3 ms·

Per acre doesn't seem like the right metric.

• wott 9y ago
  The right metric would be per hectare, indeed :-)
• titzer 9y ago
  This article (http://scienceline.org/2011/07/lawns-vs-crops-in-the-continental-u-s/ http://scienceline.org/2011/07/lawns-vs-crops-in-the-contine...) is about water usage, but it states that there is more lawn acreage in the US than the 8 top irrigated crops combined. (Discussed here: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawn-largest-crop-america_us_55d0dc06e4b07addcb43435d_ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawn-largest-crop-ameri...) (original here: http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf http://www.isprs.org/proceedings/XXXVI/8-W27/milesi.pdf)
  • immutable_ai 9y ago
    This article seems very misleading, at least for California. If you look at aggregate water usage for California agriculture uses 4X "urban" and "urban" includes industrial, golf courses, parks, etc. So even if lawns are using more area they are much less water intensive than agriculture. http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ http://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/
    • autokad 9y ago
      the majority of usage goes towards power generation (https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse-total.html https://water.usgs.gov/edu/wateruse-total.html). urban areas consume the power, but they dont produce it. they hide their water usage in the rural areas.
      • immutable_ai 9y ago
        Looking at that data it appears that a majority of California's water for power generation is coming from salinated sources, so at least for California the largest user of fresh water sources is still irrigation (agriculture). Either way, the point that agriculture takes a lot more water than people watering their lawns still stands.