Rice is a ridiculous thing to grow in the hot and arid Sacramento Valley and as you say, the grousing about it isn't just recent. Try telling farmers what they should or shouldn't do for the greater good. Just like the dying so-called family farms in the flyover states, they think what they want to do is some kind of inalienable right and their entitlement to an adequate income is fixed and unchangeable. The outrageous and wasteful federal agricultural subsidies are political welfare payments/legal bribes to those who don't need it but it feeds that view. Cut back on water provided to wasteful uses to redirect more thoughtfully and equitably and they'll see reality.

You're right, tree nuts use a lot too.

Newspapers are supposed to report stories, not create or embellish them. The fellow toward the end said he'd removed 400 acres of almonds because on the water limits this year. Were this orchards in their prime or getting old and to be removed soon anyway? Whatever, it's less than 2% of his 25000 acre operation. That doesn't sound like a dire situation to me - his guess about what he MAY do in future years was likely an exaggeration intended to evoke sympathy for his situation, nothing more. Farmers are accustomed to good years and bad years anyway, for a variety of reasons. Rainfall, water availability, pests, timing of precipitation and weather (bad timing can kill young plants or remove blossoms from trees), market conditions, and on and on. That wasn't reported in the story either.

Pray for rain? You're many months too early for that, try again in early December.

Depending on current regulations what often looks like unused farm land is actually in a government program made to remove acreage from production to both increase the value of what is produced and to provide vegetation for wildlife along with slowing the amount of runoff from rains to allow it to soak into the soil. If interested look up Soil Conservation Programs both in your state and federal as some states can have their own programs. They are being paid to do this.

From the information I found with a two minute look, there are no areas of California - zero acres- that participate in the federal Conservation Reserve Program. Rain runoff? The valley is arid and most of it gets something under 10 inches of rain per year (and less) and only during a few winter months. The water comes from snow melt runoff from the mountains.

Those interested can look for themselves. From a list of participating acreage I saw, most of it is in the flyover states and in particular, the northern plains. Iowa is #1, followed by the two Dakotas. I'd like to understand why we need to pay people to not farm, who would otherwise perhaps have economically unviable operations and would leave it fallow of their own accord. What it is is an indirect form of market price support, done by reducing market supplies to keep prices higher for those who produce.

California's Central Valley is huge and goes on for a few hundred miles. I just drove through the southern part a few days ago (it's the shorter route between the Bay Area to SoCal) and at least at the western edge where Interstate 5 is, you most certainly drive for mile after mile through barren land. It's long been that way. There are more recently planted orchards from time to time and I think many of them are pistachio trees. Also occasional grape plantings. The northern part of the valley, north of Sacramento, is more of the same. There's lots of agriculture up there to but it's most often orchards and rice. And mile after mile of unused land.

Farming as a viable way to make a living has been in decline for half a century. Most farms are big operations that employ day labor--people work on the farm but don't own the farm business. Same with other family owned small businesses. On the decline. Very troubling but very difficult problem to solve. When I was young, only 5% of workers worked in agriculture. It was troubling then. Now it's down around 2%. The demand is there, but economic viability is elusive. Here in MI, some of the best farmland in the world just goes to subdivisions. The productivity of farmland also is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Agriculture is the number two user of fossil fuels, right behind transportation. Manpower and animal power has been replaced with machine power and chemicals, many of which use lots of petroleum to produce.

I'm involved locally with the counter culture that tries to preserve local food, but it is an uphill battle. More folks drop out than stay in.

In my area, people complain that farmland is going for solar panels. Big whoop. I took a drive through some rural areas last week, thousands of acres for sale and it's not going to "Big Solar." Going for subdivisions. At least solar panels can be decommissioned and the land used again for farmland. If that almond farmer didn't uproot his trees for solar panels, it would be for a subdivision. There are lots of them in my old stomping grounds built on old orchards with cute names like "Apple Ridge Apartments" etc. Scary.

"If that almond farmer didn't uproot his trees for solar panels, it would be for a subdivision."

No, I don't think so. The story says his land is in Huron, CA. Take a look at a map, that's part of the Valley I drove through this week. Subdivisions? No. It's not just podunk, it's an hour away from podunk. Out in the middle of nowhere.

I think the romanticism around farming is unfortunate. Our farms are incredibly productive, and to me that is what matters, being able to feed people. Furthermore, I share Elmer's distate for perverse government incentives.

Niche, romantic farming is upheld through CSAs. I love the CSA my family helps support (Full Belly Farms in Yolo County) through buying premium priced produce, plus spending additional monies for special perks. If more people felt the way I did, then they would support more CSAs.

Now I have to wonder what the California offices of NRCS do.

Full points for cryptic commentary, mai. Care to make yourself understood? I Googled and still don't understand your point.

I'm happy to share what I found. Note that California isn't a plains state. Farm fields aren't normally pastures or grasslands, there's little to no rain for them to absorb, and certainly none at all during the normal summer growing season so that whether they're planted or not is very different from the Midwest. Note that California has the largest ag output in the US, dwarfing all other states, and this reserve program seems to not have any presence here.

Look up what the California NRCS does. Each state has an office. They handle conservation practices for the state of California which includes having farmers remove land from farming practices and planting cover crops for livestock, wildlife and water conservation practices all the things that CRP does. Not certain where the idea that conservation practices have only to do with grasslands came from since all areas of the country do some sort of conservation practices. The CRP SAFE program is one to promote land use for wildlife enhancement and is only one of the things under the CRP umbrella. Link to SAFE flyer. State Acres For wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) (usda.gov)

Link to general program. Notice soil erosion is included especially important in drought conditions. USDA Expands and Renews Conservation Reserve Program in Effort to Boost Enrollment and Address Climate Change | USDA

Thank you, Elmer.

Elmer, what you don't see from I5 is a lot. Quite a bit of the farmland on the western side of the Valley has become bedroom communities for San Francisco. What were small towns just ten years ago are now bigger towns trying to cope with building new schools and infrastructure because of all the new family homes going up.

But then, if what one reads about the soil problems out west are true then subdivisins may be a good answer to a growing problem. The ground out there has become so full of salts that it is hard to grow anything. If you drive those back roads you will see that much of the top soil is actually white from the salt.

So far the eastern side of the Valley doesn't seem to have those problems.

Ashley the agronomist summed it up best. "We've put farmland in area's where we never should of put farmland". Farmland continued in dust bowl area's of the dirty 30's and we lucked out with a streak of beneficial conditions for almost 90 years and the luck has ended.

If you're not familiar with the little ice age or the dust bowl I suggest educating yourself on the effects they caused in agriculture and cultures of the time, because it's about to start again. The scapegoating has already begun and this thread is just a tiny little sliver of an example going forward.

40 years I've had concerns of man's unsustainable existence on this planet, I've always said an Acre isn't worth one potato without water and it doesn't matter where it's located. If it can't support agriculture you're living in a temporary artificial environment used as a human warehouse until the earth's climate does what it's always has done for billions of years, it changes.

I hope I don't panic you fine people but prior to 1996 this country had a strategic grain reserves under various programs to meet our needs in the event of crop failures, but today we have ZERO, not even a bushel . A new program was implemented in the 1996 farm bill called the "Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust" (BEHT) allowing the sale of our grains to other countries with an IOU in return. As of 2008 the last of your reserves were sold off. Now the BEHT only holds cash and IOU's and last I checked you can't eat either.

I blame no one person or group but I'm sure in the near future many will come before congress in "witch trails" to throw a person or group to the mass mobs as the villains to crucify, and to serve a political agenda. The climate does change but it seems humans will never change, with our history showing us our future.

"Elmer, what you don't see from I5 is a lot. Quite a bit of the farmland on the western side of the Valley has become bedroom communities for San Francisco. What were small towns just ten years ago are now bigger towns"

Yes, I know. I've been through the Tracy/Manteca/etc areas many, many times, as well as through the Sac Valley (northern Central Valley). Also up and down 99 more times than I can count. On a smaller scale there have been some developments in Los Banos too. The distances and awful traffic between these places and the Bay Area will serve to limit development as "bedroom" communities and that's probably already happened. The towns that have expanded over the last 25 years are miniscule usurpers of former farmland in a very large valley with an overwhelming amount of ag area.

If you know the area, you know that population through the Valley south of Sacramento remains along the Hwy 99 corridor, the historic North/South route, and will remain there. When travelling northbound, I turn off of I5 before Tracy but there's little out there but wide open spaces and empty land and ag land and I'm sure it will stay that way for decades to come.

And of course, it all needs water.

"I hope I don't panic you"

No chance of that in my case, you seem very excited about our normal patterns.

As I said before, we have drought years regularly - these are documented in weather records dating back to the Civil War. The last one was the period 2012-2016. They seem to come along not less frequently than every 10 years. Short periods cause little disruption because of multi-year supplies that are stored. This particular winter had little snow and rainfall so that the severity started a couple of notches higher than normal.

Life goes on.

maifleur, you seem intent on beating the same drum without considering that some of your assumptions are incorrect.

You keep mentioning the land reserve program - I showed information that there is no participation in this in California.

"which includes having farmers remove land from farming practices and planting cover crops for livestock,"

California's farms are large and perhaps too reliant on monoculture. "Cover crops" won't grow without irrigation and no farm business will waste a limited water allocation doing that.

Cover crops for livestock? You've got to be kidding. Ever see a vineyard, an almond orchard, a melon field, a lettuce or other leafy green field, a strawberry field, an avocado or citrus orchard? That's what we have. People in those businesses don't raise livestock and don't have fields suitable to do so.

Land for wildlife? I can address this. I know there's a program to to keep rice fields flooded during non growing times, when water supplies allow, to accommodate migrating waterfowl. The page you linked to said that the area in California in the program is 11,000 acres. Do you realize this is about the size of a square 4 miles by 4 miles?

A lot of farmers own a lot of land. They usually set aside land for "conservation" easements and programs that is marginally productive. This helps with soil erosion, since putting those lands into intense agricultural production only exacerbates erosion problems. Helps with public benefits too, as people living near farm areas then have access to more wildlife, be it for hunting or just hobby observation. Some of the farmers I've worked with see it also as part of their legacy, planting trees for their grandchildren. The are usually along windbreaks, in wetter areas and along rivers and streams or on ground too steep for farming.

As for subdivisions, I am often aghast at subdivisions out in the middle of now where. I can't imagine finding such places desirable, and the commutes are horrid seems to me, commutes for just about everything. Not saying this happens in every case, but my casual anecdotal drives through the agricultural areas around me tell me that such subdivisions do exist and are not rare. the hollowing out of the agricultural economy is very similar to the hollowing out of many aspects of the economy. My county is a classic example. Was ringed by apple orchards, we have the climate and soil for it. There are areas of MI that are known as the "fruit belt" but even there, the orchards fall one by one but also fewer and fewer owners so that there are a few big producers and that's it. Between breeding, mechanization and petrochemicals, we can grow as much on one big farm as dozens of smaller ones. Very vulnerable to problems though, all the eggs in one basket syndrome. Who knew . . . I grew up with the children of the orchard owners. Not one exists in my county now, there's one the next county over struggling to survive. Kids all left town. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's not just a water issue. Oh, and the orchard owners sold off their land to city folks wanting second homes in the country, some big mcmansions going up. I knew a lot of farm kinds in NJ that now work for lawyers and stock brokers who want to see quaint farming going on around them on their land.

Such things kind of give me the creeps. This is the cooking forum, the kitchen table. It's difficult to make a living growing food. Not something new. My great grandfather got diptheria from bad well water, died and had only girls who were married off so great grandma sold the farm and moved into town. I go by it now and again when I get up there. The people across the street own it. They don't farm it, it's just scenery. One of my great aunt's dairy farms is still being farmed, the owners are trying to eek out a living marketing locally. It's on a road that was one of the great dairy runs of the last century, a road full of dairy farms. Almost all gone. Summer homes and estates now, plus hobby farmers who make a living doing something else. Big hog feeding operation just opened up out there, probably enough pigs to feed that side of the state, all in one big feedlot. And so it goes. I grow what I can to feed myself, and try to keep buying from local producers, such as they are. There are still some folks who consider farming a way of life, an avocation as well as a living.

Edited to add that the same thing happened in the commercial sector of my small rural town. I grew up with small business owners. Kids gone, great number of them no longer here. My dad's business was bought out, ran on fumes, but will now probably close at some point when the fumes expire. Lather rinse repeat.

I'm not sure claims that CA farmers participate in some of the programs of the USDA Natural Resources and Conservation Service are "incorrect." The programs have a lot of aspects to them. A random snippet of a spreadsheet without a reference isn't very convincing.

For those interested in a link, here is a GIS map of all the various conservation easements in the US, data provided by the USDA NRCS. If you want to know what type of easements the colored dots are, you have to expand the "layers" in the menu on the left. It's all acronyms, so you'd have to look them up. Not the most easily navigated bit of information, but just something I found quick. https://nrcs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=60cb4564f7b4461ca9a61fa224c066ba

The random snippet of a spreadsheet was an unedited chart from USDA material.

In my state, major population centers and major ag centers aren't contiguous. Go back to your comment that I said was unfounded and look at a map - no fool would build even one spec house near Huron, CA. It's out in the middle of nowhere. California isn't New Jersey or Michigan or Missouri, in very many ways.

I wouldn't say that in CA major population centers and major agricultural centers aren't contiguous. Some sections aren't contiguous. CA is a huge state with probably some of the most varied agricultural lands and landscapes in the world. There are agricultural areas contiguous to urban areas just as in any other state. And remote agricultural areas not contiguous. And remote agricultural areas contiguous to less remote agricultural areas and agricultural areas contiguous to wilderness and on an on etc. For an overall picture of the state, here's a report from the CA Dept. of Agriculture. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/agvision/docs/Agricultural_Loss_and_Conservation.pdf

I didn't say your snippet wasn't from the USDA, just that it lacks a reference and some context.

I said:

"In my state, major population centers and major ag centers aren't contiguous."

You responded:

"I wouldn't say that in CA major population centers and major agricultural centers aren't contiguous."

Which I find interesting, maybe even astonishing, for you to have said. Name one example please.

I was hoping for a response to my question above, because I don't think what was suggested is true anywhere or to any significant extent. I'm not sure the person knew what they were talking about.

The Salinas/Gilroy area is contiguous to the South Bay Area. The homes give way to the salad bowl pretty quickly. A branch of my family farmed in what is now subdivisions -- the border has migrated south over time. Sacramento-Roseville area spills pretty contiguously to rice lands and orchards to the north, tomatoes and nut trees to the west (interrupted by the Causeway) and grapes to the south (Lodi, Clarksburg).

I had to look up Huron. Just outside of the town is a site labeled "hell holes". That area between I5 and Hanford can be pretty desolate (Fresno is, however, about an hour away).

CRP acres 2019

Map of CRP acres expiring 2020-2022.

Contrary to Elmer’s snippet, there are acres enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program in California (the snippet was just for one signup period and CRP is a multiyear program.) However it is true that California has a fairly low participation rate by land mass compared to other states.

Remember the topic is the drought. Secondarily, urban creep.

I don't consider either Salinas or Gilroy to be contiguous to the Bay Area - there's a lot of miles in between. They've also been where they are a long while and at least as far as the Salinas Valley is concerned, I believe the ag water supply is from ground water, not Sierra runoff.

Agriculture in the Sac and San Joaquin Valley areas are still number one and always will be. Sacramento's growth imposed on farmland when it grew up in the 19th century (remember the availability of water because of the Delta) and has continued since. I suspect water use decreases in that area when land is converted from ag use to housing, but that doesn't matter. There is still plenty of unfarmed land in the Central Valley and plenty avaialble without compromising California's #1 position in ag. Water is still the pacing item.

(Curious factoid - it wasn't until about 15 years ago that water meters were FIRST installed for residential connections in Sacramento. Yes, water was that available. People were outraged that they had to pay for usage instead of a flat monthly charge)

What prompted my Huron comment was the person who, on reading the NY TImes article about the farming company there that removed orchards and put in a solar installation, commented that had that not been done, it would have been built out as a subdivision. Preposterous, as it's out in the middle of nowhere. Same person who talked about contiguous farm and residential developments, as she knows to be the case in Michigan and assumed to be the same elsewhere.

After I made my comment, I mentally revisited the thousands (counting repeat trips) of miles I drive every year throughout much of the state and came upon my own exception to what I said. Anyone who has ever been to Ventura County, and more specifically along the Camarillo to Oxnard to Ventura corridor, has experience driving through "town" and suddenly finding that the housing development or strip center one was just passing by has ended and what's next on the side of the road is a strawberry field or a citrus orchard. Also true up the little valley toward Santa Paula. These are small towns overall, not major population centers.

