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

This is also poor logic.

Many crops around the world receive zero irrigation, the only water they get comes from rain. Much of the cereal grains (not all, but still much) are grown without irrigation.

In Iowa we drain the land by putting porous pipes a few feet down which are interlinked and drain into the rivers. If we didn’t, the water table comes up all the way to the surface and much of the land would be ephemeral ponds for significant portions of the year.




The faulty logic as I see it is to focus on nut crops opposed to all crops in California, irrigated or otherwise.

The problem is political because California has water rights and the legislature does not want buy the water rights from farmers or use eminent domain to seize them with fair compensation.


> In Iowa we drain the land by putting porous pipes a few feet down which are interlinked and drain into the rivers.

That is a fascinating. How extensive and interlinked are those pipes?


Pipes as little as 30 to a few hundred feet apart. There are parts of the state where they're literally everywhere.

Here's some drainage basics:

https://fyi.extension.wisc.edu/drainage/files/2015/09/Basic_...

There is extensive law regarding drainage and interconnection obligations between landowners, Iowa is pretty flat, there just has to be a path between your fields and a local river. All of the roads are edged with drainage ditches, there are bigger much deeper ditches where necessary to direct water.

http://publications.iowa.gov/19966/1/IADOT_tr_497_Iowa_Drain...




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

Search: