5 ms·

Thirsty folks from California and the Southwest wanting more water to be piped in to feed their water intensive crops and lawns in the desert. I'm sure that'll

Thirsty folks from California and the Southwest wanting more water to be piped in to feed their water intensive crops and lawns in the desert. I'm sure that'll go down well in outlying regions. Maybe change in meteorological patterns and population levels hitting critical mass without the attendant infrastructure are bad for water levels. Aquifers are depleted. Rainfall is reduced. There's no more snowmelt to bank on as that savings account has been drained. Wildfires, drought, and rising sea levels will displace significant numbers of people. Agriculture will shift north and east. I think California peaked a few years ago.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
skybrian 4y ago
It's particularly galling when many California cities have desalination as an option and it's opposed in many places. Farming is going to have to cut back regardless, though, since it uses 80% of the water. (Not including environmental use.)
- azemetre 4y ago
  Why is farming an improper use of water? I mean nations need to grow food and not rely on other countries as their bread basket, that seems like good systems planning. As for the types of food I suppose that is a good discussion to have but how do you deal with the reality that beef is an enormous use of water over nearly every single crop?
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    It's a desert. There are way better regions to grow food.
    - ac29 4y ago
      The central valley, where most of CA's food is grown, is not a desert. It was formerly mostly grasslands.
      - formerkrogemp 4y ago
        It's a desert now. Or will be. There's no more snowmelt to rely on. Rainfall is down. Aquifers are depleted so much the ground is sinking. Someone said I'm this thread that San Diego isn't a desert because they get 20% more rain than a desert by definition. 10 inches per year is really not a lot to replenish your water levels.
  - rurp 4y ago
    Growing food in the desert is the improper part. There are plenty of areas in other parts of the country that aren't experiencing crippling drought. That is where water intensive crops should be grown. Most southwest desert farming only exists because of government subsidies. If farmers actually had to pay market rate for water most farms in this region would not be possible.
    - azemetre 4y ago
      That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is, I honestly want to say desert farming uses less resources than raising cattle for slaughter but I'm unsure and just guessing from the hip here.
      - rurp 4y ago
        I'm not sure how they compare in terms of water, but cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. One unique problem to cattle ranching in the southwest is that many of them are allowed to free range on public lands. Those cattle eat a lot of native vegetation which leads to worse wildfires and greatly harm native wildlife. They also trample cryptobiotic soil, resulting in much worse dust storms. I wish we could move agriculture entirely out of areas that get less than 5" of rain per year, especially since so much of the country is better suited for it. Subsidies are sticky though, not many farmers will willingly give up their handouts and few politicians want to fight that battle.
        formerkrogemp 4y ago
        > Cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. I doubt that would solve the problem. It would just transplant it. Cattle, pork, and chicken demand has dramatically compounded corresponding production in Brazil and deforestation. We don't need to move the rice, alfalfa, and intensive production of ruminating animals moved around like checkers pieces. The Ogalalla aquifer of the Midwest supporting multiple states' peoples and farms is also drying out. We need to rethink our water use, not move the problem around.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    I don't think farming in California will ever go away, but conserving water (say, cutting back by 20%) means that some crops might not be grown in California anymore. And the farming that's done will use water more efficiently. (Also, regarding the "bread basket," grain is not typically grown out west, I don't think? That's east of the Rockies.)
    - google234123 4y ago
      If they cut back by 5% then residential people would get 25% more water.
      - skybrian 4y ago
        This is true, but remember that averages can be misleading. Available water is a very spiky graph [1]. Reservoirs balance it out some, but cities need and can afford reliable water, so backup sources are good, even if they're expensive. [1] https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/trex/students/labs/graph_water_use_vs._1200.jpg https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/trex/students/l... From: https://serc.carleton.edu/trex/students/labs/lab4_1.html https://serc.carleton.edu/trex/students/labs/lab4_1.html

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

skybrian 4y ago

It's particularly galling when many California cities have desalination as an option and it's opposed in many places. Farming is going to have to cut back regardless, though, since it uses 80% of the water. (Not including environmental use.)

azemetre 4y ago
Why is farming an improper use of water? I mean nations need to grow food and not rely on other countries as their bread basket, that seems like good systems planning. As for the types of food I suppose that is a good discussion to have but how do you deal with the reality that beef is an enormous use of water over nearly every single crop?
- freeone3000 4y ago
  It's a desert. There are way better regions to grow food.
  - ac29 4y ago
    The central valley, where most of CA's food is grown, is not a desert. It was formerly mostly grasslands.
    - formerkrogemp 4y ago
      It's a desert now. Or will be. There's no more snowmelt to rely on. Rainfall is down. Aquifers are depleted so much the ground is sinking. Someone said I'm this thread that San Diego isn't a desert because they get 20% more rain than a desert by definition. 10 inches per year is really not a lot to replenish your water levels.
- rurp 4y ago
  Growing food in the desert is the improper part. There are plenty of areas in other parts of the country that aren't experiencing crippling drought. That is where water intensive crops should be grown. Most southwest desert farming only exists because of government subsidies. If farmers actually had to pay market rate for water most farms in this region would not be possible.
  - azemetre 4y ago
    That's a good point, something I am curious about now is the water costs of desert farming versus cattle ranching. Just wondering how close the gap actually is, I honestly want to say desert farming uses less resources than raising cattle for slaughter but I'm unsure and just guessing from the hip here.
    - rurp 4y ago
      I'm not sure how they compare in terms of water, but cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. One unique problem to cattle ranching in the southwest is that many of them are allowed to free range on public lands. Those cattle eat a lot of native vegetation which leads to worse wildfires and greatly harm native wildlife. They also trample cryptobiotic soil, resulting in much worse dust storms. I wish we could move agriculture entirely out of areas that get less than 5" of rain per year, especially since so much of the country is better suited for it. Subsidies are sticky though, not many farmers will willingly give up their handouts and few politicians want to fight that battle.
      - formerkrogemp 4y ago
        > Cattle ranching could certainly be done with less impact in less dry regions as well. I doubt that would solve the problem. It would just transplant it. Cattle, pork, and chicken demand has dramatically compounded corresponding production in Brazil and deforestation. We don't need to move the rice, alfalfa, and intensive production of ruminating animals moved around like checkers pieces. The Ogalalla aquifer of the Midwest supporting multiple states' peoples and farms is also drying out. We need to rethink our water use, not move the problem around.
- skybrian 4y ago
  I don't think farming in California will ever go away, but conserving water (say, cutting back by 20%) means that some crops might not be grown in California anymore. And the farming that's done will use water more efficiently. (Also, regarding the "bread basket," grain is not typically grown out west, I don't think? That's east of the Rockies.)
  - google234123 4y ago
    If they cut back by 5% then residential people would get 25% more water.
    - skybrian 4y ago
      This is true, but remember that averages can be misleading. Available water is a very spiky graph [1]. Reservoirs balance it out some, but cities need and can afford reliable water, so backup sources are good, even if they're expensive. [1] https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/trex/students/labs/graph_water_use_vs._1200.jpg https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/trex/students/l... From: https://serc.carleton.edu/trex/students/labs/lab4_1.html https://serc.carleton.edu/trex/students/labs/lab4_1.html