You Say Potato I Say Electricity Summary

The article, “You say Potato, I say Electricity,” focuses mainly on water, potatoes, and the energy crisis. A lot of water is being used for potatoes. Due to improvements in technology, Idaho farmers 20 billion pounds of potatoes, which is, “up from 12 billion pounds 20 years ago.” This causes a partial shift in the Production Possibilities Curve (PPC). There is a surplus of potatoes because the market supply is a lot more than the market demand. When using a lot of the water on potatoes, hydroelectric power is the opportunity cost. There is a choice between using the water for potatoes and using it to create electricity.
The article suggests that it would be better to use the water for energy. The demand for electricity will be rising with many western states facing power cuts. Other industries (ex. aluminum producers), have cut production so they sell electrical power, because it is more valuable. The point that we are at on the PPC for water needs to be changed. While we are still being
“efficient” we are creating more of a product that is not wanted. It is also evident that the author of this article shares this opinion as well because of the negative adjectives he uses when referring to water being used to create potatoes. Water is being used at point A now, it should be moved to point B because there is a greater need to produce electricity right now as opposed to potatoes (which we have an abundance of).
The Production Possibilities Curve pictured above is an example of when two items fall under The Law of Constant Relative Costs. We get a straight line instead of a curve because the water is used for either potatoes or electricity. The resources used to create them are the same. I feel like the solution to this problem is very simple yet hard to put into action. The farmers should get a certain amount of water at a discounted price to make the desired amount of potatoes. If the farmers want to produce more, then they should pay regular market price for the water. The rest of the water should be used to create energy. This is better for both, the environment and economy. Also, the farmers should get their licenses taken away after 5 years of no usage, but at the same time getting the license back shouldn’t be made
impossible. Mr. Huffaker suggests that farmers should sign contracts that would require them to sell a certain amount of water during, “low-flow,” years. This is another great idea, especially when taken into consideration the opportunity cost for the energy produced by the water. The water was going to be used for potatoes that weren’t needed and were extra. It is now going to be used to create energy, something that is a demand. It is a win-win situation. The farmers will make money off of the extra water they sell and the energy providers will use the water to create energy. Considering the fact that farmers were getting $2 for a 100 lb bag that took 4$ to produce when there was a surplus, they should be happy with this as well as the energy providers. Overall, this problem over water, potatoes, and energy, shouldn’t be too difficult to solve, if everyone is willing to negotiate. Seeing as how everyone benefits if they take any of the solutions listed above, neither side has a reason to not agree.