5 ms·

From a 2020 paper: > Human consumption of freshwater is now approaching or surpassing the rate at which water sources are being naturally replenished in many r

From a 2020 paper: > Human consumption of freshwater is now approaching or surpassing the rate at which water sources are being naturally replenished in many regions, creating water shortage risks for people and ecosystems. Here we assess the impact of human water uses and their connection to water scarcity and ecological damage across the United States, identify primary causes of river dewatering and explore ways to ameliorate them. We find irrigation of cattle-feed crops to be the greatest consumer of river water in the western United States, implicating beef and dairy consumption as the leading driver of water shortages and fish imperilment in the region. We assess opportunities for alleviating water scarcity by reducing cattle-feed production, finding that temporary, rotational fallowing of irrigated feed crops can markedly reduce water shortage risks and improve ecological sustainability. Long-term water security and river ecosystem health will ultimately require Americans to consume less beef that depends on irrigated feed crops. * https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z * PDF: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323061602.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/323061602.pdf > Irrigation of cattle feed crops is the single largest consumptive user at both regional and national scales, accounting for 23 percent of all water consumption nationally, 32 percent in the Western U.S. and 55 percent in the Colorado River basin. * https://www.udel.edu/udaily/2020/march/beef-dairy-consumption-water-shortages-fish-imperilment/ https://www.udel.edu/udaily/2020/march/beef-dairy-consumptio...

urspx 4y ago
Thank you. Incredible that 'cattle' isn't even mentioned once in the newspaper article.
imchillyb 4y ago
Watch 2-3 episodes of 'How it's Made' and you can see how much water use is industrial. Add the industrial and cattle together and one can quickly see that it's not humans that are consuming the vast majority of potable water, but companies and industry that are depleting what's available for the rest of us.
- gernb 4y ago
  > it's not humans that are consuming the vast majority of potable water, but companies and industry that are depleting what's available for the rest of us. companies only make what they can sell. The sell what consumers want. So it is humans. Humans want meat. If they stop wanting meat companies will stop making meat.
  - rurp 4y ago
    A huge reason companies use so much water is that it's artificially cheap. Companies typically pay 10% or less of the cost per gallon a resident does in their home.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Usually because the grade and location of the water is not suitable for residential use.
      - LorenPechtel 4y ago
        Farmers don't need drinking-safe water but that doesn't justify the price difference. There should be three grades of water: 1) Untreated. 2) Salty (desalinated, but not to full freshwater standards), used for toilets, showers and the like. 3) Potable. What you're doing with the water should have no bearing on the price and the price difference should only reflect the additional cost of going from #1 or #2 to #3. You also pay a separate charge for delivering water to your place, this is omitted if you're getting it from a well and don't need delivery. The base rates are standardized across a watershed (in this case, every place served by the Colorado river), the delivery charge is based on the cost to provide it to you. (Thus the cabins on the other side of the mountain here that lost their water in a wildfire--when the trees burned it not only damaged the pipe but caused land slippage that destroyed said pipe--pay a whopping delivery charge, but otherwise the same price per cubic foot we do.)
        lazide 4y ago
landemva 4y ago
> irrigated feed crops Simple solution - those who believe that is the problem can offer to buy the water rights and then let the water flow.
- gardenfelder 4y ago
  simply?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - landemva 4y ago
    OK, how about 'make an adequate offer'. At least try to get some politicians and celebrities to endorse a gofundme effort.
- bradleyjg 4y ago
  No they can’t. Western water law is incredibly convoluted and irrational. It prevents this exact thing under the doctrine of beneficial use.
insane_dreamer 4y ago
> Irrigation of cattle feed crops is the single largest consumptive user ... 55 percent in the Colorado River basin. That's a pretty shocking statistic. Seems like the most logical place to cut despite impact on dairy/cattle production.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  You know there is all kinds of talk about civil war over politics like guns, or abortion, etc. The one thing that will cause a civil war is if you take away American's access to beef. Good luck trying to do that
  - 0xB31B1B 4y ago
    a huge portion of the alfalfa being irrigated isn't even used to feed american beef. The plants are literally sent to saudi arabia to feed cows there. You could entirely fix the agricultural use of water if you priced it more accurately. There is enough water to grow all the food we need and more, its just priced in a way that encourages the agricultural landlords who own the water rights to waste it because it is essentially costless to the individual rights holders. Price the water better and they will build conservation methods without lowering output. (https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/saudi-arabia-arizona-farm-alfalfa-1940/75-c7eb6295-3c5e-4b7e-8989-fbf4d41c6aa7#:~:text=Alfalfa%20thrives%20in%20areas%20with,of%20around%20200%20exotic%20horses https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/saudi-a....)
    - jahewson 4y ago
      I'm struggling to believe that it's a "a huge portion" given that Saudi Arabia has less than 1/10th the population of the US. Still, the story you link to is an amazing self-own on the part of Arizona.
      - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
        >So far, four California water districts have proposed to reduce water use by up to 400,000 acre-feet per year. That would amount to about 9% of the state’s total water allotment from the river through 2026. Even a 10% reduction in use due to Saudi exports would be higher than the current goal. It is considered a national security risk to export encryption to foreign countries, but it isn't a national security risk to export our water? And why are we growing such water-intensive crops in a desert to begin with?