Mojomom, the immensity of the number of acres being farmed in California is really incomparable to other states. Also incomparable is the number of dollars per acre that are realized. It's not like the plains where low value fodder crops are grown from here to there as far as the eye can see.

Take a look at the color scale on your first map and look at the number of acres and the size of the counties colored yellow, as an example, and the itsy-bitsy little counties throughout the East and South with the same number of acres in the program. Also, think of this - the major ag areas are the Imperial Valley in the southeast (all white). The Central Valley, almost all white but for Kern County and a few others in the under 7500 acre range. Monterey in the same range.

7500 acres is a rectangle about 3 miles by 4 miles. You need to spend all day sometime driving through these areas (or maybe you already have) to realize the participation these maps show are insignificant effect. It's not like driving by wheat or corn or bean fields. The high value per acre of cultivation in California versus in other places is why the maps tell the story they tell.

Elmer, i know all that. In fact, i said the California CRP acreage was small in comparison. You said 0. To quote your post above ”From the information I found with a two minute look, there are no areas of California - zero acres- that participate in the federal Conservation Reserve Program.” That was incorrect. From what I have read on this forum, you are unable to admit anytime that you are wrong, whether it be women’s clothing issues or agriculture and instead personally challenge or question the credentials of anyone who disagrees with you.

I am not only a farm owner myself in the South, but also have an LLM in Agricultural Law (post JD degree) and have many years experience representing farmers throught the farm belt, including practice before the USDA.

Get a life. I’m out of here.

Overall, as the article I posted details, the issue is what is happening to valuable and viable farmland. There is a lot of land in this world, but only some of it is suitable for agriculture. Some of it is amazing, some medium level, and some marginal. When the amazing agricultural lands get gobbled up by other uses, that leaves land that takes more and more effort to produce a crop on. So you have both problems, but overall, the main issue is that people cannot make a living farming so they try and find ways to get money from the land that is not agricultural, be it a solar farm or a subdivision or a junk car graveyard and on and on . . . many of the uses destroy the viability of the land for farming pretty much forever, although maybe not "forever" in geological time . . . but within practical human history timescales.

In CA, the big issue is the cost of water and the competition for many of the uses of that water. That's one of the big infrastructure inputs that makes it so difficult to make a living farming in CA--water. And the competition for it makes it hugely expensive. CA had TONS of farmland adjacent to urban areas. Disneyland in Anaheim is one prime example. It was gobbled up for suburbia long ago, leaving more marginal areas. Some of those semi-arid areas no one even considered for farming until big irrigation projects came in at the beginning of the last century. Some of the fire prone areas also were not considered good for lots of people living on, until the population pressure and lax zoning pushed them into those areas. If you know about and study what physical characteristics makes land good for what types of crops or uses, it is very disconcerting to see good land wasted and marginal land pressured.

That's why some people, like Bill Gates and other wealthy individuals are buying up farmland, to help keep it in production and not be destroyed. Some folks think this makes him the devil and he's trying to control the food supply. I am not so dramatic. Whether Bill Gates buys land or not, we are still faced with the problem of people having trouble making growing food to feed people viable economically. The land gets taken out of agricultural production one way or the other, some are more damaging of its potential than others.

The Rockefellers did a similar thing with wilderness back at the turn of the last century, buying up huge tracts that were eventually given over to the national parks. There are agricultural land trusts in some places working on trying to figure out ways to keep viable farmland productive. There are also programs that pair people who have money and buy the farmland, with young people who want to learn and go into farming, so the skill set doesn't die out. The hollowing out of farming communities is not unique to California and it has a lot in common with what is going on in CA. Considering the size and variety of landscapes in CA, one anecdote can hardly be used to illustrate the entire state. Of all the things that one could say make CA unique, that is probably one of the big ones, the size and variety of the state's landscapes. Which is one of the reasons it became an agricultural powerhouse.

(As a side note, CRP land is a "small amount" compared to overall land use and overall agricultural land use in just about every state. It's not meant to set aside huge tracts of viable farmland. The program is primarily for soil and water conservation, so the tracts are the ones valuable for those uses, not agricultural in general. Also, dozens of examples of agricultural land adjacent to urban areas in CA have been posted here. The article I posted also indicates what areas in CA are the most susceptible to urban creep into agricultural lands. One could write a book on examples.)

The original Disneyland is in Anaheim, Orange County. I was there the week it opened and I remember the experience, though i was just a little kid at the time. My parents had friends who lived nearby and we stayed with them. Across the quiet residential street was an orange grove and my Dad took me out a couple of times to pick oranges. I remember that the short drive to Disneyland was partially on streets that ran through groves.

But that was over 65 years ago. The whole LA Basin has expanded in population and needed places for people to live. If Orange County still has orange groves anywhere, they're not nearly as visible as before. The same happened in my Silicon Valley area, once the nation's major producer of stone fruit. When I moved here, there were orchards all over. Now there are few. It had nothing to do with water, it had to do with explosive economic growth and activity. Almost every major tech company you can name has facilities on land that I remember to be orchards not that long ago.

Remember the original topic was the effect of this year's drought. The conversion of ag land decades and decades ago in the development of what is now one of the largest metro areas in the US had nothing to do with water availability. In fact, it was the opposite, as I mentioned before.

The major water systems put in place at the beginning of the 20th century still provide much of the water used in an arid area whose population has exploded. Without them, the population would be a small fraction of what it is today. The ag sector still retains rights to a huge percentage of water the massive projects provide, I believe more than 50% and it may be much higher than that.

Well Steve Jobs tore down his neighbor's house and planted apple trees ;-)

Having the right to draw down water does not mean you have the money to install, maintain and upgrade an irrigation system and all the inputs that go along with managing it. As fewer and fewer farm exist in an area, the more it costs to find the resources as they thin out, have to travel and competition and skills leave. That was the point of the NYT article, farmers are selling their water rights because that's so much more economically viable and easier to do.

I find it very sad that you have to be a rich person like Steve Jobs to restore and reclaim agricultural land. I work with and have friends among people who are struggling to maintain a hold on their little agricultural business. It's an uphill battle at best. I know plenty who did much better financially selling out to various other land use schemes on their inherited land. Future farmers in urban areas are having to ask big wealthy land owners to donate their land to agriculture. I work in the camping profession, several camps I know have been asked to set aside land to rent for CSA's. I am reading a book about a woman who grew a community garden in some unused abandoned urban land adjacent to the Chicago Zoo. In my own state of MI there are some fascinating stories of folks trying to reclaim urban land in Detroit that has been abandoned, for agriculture or parks. Who knows how much long term viability will be retained. There is some history of that in Europe, agricultural in-holdings in urban areas that have survived long term.

Word on the street is, farmers who are actually near urban areas are going to benefit if they can return to providing a reliable supply of some of the crops to buyers in the urban areas that are now seeing unreliability in some of the traditionally more remote irrigated areas. Being diversified has its benefits in uncertain times. But the push for bigger and bigger monoculture farms is still out there also from an economic perspective. Medium sized farms are the ones really feeling the pinch.

One of my favorite books, "Requiem for a Peach" is about one such guy, struggling to make his family orchard profitable using sustainable methodologies. Trying to find that "sweet spot" of just the right mix of technology and biology to make it all work . . .

Pink, Palo Alto is a suburban town. No agricultural activities have been going on there since Leland Stanford converted his horse farm to a university. Steve Jobs tore down a suburban ranch house adjacent to his suburban house and cheekily planted apple trees.

Farming in the US is highly productive. Fewer people go hungry in America today than when Ma and Pa were working the land. People struggling need to find a new occupation. Times change. Ask the buggy whip manufacturers.

I remember that, zalco. Quite the farm conservationist, Jobs was. Was he ever President of the Palo Alto Farmers' Assocation?

I think Zuckerberg acted similarly at his Palo Alto home, buying up adjacent parcels too, to buffer himself from the unwashed masses. And I think on one he built a large pool. Another conservationist, restoring wetlands for migrating birds? ;-)

My understanding is that water supplied for agricultural use is not particularly expensive. From what I've observed, farm operators have been slow to introduce efficient approaches like drip irrigation. Not needing to do so because water has been available and not been expensive. Only doing so in places and at times when supplies become restricted.

Some comments made in this thread may very well have applicability elsewhere but many have been far off the mark in describing California. People should stick to what they know and understand. I am very pro-print media and regret its decline. However, the NY Times article is not unlike so many others over and over where an editor gives an assignment, the writer produces an article, but in doing doesn't develop a full understanding of what's going on and misses what the real story (or stories) are.

(Side note: any Californians recall when there were still orchards between Sunnyvale and Mountain View?)

