board that you suggest should provide an estimate of how much water does each type of crop requires. Then impose quotas at a normal rate on these amounts, charging a penalty to those who spend more water than needed. For example, if particular plantation needs 100 gallons of water each month to grow, charge a fix rate. If the farmer spends 200 gallons, charge for the additional 100 gallons, plus a penalty of 50 percent per say. That way we are encouraging efficiency in the farms.
Please try to get more accurate information. There is a third category of water use that is often left out. That is water used for environmental purposes. The correct ratios are approximately: environmental, 50%, agriculture, 40%, human (homes, other businesses, etc.) 10%. And remember that a number of farms have had their surface water cut off completely, and yet are still required to pay the full bill as if they are getting all the water contracted. Environmental use has had no cuts, and there is NO charge for that water.