5 ms·

Reducing residential water use is a nice symbolic gesture, but the vast majority of available water is used to grow alfalfa and a few other crops. Symbolic ges

by marze 4y ago

Reducing residential water use is a nice symbolic gesture, but the vast majority of available water is used to grow alfalfa and a few other crops. Symbolic gestures are good, but careful analysis and appropriate changes are needed to really make a difference.

Sevii 4y ago
85% of water use in Utah goes to agriculture but people focus on lawns because they can see them. Most water issues in the west are caused by contracts made back when nobody lived there and there was tons of water to go around. Now those contracts are in effect a water subsidy to legacy agricultural interests.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  There wasn't even as much water to go around back then as the contracts stated. They divided something like 20% more water than existed. They knew at the time that everyone was promised too much, but no one cared because they never hit the real physical limit.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    And weren't the measurements also based on a very wet year or somesuch?
    - HWR_14 4y ago
      The politicians may have used a very wet year to justify dividing more water than existed normally, but I believe the scientific community back then knew that the numbers were too high and was ignored.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  People focus on cities use efficiency because it is a way to do more with what water the cities have. If people use half as much, you can have twice the population with the same water budget. The only viable alternative is to purchase more water rights for the cities, which is generally a political non-starter
  - kortilla 4y ago
    > people use half as much, you can have twice the population with the same water budget. No you can’t, salt lake will be gone if all residential use disappears and agriculture does nothing. The article was very clear on how dire this is.
- nostromo 4y ago
  This is partly true. The other reason is because lawns are ornamental and food is utilitarian.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  The argument against this is that food is needed to survive and provides jobs for the community. Lawns are nothing but a nice to have.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
I'm not sure that's true, or at least not true any more. In the watershed that feeds the Great Salt Lake, there isn't all that much agriculture. There's some along the Bear River, and there's some around Heber. But I'd bet the lawn area in Salt Lake, Davis, and Utah counties is larger than the agricultural area. I haven't seen actual numbers though. If you have them, I'll listen.
- lazide 4y ago
  See links above in this thread. Residential use (including lawns) is a pittance compared to agricultural use.
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    I think what they are arguing is looking at aggregate usage isn’t important if that water wouldn’t flow into the lake. We also have this disconnect in the debate around water in California. You could stop watering every almond grove in the state and that wouldn’t change anything about major urban water supplies, because the watersheds aren’t related.
    - lazide 4y ago
      Most of the issues with the Great Salt Lake are directly due to diverting water for agricultural, industrial, and residential use - in that order. See figure 5. From the paper “ Agriculture dominates water use in the Great Salt Lake watershed (Fig. 5)25,26,69. Irrigation of alfalfa and other crops directly accounts for around three quarters of total consumptive water use…” Agricultural diversions of stream water that would otherwise go to the Great Salt Lake account for 74% of the water used. Industrial and mining, 18%, evaporation 8%, and cities and residential use 8%. This isn’t like California. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366876763_Emergency_measures_needed_to_rescue_Great_Salt_Lake_from_ongoing_collapse https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366876763_Emergency...]
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      Yeah, as lazide said, this is different. All the water for Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, and suburbs (plus agriculture in Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, and Summit counties) would flow into the Great Salt Lake. It's all the same watershed. Next question: Does anyone have statistics on how much of the precipitation in that watershed is due to the "lake effect"? (For those not in the know: When storms cross the Great Salt Lake, they pick up evaporation, which increases the precipitation of the storms when they get to the Wasatch Mountains. That precipitation then flows - or would flow, if not diverted - back into the lake.) If the lake dries up, so does the lake effect. That could reduce the amount of precipitation that we get. If it's a major effect, it could be big trouble for the environment and the economy.

by marze 4y ago

Sevii 4y ago

85% of water use in Utah goes to agriculture but people focus on lawns because they can see them. Most water issues in the west are caused by contracts made back when nobody lived there and there was tons of water to go around. Now those contracts are in effect a water subsidy to legacy agricultural interests.

HWR_14 4y ago
There wasn't even as much water to go around back then as the contracts stated. They divided something like 20% more water than existed. They knew at the time that everyone was promised too much, but no one cared because they never hit the real physical limit.
- masklinn 4y ago
  And weren't the measurements also based on a very wet year or somesuch?
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    The politicians may have used a very wet year to justify dividing more water than existed normally, but I believe the scientific community back then knew that the numbers were too high and was ignored.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
People focus on cities use efficiency because it is a way to do more with what water the cities have. If people use half as much, you can have twice the population with the same water budget. The only viable alternative is to purchase more water rights for the cities, which is generally a political non-starter
- kortilla 4y ago
  > people use half as much, you can have twice the population with the same water budget. No you can’t, salt lake will be gone if all residential use disappears and agriculture does nothing. The article was very clear on how dire this is.
nostromo 4y ago
This is partly true. The other reason is because lawns are ornamental and food is utilitarian.
HDThoreaun 4y ago
The argument against this is that food is needed to survive and provides jobs for the community. Lawns are nothing but a nice to have.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

I'm not sure that's true, or at least not true any more. In the watershed that feeds the Great Salt Lake, there isn't all that much agriculture. There's some along the Bear River, and there's some around Heber. But I'd bet the lawn area in Salt Lake, Davis, and Utah counties is larger than the agricultural area. I haven't seen actual numbers though. If you have them, I'll listen.

lazide 4y ago
See links above in this thread. Residential use (including lawns) is a pittance compared to agricultural use.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  I think what they are arguing is looking at aggregate usage isn’t important if that water wouldn’t flow into the lake. We also have this disconnect in the debate around water in California. You could stop watering every almond grove in the state and that wouldn’t change anything about major urban water supplies, because the watersheds aren’t related.
  - lazide 4y ago
    Most of the issues with the Great Salt Lake are directly due to diverting water for agricultural, industrial, and residential use - in that order. See figure 5. From the paper “ Agriculture dominates water use in the Great Salt Lake watershed (Fig. 5)25,26,69. Irrigation of alfalfa and other crops directly accounts for around three quarters of total consumptive water use…” Agricultural diversions of stream water that would otherwise go to the Great Salt Lake account for 74% of the water used. Industrial and mining, 18%, evaporation 8%, and cities and residential use 8%. This isn’t like California. [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366876763_Emergency_measures_needed_to_rescue_Great_Salt_Lake_from_ongoing_collapse https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366876763_Emergency...]
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    Yeah, as lazide said, this is different. All the water for Salt Lake City, Ogden, Provo, and suburbs (plus agriculture in Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Weber, and Summit counties) would flow into the Great Salt Lake. It's all the same watershed. Next question: Does anyone have statistics on how much of the precipitation in that watershed is due to the "lake effect"? (For those not in the know: When storms cross the Great Salt Lake, they pick up evaporation, which increases the precipitation of the storms when they get to the Wasatch Mountains. That precipitation then flows - or would flow, if not diverted - back into the lake.) If the lake dries up, so does the lake effect. That could reduce the amount of precipitation that we get. If it's a major effect, it could be big trouble for the environment and the economy.