Yes, I do. I mentioned that before. How about all of N 1st Street in San Jose, Santa Clara on both sides of 101, the major Cherry orchards in Sunnyvale and Olsen's Farm Stand selling what was grown there, also parts of Sunnyvale near the defense contractor neighborhood near Lockheed, orchards in Los Altos still a few here and there and on and on. Andy Mariani of the well-known Mariani family continues to grow Heritage species of stone fruit at his Orchards named Andy's Orchard in Morgan Hill

Shortly after arriving in SV, in 1996, my husband and I were astonished to find a fruit stand in Saratoga with a list of prices for various amounts of apricots or cherries, I don't remember, and a cardboard box for depositing payment.

There is a VERY small legacy orchard roughly in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Camden and Hwy 85 in SJ called J&P Farm. You'll find it and its location with a search. Grows the traditional fruit of the area, stone fruit, of course.

It's owned and operated by members of the Cosentino family, which used to own a small family grocery chain that was bought out by Lunardi's. It's in a residential neighborhood. There's a small stand where the output of the orchard is sold. Usually on the honor system - pay for what you take. A relic of the past selling delicious fruit, worth the drive to see and buy from

Olson's orchard was around for years in Sunnyvale on Mathilda just south of El Camino. Google's sat view suggests there remains a postage stamp size plot with a few trees. The rest of it became Sunnyvale's Municipal Tennis Center and a public park. Olson also had a brick and mortar "fruit stand" on El Camino that continued until just a few years ago but now gone.

I am well aware of how productive US farmland is. A cherry orchardist once told me that he could probably grow enough cherries to cover the whole regional demand. His attitude was, "So what if some of the smaller producers fall, I'll just grow more cherries on my land . . . " There are some downsides to that model though--the productivity, according to the laws of physics, come from high energy inputs including controlling water, and petrochemicals. Tons of them. How much genetics can be manipulated for high production and long shipping and still include any taste is debatable but lots of people are making tons of money working on those problems. A lot of folks don't care, you can't miss what you never knew. And the tendency for that system to use monculture for efficiency means they are susceptible to large scale problems including the rise of new diseases. And the loss of genetic diversity in crops may have consequences down the line when the germplasm of those plants is lost. One of the features of a diverse agricultural model is that there is flexibility in conditions, if one part goes down due to a disease outbreak, or one supplier goes down due to bankruptcy or whatever, there are still other parts able to function. The monoculture model attempts to create a mono environment that is highly controlled. That's not how the planet runs so you're constantly fighting the laws of physics, but if you only have a short term mindset, what do you care.

Water not particularly expensive? That's contradictory when you state that the reason they don't use it efficiently is the EXPENSE of installing new types of irrigation systems. That's the expense part! So rather than take that risky loan when who knows how long your orchard will be viable, farmers sell their water rights, which is much easier and less risky way to make a profit.

It's also ironic that you seem to be unaware that some of the people remarking here have degrees in agriculture and are from CA and farm. Kind of like telling the Pope he shouldn't comment on science. One of them left due to the really silly irrelevant but seemingly knowing anecdotal comments. I am now one also leaving. Visiting a farm stand does not make you an expert on agricultural ecology or economics. Most farmers are going into other forms of making a living, sure, no biggie . . . ah remember those cute farm stands, too bad, but we can visit the cute hobby relic for a Disney version of a farm market. Plenty of those abound. I'm sure we'll find ways to eat in the future, so no worries, not even worth discussing in a "Sustainability" or "Cooking" forum . . .

"Water not particularly expensive? That's contradictory when you state that the reason they don't use it efficiently is the EXPENSE of installing new types of irrigation systems."

No, I think you've confused yourself. It isn't what I said, maybe I didn't express it well. When water is cheap and plentiful, it can be used wastefully. That's how things have been here. California is the leading ag producer in the state and 2nd place is far behind. All crops and orchards here need irrigation, there's no summer rain. When supplies tighten or prices increase, then farm operators are driven to change methods and spend money on different means to use less. These are ongoing businesses that plan for continued operations. An example - I think orchards used to be watered by flooding the furrows that run between the rows of trees. Just a week ago, I was driving by a bare field in the Central Valley that seemed to have a grid of black lines on it, nothing else. I realized the black lines were drip lines that were laid out and connected BEFORE the new trees were planted. That's an example of the new approach.

