5 ms·

We will soon be able to make a water treatment plant small enough for a neighborhood or even a house, powered by PV panels on the roof. Then the only water need

We will soon be able to make a water treatment plant small enough for a neighborhood or even a house, powered by PV panels on the roof. Then the only water needed would be the small amount needed to make up for evaporation. The real problem though is golf courses which use as much water as domestic use and ag which uses a whole lot more. We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably have to give up on ag.

alexqgb 12y ago
Giving up on ag is an extreme response. The more reasonable approach is giving up on categorically insane water use policies that actually encourage waste by (a) placing a trivial price on each farmer's allotment and (b) reducing their allotment if they "fail" to use every drop allocated in the previous year. The drought is serious, to be sure, but the severity of the crisis is not a direct function of the drought itself. Rather, it is a function of a serious drought converging with a deeply corrupt political culture that allows an obscenely reckless and short-sighted farming lobby to maintain the worst policy imaginable. So I actually welcome this drought. I'd be very happy to see our major ag players ruined by the pressure they're under. Given the damage they've done to California, I wish them nothing but suffering in return. And no, we are not "all in this together". Commercial and residential users who have been steadily adjusting to reasonable and climate-appropriate codes for decades have been doing their bit. Ag has not. Indeed, they've been going so far in the opposite direction that they're risking permanent collapse in the aquifer. A characteristically Californian way of looking at the very real pain they're suffering is seeing it as major karmic payback from their corrupt and corrupting approach to policy. If the outcome of this drought is that we finally break the backs of these people (politically speaking) and free the people of California to make water policy in something other than the most inefficient, wasteful, and environmental degrading manner possible, then I'd say the whole experience is a net positive. Indeed, if I were a religious person, I'd call the drought an act of divine intervention.
schiffern 12y ago
>We don't have a solution for agriculture yet True, and not just talking about water. All aspects of "conventional" farming (aquifer pumping, mined fertilizers, fossil fuel-derived pesticides, diesel, etc) are by their nature only temporary solutions. The start of a sustainable water management strategy might be P.A. Yeoman's Water For Every Farm[1], basically designing around land topology to harvest and store/infiltrate rainwater. Modern agriculture shunts rainwater off the land as fast as possible, maximizing runoff so that tractors can drive on it sooner. Here's P.A. Yeoman's strategy (in cheesy 1950s educational video style): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE-tJLQDZT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE-tJLQDZT4 [1]https://www.amazon.com/Water-For-Every-Farm-Yeomans/dp/1438225784 https://www.amazon.com/Water-For-Every-Farm-Yeomans/dp/14382...
lotsofmangos 12y ago
The seawater greenhouse lot seem to have some good ideas - http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/ http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/
7Figures2Commas 12y ago
> We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably have to give up on ag. The Central Valley is probably the most productive agricultural region in the world. According to the USGS, "Using fewer than 1% of U.S. farmland, the Central Valley supplies 8% of U.S. agricultural output (by value) and produces 1/4 of the Nation's food, including 40% of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and other table foods."[1] California supplies about a third of the nation's lettuce and is responsible for more than 90% of the organic output of grapes, strawberries and other fruits and vegetables[2]. Ag is an important part of California's economy and a critical part of the United States food supply. The loss of California agriculture would be devastating to California and the entire nation on a number of levels[3]. I assume you weren't advocating for the state to "give up on ag" but frankly, that's not going to happen and treating ag as a silo is not realistic. It's easy for many to see this issue as a battle between cities and farms, but most people haven't spent any time in the Central Valley and don't understand how important and unique it is. The number of people in California who don't consume the state's agricultural products and benefit from their contributions to the economy is literally 0. It's cliché, but we literally are all in this together when it comes to water. [1] http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-centr... [2] http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v14n2_3.pdf http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v14... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...
- harshreality 12y ago
  Don't those numbers suggest that most of California's ag output goes to feed people, whereas a lot of the rest of the country's ag output goes to feed animals that feed people (which turns 1 unit of plant food into a much smaller fraction of a unit of meat food)? related: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
- Spooky23 12y ago
  I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. I think more pain here is good for the nation. There's no reason all of our tree fruits, lettuce, etc need to be trucked out of California. I was in a grocery store in Georgia when traveling awhile back, and couldn't find a single Georgia peach in the produce area of a store, because California agriculture completely dominates. We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output, and there is plenty of water in most east coast areas.

alexqgb 12y ago

Giving up on ag is an extreme response. The more reasonable approach is giving up on categorically insane water use policies that actually encourage waste by (a) placing a trivial price on each farmer's allotment and (b) reducing their allotment if they "fail" to use every drop allocated in the previous year. The drought is serious, to be sure, but the severity of the crisis is not a direct function of the drought itself. Rather, it is a function of a serious drought converging with a deeply corrupt political culture that allows an obscenely reckless and short-sighted farming lobby to maintain the worst policy imaginable. So I actually welcome this drought. I'd be very happy to see our major ag players ruined by the pressure they're under. Given the damage they've done to California, I wish them nothing but suffering in return. And no, we are not "all in this together". Commercial and residential users who have been steadily adjusting to reasonable and climate-appropriate codes for decades have been doing their bit. Ag has not. Indeed, they've been going so far in the opposite direction that they're risking permanent collapse in the aquifer. A characteristically Californian way of looking at the very real pain they're suffering is seeing it as major karmic payback from their corrupt and corrupting approach to policy. If the outcome of this drought is that we finally break the backs of these people (politically speaking) and free the people of California to make water policy in something other than the most inefficient, wasteful, and environmental degrading manner possible, then I'd say the whole experience is a net positive. Indeed, if I were a religious person, I'd call the drought an act of divine intervention.

schiffern 12y ago

>We don't have a solution for agriculture yet True, and not just talking about water. All aspects of "conventional" farming (aquifer pumping, mined fertilizers, fossil fuel-derived pesticides, diesel, etc) are by their nature only temporary solutions. The start of a sustainable water management strategy might be P.A. Yeoman's Water For Every Farm[1], basically designing around land topology to harvest and store/infiltrate rainwater. Modern agriculture shunts rainwater off the land as fast as possible, maximizing runoff so that tractors can drive on it sooner. Here's P.A. Yeoman's strategy (in cheesy 1950s educational video style): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE-tJLQDZT4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE-tJLQDZT4 [1]https://www.amazon.com/Water-For-Every-Farm-Yeomans/dp/1438225784 https://www.amazon.com/Water-For-Every-Farm-Yeomans/dp/14382...

lotsofmangos 12y ago

The seawater greenhouse lot seem to have some good ideas - http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/ http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/

7Figures2Commas 12y ago

> We don't have a solution for agriculture yet but parched places such as CA central valley will probably have to give up on ag. The Central Valley is probably the most productive agricultural region in the world. According to the USGS, "Using fewer than 1% of U.S. farmland, the Central Valley supplies 8% of U.S. agricultural output (by value) and produces 1/4 of the Nation's food, including 40% of the Nation's fruits, nuts, and other table foods."[1] California supplies about a third of the nation's lettuce and is responsible for more than 90% of the organic output of grapes, strawberries and other fruits and vegetables[2]. Ag is an important part of California's economy and a critical part of the United States food supply. The loss of California agriculture would be devastating to California and the entire nation on a number of levels[3]. I assume you weren't advocating for the state to "give up on ag" but frankly, that's not going to happen and treating ag as a silo is not realistic. It's easy for many to see this issue as a battle between cities and farms, but most people haven't spent any time in the Central Valley and don't understand how important and unique it is. The number of people in California who don't consume the state's agricultural products and benefit from their contributions to the economy is literally 0. It's cliché, but we literally are all in this together when it comes to water. [1] http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-centr... [2] http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v14n2_3.pdf http://giannini.ucop.edu/media/are-update/files/articles/v14... [3] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2...

harshreality 12y ago
Don't those numbers suggest that most of California's ag output goes to feed people, whereas a lot of the rest of the country's ag output goes to feed animals that feed people (which turns 1 unit of plant food into a much smaller fraction of a unit of meat food)? related: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full
Spooky23 12y ago
I think it's a strategic problem for such a large portion if our food supply to be concentrated in one region. I think more pain here is good for the nation. There's no reason all of our tree fruits, lettuce, etc need to be trucked out of California. I was in a grocery store in Georgia when traveling awhile back, and couldn't find a single Georgia peach in the produce area of a store, because California agriculture completely dominates. We have climate issues, but places like New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, etc could easily provide that same output, and there is plenty of water in most east coast areas.