There's a lot of crops that are grown in CA that are not native to the area, and require a lot of water to be viable in that area. Trying to grow a crop native to monsoon areas in a dry area is just unsane.

And growing a human in that area? Would it not also be a drag on the area? At what point does blame the plants become blame all alien life including human?

(Not referring to your comment, I feel often people tend to handwave themselves out the equation).

A person can live in that environment on much less water than the crops. Just growing different crops would consume less water.

I don't think that's true unless they're living in extreme poverty.

There is a reason 80%(?) of the world almond crop is grown in California. It has a great climate for almonds, a lot of land, and water to support the trees. We need to trade something for our IPhones besides the promise of future dollars (debt).

> At what point does blame the plants become blame all alien life including human?

I don't think that's what people are saying. The question is why is the cost of growing such water intensive crops in such an arid land cheap enough to make financial sense.

The answer, I expect, is essentially that the costs involved in said water are subsidised in such a way as to socialise them? Would be interesting to understand.

From the survival of civilization scale, most of "almonds, pistachios, walnuts, raisins, olives, plums and table grapes" are probably luxury items that we can ill afford.

Sure it's a balancing act between "save the planet!" and "save the economy!". Guess who's winning so far?

Strange because you are naming staples that are concentrated sources of nutrition and energy that can indeed ensure survival, and components of “trail mix” for this very reason.

Certainly if you wanna supplant them with other crops that support something other than European style cuisine, go for it, but if you propose to take away nuts, olives, and grapes then you may be a racist or bigot, and we’d sooner die than change in that regard.

Fact: a major component of the Ukrainian conflict is that nation's ability to supply wheat products to the rest of Europe.

I believe that a certain philosophical viewpoint was raised by some sci-fi authors, to the effect that wheat and other staple crops are the most intelligent sentience on Earth, because they successfully domesticated human beings, who give them all the best land, water, and doting TLC to become fruitful and multiply.

> Fact: a major component of the Ukrainian conflict is that nation's ability to supply wheat products to the rest of Europe.

This situation came with the territory. By contrast, California's agriculture is 100% dependent on massive hydroengineering projects.

We can afford them, it costs maybe 5% more to grow them other places. We just don't anymore because that is 5% someone can skim off the top because they don't have to pay for environmental destruction and other downstream effects.

Tax water for agricultural usage enough to fund desalination plants for their water use. The market participants should then adapt by switching to less water-intensive crops, or paying the tax and getting the desalination plants.

pretty sure there is no salt water in the central valley either.

> tax water for agricultural use

Yeah good luck with this one

> Does this argument prefer that there is less food production in California?

Yes. This scale of agriculture in CA is not historical, and is driven by hydro-engineering projects of huge scale throughout the American west that began in the 1940s. The Bureau of Reclamation's fever dreams were fueled by two decades near the turn of the 20th century that were some of the wettest in a thousand years, and this has led to a crazy situation that is not sustainable in the long term (perhaps not even in the medium term).