I'll mention again that the NY Times article was about California and the water situation HERE. The featured interview was with a person whose farm is in a remote area, whose land you were silly to suggest might be otherwise used for a subdivision. Neither you from your perspective in a very different area across the country nor someone who runs a farm in the South or elsewhere is necessarily well informed about the situation here, your comments continue to show that. Some of the comments and assumptions didn't seem to be relevant or informed.

My farm stand and orchard comment was conversation with a person who I know from many prior exchanges lives in my general area to let them know where old fashioned produce could still be purchased. It was a completely different topic, a completely different conversation. There are not plenty of hobby relic farm stands around. In my area that was the nation's center of stone fruit production until the land was put to a higher use (Silicon Valley), I only know of the two I mentioned. Maybe there's another odd one here or there, the output of someone's backyard.

I'm done. You can think or say whatever you like.

I'm not that familiar with hydroponics but it seems that it might be an effective use of water in times of drought for some crops. Perhaps farmers could grow hydroponic crops during dry years and increase efficient use of water during more normal years, so that a prolonged drought of more than a year wouldn't shut them down?

"The original Disneyland is in Anaheim, Orange County. I was there the week it opened and I remember". And I remember when you said you just retired Elmer..... so doing the math you were a couple of years old, but you remember, sure you do. I was at the Settle world's fair when I was 6 and barely remember, but you remember well Stewie. Since you have such an eidetic memory from birth tell me when we've had another summer like this in your life. NOPE, nothing in comparison.

This summer is exceptional with no memories I have, and isn't in yours even if you remember slipping out a birth canal. Only people growing up in the dust bowl of the dirty 30's remember something equal, and it's now felt by farmers and communities from Minnesota to So cal. You trivialize this drought as "just another summer" but for many it's become a living nightmare which will be felt world wide unless you're isolated from reality or have a sense of superiority and think invincible.

Pinkmountian is right and many will find a way to feed themselves and some won't like the people in Madagascar right now. If the farms stop producing or the trucks/trains stop moving America will be in deep trouble. During the Covid shortage potatoes were near impossible to get but at the same time potato farmers were dumping millions of pounds of potatoes because of supply chain problems. The Midwest flood of 1993 came within a few days of cleaning out food distribution because of flooded roads and rail. My Son in law worked at supervalu distribution and told me so. He said they turn over the warehouse every 6 days, 3 for perishables, so it wouldn't take long to go hungry in a big city. So take a production shortage and throw in supply chain disruption, with groups bent on controlling people and we have a multi sided sword and could evolve into a perfect storm.

So what do you have in your pantry Elmer? A weeks worth, not good, but a year's worth you have a chance. Arrogant Complacency is the worst attitude to have when depending on others, and if you had a food supply I hope you have a good police force but aren't you in San Fransisco?

"Walgreens has closed 17 of its stores due to rampant stealing, and CVS has called the city one of the epicenters of organized retail crime." in San Fransisco.

About Bill gates; Henry Kissinger said in 1970, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” This is the motivation for Bill Gates, "You can't have cows anymore" he said but yet isn't a vegan and he cites his favorite food as a beef hamburger. It's not him who shouldn't eat beef, only you and the more you learn of the man the less there is to like about him. We've had nearly 200 wars in Europe in the 20th and 21st century alone because someone wanted to control another nation or the people of their own nation. Bill gates isn't special, there are many of them, include ones who want to control just about every houzz forum thread created.

I'm pretty familiar with my own biography. And my own memory. Which seems to function better than yours.

I was born in the early 50s. I remember when the family went to Disneyland, the stories were often repeated by my parents over the years. The parts of the first visit that I remember best were the repeated visits to play in and and driving by orange groves. Growing up in the area and going to Disneyland dozens of times before leaving high school, my memory doesn't distinguish what was where, what I did, when.

I was fortunate to be able to retire in my mid-50s, a good while ago. You're thinking of someone else in the recollection you offered, that isn't me and isn't something I've ever said.

Do I remember past water limited summers. Of course. There have been many in my adult life, all spent in California. The last time was about 5 years ago. They're not yet as severe as they've been in past years. Outdoor watering is cut back but still permitted.

Are you suggesting your information, assessments and perspectives from Minnesota or wherever you are are better than mine on the scene? Bravo!