urspx 4y ago

Thank you. Incredible that 'cattle' isn't even mentioned once in the newspaper article.

imchillyb 4y ago

Watch 2-3 episodes of 'How it's Made' and you can see how much water use is industrial. Add the industrial and cattle together and one can quickly see that it's not humans that are consuming the vast majority of potable water, but companies and industry that are depleting what's available for the rest of us.

gernb 4y ago
> it's not humans that are consuming the vast majority of potable water, but companies and industry that are depleting what's available for the rest of us. companies only make what they can sell. The sell what consumers want. So it is humans. Humans want meat. If they stop wanting meat companies will stop making meat.
- rurp 4y ago
  A huge reason companies use so much water is that it's artificially cheap. Companies typically pay 10% or less of the cost per gallon a resident does in their home.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Usually because the grade and location of the water is not suitable for residential use.
    - LorenPechtel 4y ago
      Farmers don't need drinking-safe water but that doesn't justify the price difference. There should be three grades of water: 1) Untreated. 2) Salty (desalinated, but not to full freshwater standards), used for toilets, showers and the like. 3) Potable. What you're doing with the water should have no bearing on the price and the price difference should only reflect the additional cost of going from #1 or #2 to #3. You also pay a separate charge for delivering water to your place, this is omitted if you're getting it from a well and don't need delivery. The base rates are standardized across a watershed (in this case, every place served by the Colorado river), the delivery charge is based on the cost to provide it to you. (Thus the cabins on the other side of the mountain here that lost their water in a wildfire--when the trees burned it not only damaged the pipe but caused land slippage that destroyed said pipe--pay a whopping delivery charge, but otherwise the same price per cubic foot we do.)
      - lazide 4y ago

landemva 4y ago

> irrigated feed crops Simple solution - those who believe that is the problem can offer to buy the water rights and then let the water flow.

gardenfelder 4y ago
simply?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- landemva 4y ago
  OK, how about 'make an adequate offer'. At least try to get some politicians and celebrities to endorse a gofundme effort.
bradleyjg 4y ago
No they can’t. Western water law is incredibly convoluted and irrational. It prevents this exact thing under the doctrine of beneficial use.

insane_dreamer 4y ago

> Irrigation of cattle feed crops is the single largest consumptive user ... 55 percent in the Colorado River basin. That's a pretty shocking statistic. Seems like the most logical place to cut despite impact on dairy/cattle production.

phpisthebest 4y ago
You know there is all kinds of talk about civil war over politics like guns, or abortion, etc. The one thing that will cause a civil war is if you take away American's access to beef. Good luck trying to do that
- 0xB31B1B 4y ago
  a huge portion of the alfalfa being irrigated isn't even used to feed american beef. The plants are literally sent to saudi arabia to feed cows there. You could entirely fix the agricultural use of water if you priced it more accurately. There is enough water to grow all the food we need and more, its just priced in a way that encourages the agricultural landlords who own the water rights to waste it because it is essentially costless to the individual rights holders. Price the water better and they will build conservation methods without lowering output. (https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/saudi-arabia-arizona-farm-alfalfa-1940/75-c7eb6295-3c5e-4b7e-8989-fbf4d41c6aa7#:~:text=Alfalfa%20thrives%20in%20areas%20with,of%20around%20200%20exotic%20horses https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/water-wars/saudi-a....)
  - jahewson 4y ago
    I'm struggling to believe that it's a "a huge portion" given that Saudi Arabia has less than 1/10th the population of the US. Still, the story you link to is an amazing self-own on the part of Arizona.
    - StanislavPetrov 4y ago
      >So far, four California water districts have proposed to reduce water use by up to 400,000 acre-feet per year. That would amount to about 9% of the state’s total water allotment from the river through 2026. Even a 10% reduction in use due to Saudi exports would be higher than the current goal. It is considered a national security risk to export encryption to foreign countries, but it isn't a national security risk to export our water? And why are we growing such water-intensive crops in a desert to begin with?