Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> In fact, alfalfa has become an instrument for exporting subsidized water.

efficient, too. why would anyone want to ship the supplies half way around the world when you can just ship the product? especially when the supplies are sold to you at a discount compared to the locals?




In this case alfalfa is the supply, the product is milk and dairy products


in this case alfalfa is both product and supply, and those producing alfalfa in conus are avoiding having to transport water.

to grow alfalfa.

to feed animals.


I would consider the end product or service sold at retail


who limited the conversation to end product?


I believe catchnear4321 is clearly correct.


Ship the product (alfalfa) instead of the supply (water), is the point of the comment. You need water to grow alfalfa, but not much water is contained inside it.


I do wonder how much or that discount is due to it being non potable water with no treatment or complex distribution network. Not saying it’s a good idea but comparing canal water for irrigation with fluorinated chlorinated potable water piped directly to your house doesn’t seem reasonable.


It's worse than what you propose. In Arizona at least, the existing water rights allow agriculture to pump fresh, clean, ancient ground water as a less expensive alternative to surface water transported via canal. Because agriculture won't use it, the canal water has to be made potable and distributed in the municipal water supply.


Yeah that’s definitely worse.

Although I would note the California case still makes me wonder, as it’s not apples to apples, even if it’s a stupid waste regardless of the actual metric.


You can turn canal water into potable water at some cost.

It's much more difficult to turn no water into potable water.


No debate there. It’s a stupid waste regardless. But that’s not my point.

However it’s hard to see unlike units and be ok with that. Maybe my physics teachers were too mean to me, or my work in quantitative fields has twisted me, but reading otherwise well reasoned stuff that makes unfair comparisons hurts the entire line of reasoning in my mind.

So my question still stands out there - but I would note whatever savings over municipal water they have or don’t have, that doesn’t make it a good idea. Just because you pay a fair price to destroy something of incalculable value doesn’t mean the price reflects the costs.




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: