5 ms·

Growing carrots in an arid area is wasteful, because you could grow them at a place where water is more abundant. Then, carrots can be transported and they don'

by krab 4y ago

Growing carrots in an arid area is wasteful, because you could grow them at a place where water is more abundant. Then, carrots can be transported and they don't need almost any water anymore. Doing the same with taxpayers would be problematic.

fargle 4y ago
highly problematic also for the agencies collecting the taxes. it's odd that you focus on "growing carrots" is wasteful when if you got rid of lawns and golf courses in the desert you'd immediately save enough water to fix the problem in this article. at least when you grow carrots you have a product. a suburban lawn produces nothing whatsoever. suburbia is, in it's current form, far more wasteful of water and also produces far less carrots. but far more tax revenue.
- gremlinsinc 4y ago
  All home water usage in Utah amounts to about 2% of the total use state wide. Literally you could get rid of every residence including lawns, and you'd still have 98% of the water use from farms, industrial, and commercial enterprises. Alfalfa farming I believe is at least 80% of the total water use and there's zero need to keep farming water-intensive crops which alfalfa is, we wouldn't even need to stop all farming activities just this one crop.
- hervature 4y ago
  > if you got rid of lawns and golf courses in the desert you'd immediately save enough water to fix the problem in this article That's simply not true. 75%-80% of the water use in the southwest is used for agriculture [1]. Even if "lawns and golf courses" are the remaining 20-25%, it is a minority of the water use. Furthermore, food doesn't have to be grown there. Bananas come from South America, oranges come from Florida, why does alfalfa (the food for livestock) need to be grown there? The answer is it does not but the current water is so cheap that people don't care salting the earth to line their personal pockets. [1] - https://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/society/water_demand/ https://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/society/water_deman...
  - fargle 4y ago
    apples and oranges - per acre suburbia if anything uses more water. if it's good enough to shift the high water use crop farming elsewhere, then why isn't it good enough to shift the golf courses and lawns, to say Iowa then too? it's the same answer for houses, the climate is good and the land/houses/water/etc. is cheaper. you choose the characterize the farmers as "don't care salting the earth to line their personal pockets" while excepting the developers putting big cities in the middle of a desert for the same reason and for the same result.
    - hervature 4y ago
      > if it's good enough to shift the high water use crop farming elsewhere, then why isn't it good enough to shift the golf courses and lawns, to say Iowa then too? That's very easy to answer. Because the number of humans impacted is minimized. An average farm size is ~400 acres. This is around 0.6 square miles. SLC's density is 1,800 per square mile so 400 acres is ~1k people. What do you think is easier? Displacing 1k people in a city center or 1 farmer? No one is saying the solution is perfect but between nobody being able to enjoy SLC due to inaction, 1 farmer, or 1k people, the obvious solution is for the 1k people to band together, buy the farm, and shut it down. As per your last comment, no one here is saying that other people choosing to live in the desert are nobler than farmers. No one is "blaming" the farmers for making use of cheap water and fertile land. It all makes economic sense. The reality is that there is a finite resource and we should be working together to maximize societal benefit otherwise the tragedy of the commons will ensure none of us can. At this point in time, the most good least harm principle makes the calculus straightforward that agriculture is where the ROI is at.
      - fargle 4y ago
        oh, I don't blame the 1000 people. I blame the asshat developers who tricked them into buying into a fake utopian suburbia there. you don't need to displace anybody. you need to stop blaming the farmers and/or taking their water and start ENFORCING reasonable water restrictions on the existing developments. About 50% of the water being used by municipalities is potable drinking water being sprayed on lawns and golf courses. You get rid of that before a telling a farmer to get lost because it's "easier".

by krab 4y ago

fargle 4y ago

highly problematic also for the agencies collecting the taxes. it's odd that you focus on "growing carrots" is wasteful when if you got rid of lawns and golf courses in the desert you'd immediately save enough water to fix the problem in this article. at least when you grow carrots you have a product. a suburban lawn produces nothing whatsoever. suburbia is, in it's current form, far more wasteful of water and also produces far less carrots. but far more tax revenue.

gremlinsinc 4y ago
All home water usage in Utah amounts to about 2% of the total use state wide. Literally you could get rid of every residence including lawns, and you'd still have 98% of the water use from farms, industrial, and commercial enterprises. Alfalfa farming I believe is at least 80% of the total water use and there's zero need to keep farming water-intensive crops which alfalfa is, we wouldn't even need to stop all farming activities just this one crop.
hervature 4y ago
> if you got rid of lawns and golf courses in the desert you'd immediately save enough water to fix the problem in this article That's simply not true. 75%-80% of the water use in the southwest is used for agriculture [1]. Even if "lawns and golf courses" are the remaining 20-25%, it is a minority of the water use. Furthermore, food doesn't have to be grown there. Bananas come from South America, oranges come from Florida, why does alfalfa (the food for livestock) need to be grown there? The answer is it does not but the current water is so cheap that people don't care salting the earth to line their personal pockets. [1] - https://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/society/water_demand/ https://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/society/water_deman...
- fargle 4y ago
  apples and oranges - per acre suburbia if anything uses more water. if it's good enough to shift the high water use crop farming elsewhere, then why isn't it good enough to shift the golf courses and lawns, to say Iowa then too? it's the same answer for houses, the climate is good and the land/houses/water/etc. is cheaper. you choose the characterize the farmers as "don't care salting the earth to line their personal pockets" while excepting the developers putting big cities in the middle of a desert for the same reason and for the same result.
  - hervature 4y ago
    > if it's good enough to shift the high water use crop farming elsewhere, then why isn't it good enough to shift the golf courses and lawns, to say Iowa then too? That's very easy to answer. Because the number of humans impacted is minimized. An average farm size is ~400 acres. This is around 0.6 square miles. SLC's density is 1,800 per square mile so 400 acres is ~1k people. What do you think is easier? Displacing 1k people in a city center or 1 farmer? No one is saying the solution is perfect but between nobody being able to enjoy SLC due to inaction, 1 farmer, or 1k people, the obvious solution is for the 1k people to band together, buy the farm, and shut it down. As per your last comment, no one here is saying that other people choosing to live in the desert are nobler than farmers. No one is "blaming" the farmers for making use of cheap water and fertile land. It all makes economic sense. The reality is that there is a finite resource and we should be working together to maximize societal benefit otherwise the tragedy of the commons will ensure none of us can. At this point in time, the most good least harm principle makes the calculus straightforward that agriculture is where the ROI is at.
    - fargle 4y ago
      oh, I don't blame the 1000 people. I blame the asshat developers who tricked them into buying into a fake utopian suburbia there. you don't need to displace anybody. you need to stop blaming the farmers and/or taking their water and start ENFORCING reasonable water restrictions on the existing developments. About 50% of the water being used by municipalities is potable drinking water being sprayed on lawns and golf courses. You get rid of that before a telling a farmer to get lost because it's "easier".